Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85242 35212

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace
Register FAQ GFWiki Community Donate Arcade ChocoJournal Calendar

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


The end of faith.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 12:46 AM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 07:46 PM #1 of 95
So, I recently got done reading a book called The End of Faith by Sam Harris. In it, he goes to show that faith is the prime factor in irrational decisions and injustices throughout history.

First, he calls for an end to all established religions: especially Islam, due to the number of verses the Muslim community in the Middle east uses to support it's suicide bombings and violence. Because there is little to no moderate Islam in the middle east, and little tolerance for liberal positions on Scripture, the area has become religiously stagnant and their religious texts and faith is what drives them to violence and rationalizes their violence. If they were a faithless society, it would remove the justification for their actions. We can also go into how Christianity has used it texts and faiths to savagely murder millions, but since a majority of it's followers are now moderate, our largest concern is the end of Islam, or at least fundamental Islam.

Secondly, he makes the case that we can establish moral truths without the need for religion. He basically founds this on the principle that almost all of us want happiness and happiness for others. This is a general concept, so don't bother getting picky about it. If we establish that it is in our nature to find happiness and to provide happiness, we can then extend this into what brings happiness and what doesn't in a rational way. BUT - we can only approach rational morality this way if we first throw away faith-based rationality. An example would be: God doesn't like homosexuality, therefore it makes me unhappy to see gay people, therefore gay people should be outlawed. This is an irrational claim based on the beliefs of an unresponsive invisible being. Imagine the case where anti-gay advocates had to base their arguments on rationality: "We want to end homosexuality because they don't produce babies, and that means it wastes energy, which makes society more tired and less happy!" A bit harder to argue then the typical "GOD WILL BURN YOU" argument, eh? As our society becomes more secularized and less religionized, we will see more rational morality, such as gay unions/marriage, female/male equality, drug laws that actually make sense, etc. As we can see from the past, Religion is always playing catch-up adaptation with modern day secular morality and science.

Thirdly, he claims we can have spiritual experiences without Religion, mainly concentrating on our levels of consciousness. We still don't know why we are self-aware and other creatures are not. There's yet to be a biological marker found that says "these creatures will be self-aware and these creatures will not." The spirituality Harris puts forth is based mainly around our interaction with our self-awareness and how we can manipulate or experience reality differently. This is most commonly accomplished through meditation, drug use, and other ways yet to be discovered.

----------------------------------

That's a basic summary of the book. I think I agree with most of what he has to say. It's difficult to present the book since it covers an insane number of topics on culture and society and government and of course, religion, but I tried. There are pluses to Religion, such as establishing a community, goodwill services, etc, but these can all be accomplished just as easily through secular mechanisms instead of religious ones. Faith is, in a nutshell, the largest hindrance we've had to peace and justice in this world. If we look at the different Religions, the ones we consider most moral are the ones most closely tied to secular rationality, not faith based rationality.
Ok I don't know if anyone said this already but Christianity did not use it's text to murder millions. greedy men who wrongly used the power of the the bible killed millions. The text it self was and is against this. Jesus himself said inform the ignorant and ignore the arrogant. The text in the bible tells you that even evil thoughts are bad let alone any harmful and or evil acts. Christianity in itself never used it's text to kill millions MAN did. Also the bible's text may seem against homosexuality but does not tell people to hate gay people. The bible tells us to love all men or women no matter what. If they do something you disagree with you still treat them like you would a friend. The mus slim thing I agree with but Christianity was always about loving your fellow man and anything other wise was wrong. It may have told stories about man doing other wise but god and jesus's messages were all clear.

I'm not saying believe in GOD i'm saying the guy doesn't have his facts straight so he has no right to say such things about Christianity. If you are against it fine but atleast know why. Atleast get your facts straight.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Last edited by Lost_solitude; Jan 20, 2007 at 12:50 AM.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 01:01 AM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 08:01 PM #2 of 95
Secondly, I'm not disproving religion, I'm disproving faith. Get with the game. I don't need faith that there is no religious truth. I can simply look around and observe that gods have no impact on the world.
You are disproving religious faith so yes you are disproving religion. You are not disproving faith. Faith in general can mean hey I have faith in the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. Will you disprove that? it sounds stupid right?

