Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:Probably.
EBB posted:To admit the possibility of karma or a transcendent aspect of the universe is simply to be intellectual honest. Just as you could never disprove the existence of a God, making true Atheism an intellectually bankrupt position, you could never disprove the existence of karma or a transcendental aspect of reality.
EBB posted:Ultimately fuzzy ideas such as "karma" and a "transcendental aspect of reality" is very different from something as specific as the idea that a Jewish man 2000 years ago died and erased everyone's sins and that his Father, whom he is one with, of the same nature, coeternal, blah blah blah, is the Jewish God who is omnipotent etc.
EBB posted:It probably isn't any less rational - there are no known ways by which "moral actions" could be transferred into some sort of force which affected the outcome of some later event. I could also point out endless examples of people who did horrible things and died peacefully, while good people suffered horrible fates.
EBB posted:At the same time, the existence of a God is logically unprovable and unable to be disproved. What sort of evidence could one posit that would prove that such a being existed?
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:In response to the OP's question, I would have to personally say neither. When people say that they are "Spiritual but not religious" I usually translate that as, "I hate the drug dealer, but, damn I LOVE the drug!" "Religion" and "spirituality" both inherently acknowledge the existence of the "supernatural" in some form or another - from the existence of a human soul and an afterlife to complex pantheons of personal deities. "Religion" in this dichotomy seems to mean "The supernatural/God/Whatever exists, and therefore you should listen to an authority and behave in a certain way" and "spirituality" usually means a more personal and open minded search for meaning and answers in life via the supernatural or that which transcends everyday existence. Ultimately I find both to be intellectually bankrupt. For "spirituality" to have meaning the supernatural forces that it relies on have to, in fact, exist. The human soul has to exist. "God" or "the Gods" have to exist. As far as I can tell, despite all the fervent claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that is widely accepted that the supernatural exists at all. The more and more we understand the functioning of the Universe, the less room there is for the supernatural. "The Human Soul" becomes electricity in the brain stimulating sensory nodes. And if there is a God or Gods, he/she/it/they seem to do amazing, amazing impressions of beings that don't exist at all - so good in fact that it is hard to tell them apart from the real nonexistent deities. If the Gods or the supernatural exist, then they either have no relevance to the functioning of the world, in which case it is pointless to worry about them or even think about them, or their functioning is simply analogous to natural behavior of the laws of the Universe, in which case they have no application beyond what we already know from science, and thus cannot work miracles. For reasonably intelligent people believing in God or the Supernatural is a willful rejection of the intellectual responsibility that comes with being a thinking, reasoning being. Belief in Christianity or Islam or what have you relies on beginning with an assumption from which you try to argue backwards. As everyone knows, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, as we cannot see or experience the existence of the supernatural or God in a way that is directly apparent the "extraordinary claim" is that God exists. Outside of various Holy Scriptures and personal testimonies, all of which are biased, there is no evidence. The very best that religions can do is try to poke holes, to try to reserve gaps into which God fits, to exploit our current lack of knowledge in some specific area (the beginning of life, the reason for the existence of the Universe) and say that "Oh, well God did it and that proves His existence." Even if these sorts of arguments were sound (which as far as I can see from my forays into scientific literature they are not) they fail to say anything about WHAT KIND OF GOD this God would be. As far as I can tell, if one could hypothetically prove that intelligence was required for the Universe to exist in the state it does, then it still wouldn't lend support to any specific religion because you could not argue backwards and say, "Oh, well, the universe was designed intelligently therefore Jesus." You can argue that there exists other areas of inquiry besides the purely physical universe. Well, then where are they? If they really exist, why have so many different religions with wildly different takes emerged? I could go on and on and on for days. Ultimately, to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Wiccan, or whatever you care to name, is, at the core of it, to say, "I'm going to believe regardless." Which is your free choice to make, however, to pretend that it is anything other than an intellectually unjustifiable case of special pleading is dishonest. It gets on my nerves when religions and religious people try to assume an heir of intellectual credibility. If the supernatural forces from which "spirituality" derives its relevance are baseless, "religion", which derives its potency from the "truth" of spirituality becomes no more relevant or obligatory than Nietschean philosophy or Kantian Ethics. One could argue, as an atheist friend of mine did, that "religion" is a good thing as a sort of "noble lie", but I personally don't buy it.
Lord_Vivec posted:Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:One could argue, as an atheist friend of mine did, that "religion" is a good thing as a sort of "noble lie", but I personally don't buy it. No.
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:One could argue, as an atheist friend of mine did, that "religion" is a good thing as a sort of "noble lie", but I personally don't buy it.
Quixotic-Sith posted: I'll give you a chance to look back on all my posts in this thread, as well as my years in the Senate, and retract that statement.
Q-S posted:I'm happy to agree with you. I'm also assuming that you are willing to admit that actions both stem from and modify character, which translates into an increased propensity or probability of placing oneself via bad actions into a situation in which negative consequences result? Karma doesn't have to be pure mysticism - psychology and mathematics can model it, too.
Q-S posted:I agree with this. This is part of why I don't argue for any particular deity concept. Pantheism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, etc., etc. are all, in my mind, equally probable, hence the "agnostic" part of "agnostic theism".
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:Quixotic-Sith posted: I'll give you a chance to look back on all my posts in this thread, as well as my years in the Senate, and retract that statement. Oh come now, no need to be such a drama queen. I am fully aware that you are one of the most intelligent and best educated human beings I have ever had contact with. Saying that I think you are mistaken in this one particular aspect is nowhere close to implying that you are not a rational, intelligent human being in every other way.
EBB posted:Well, in that sense it is simply the functioning of random chance modified by previously determined events. It isn't "supernatural" at all, and thus I could hardly see why you would feel that "For reasonably intelligent people believing in God or the Supernatural is a willful rejection of the intellectual responsibility that comes with being a thinking, reasoning being." applies to your beliefs in any way. What you seem to be essentially saying is "I think human nature functions in such a way as to neatly simulate a "supernatural" force." Which is not a belief in the supernatural.
EBB posted:Even agnostic theism seems to be denying the chance that there is no God at all. Denying the chance that there is no God at all seems to be, in and of itself, a "belief" for which there can be no evidence.
OBIX1 posted:Religious. I'm a non-denominational Christian/am saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.
Coruscant posted:LACWAC!!!!!!!!!
Quixotic-Sith posted:Agnostic theist, for the record.
DarthCemeroX posted:I'm religious. But I definatly hate the backwards ways of the church. It's become a very sick ordeal where people worship rules, preists, buildings, and statues rather than what they stand for. I'm Christian, I attend church weekly, but find many problems in its underlying level of hypocracy. If anything I just tell people I believe in the glory of God and am enriched by his beauty. I just can't stand a lot of what the organization has done.