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 01:22 AM Local time: Jan 19, 2007, 08:22 PM #3 of 95
Haha, I like that theory. But anyway, I think I agree with most of what you say. I can't say how or why we developed the idea of God in the first place, since I really haven't studied it. Though was polytheism around before monotheism? You could then make the case polytheism started due to exaggerated claims of people doing great deeds, and eventually the Hebrews took that to the next step be embodying the concept of a god free from any human notions. I think the issue with god verses the issue with a magical teapot is that god was originally rooted in some form of fact about a man perhaps killing 20 soldiers, then exaggerated to 100 then exaggerated will this man was invincible, etc etc until you get the notion of God. I'm not sure what my point is for this paragraph haha, but it's interesting.



I've defined faith as belief in the irrational. I'm not going to argue with you about anything, though. First read up on the past 3 pages. Don't just enter and thread and start arguing when you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Calm down and be careful what you say "Secondly, I'm not disproving religion, I'm disproving faith" threw me off cause it doesnt make sense so practice what you preach.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Last edited by Lost_solitude; Jan 20, 2007 at 01:29 AM.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 20, 2007, 12:41 PM Local time: Jan 20, 2007, 07:41 AM #4 of 95


Exactly. The only reason faith cropped into existence is because people couldn't legitimize their beliefs rationally, so they chose instead to convince people to follow their hearts. How sweet, and how completely inconclusive.


So now your against the idea of people following their hearts? Maybe i'm stupid but could you explain what bad ever came from people convincing others to follow their hearts?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 21, 2007, 01:02 PM Local time: Jan 21, 2007, 08:02 AM #5 of 95
The truth is you know as well as everyone in here that taking away a persons faith is not positive in anyway. If you are going to strip their reason to live then you might as well kill them yourself. Also a rational world is ridiculous, yeah I said it. This is just me but in a "rational" world their will be no passion, no art, and so on because pure "rationality" cannot fuel such imaginations to do so. I may be wrong but I see the world as a balance. You cant have the good without the bad, the math and science with out art and literature. Even by thinking of ridding the world of religious faith or "irrationality", you will be thinking of breaking that balance and turning it all to one side. That can't and wont happen. Someone living in the streets has a better chance of becoming another bill gates based on faith. I don't know about you but I would rather have stupid media with a chance of something good every once in a while, over a completely boring world of your "rationality".

I was speaking idiomatically.

Last edited by Lost_solitude; Jan 21, 2007 at 01:04 PM.
Lost_solitude
stop stealing my "me time"


Member 2164

Level 13.85

Mar 2006


Old Jan 21, 2007, 08:15 PM Local time: Jan 21, 2007, 03:15 PM #6 of 95
Well, putting faith in science isn't the same as putting faith in there not being a God. Atheism at it's root is the belief/faith that there is no God. And I don't particularly have faith in science either - I'm only going to believe in science if science can produce facts and strong correlations. My belief in it is dependent upon it's provable reality, not upon my concept of the word "science."

Yes, a rational world is based on proof. NOT unprovable things, as you so adamantly cling to. Proving something true or proving something is false is the foundation of a rational world, and faith has no place in it. Why? Because faith is unprovable. It will go into the same categories that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny go into. It will only gain importance in a rational world when it can be proved or disproved.

My perfect world doesn't hinge on faith based principles, only factually supported evidence, so it's of little consequence that my claims are my claims because I would not be determining universal morality, the rational world would.

The only reason faith cropped into existence is because people couldn't legitimize their beliefs rationally, so they chose instead to convince people to follow their hearts. How sweet, and how completely inconclusive.


I see you continually overgeneralize my opinions so I'm not going to bother to argue with you anymore.
my last argument, rather you like to believe it or not, is based on many posts like these that you have posted your self. So ask yourself is that really my fault? I have read the entire forum as you so instructed me too and all I see is you going in spirals around outside subjects and loosing the idea behind your very first post or idea. To tell you the truth I tried but I guess I can't see WTF you are really trying to say so forgive me for looking stupid and I will no longer burden you with my lost posts.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Closed Thread


Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > The end of faith.

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.