Thread: Whose Religion is Right?

Originally Posted by Replicon

There doesn't need to be a "point" for something to be the way it is.

Imagine you're at a beach, and you build a nice sand castle. Then, imagine you go off and play volley ball, and then go home. You don't really care about the sand castle, you just created it to pass the time. But what if a colony of ants or bacteria or whatever spawn in the sand castle. They might wonder how wonderful their home; their universe; really is. They might even worship "the creator" of the sand castle, and have silly arguments about which version of sand-castle-creator-worship is correct. Then, on some sand-castle-internet-forum somewhere, someone says "hey, what if it was just some kid that built a sand castle for no particular reason?" Then someone replies, "sand-castle-creator without sand-castle-creator worship... what's the point?"

I meant to say that we have no "evidence" of creationism except through religion. Religion is where our concept of god and creation comes from.

I think that anybody who believes in god without religion is kidding themselves, they're probably still heavily influenced by religion, especially the Abrahamic ones.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I meant to say that we have no "evidence" of creationism except through religion. Religion is where our concept of god and creation comes from.

I think that anybody who believes in god without religion is kidding themselves, they're probably still heavily influenced by religion, especially the Abrahamic ones.

We may be arguing about the semantic definition of religion instead of something more interesting. I'll re-state my opinion without using the word religion:

It is very, very possible to believe that some form of consciousness created the universe, WITHOUT said consciousness being an "active" part of our lives (by talking to us through ridiculous means like burning bushes). It's possible that some consciousness created everything, and left it at that. It's possible that something created the universe and genuinely doesn't care enough about "worship" to show itself to us. In fact, it's possible that something created our universe "in passing" and hasn't thought of it since. This is a stand-alone PHILOSOPHICAL perspective, and anyone can invent it on their own, without needing to refer to any pre-existing faith. There is a word for this: Deism.

Whether such a philosophy is desirable to you, or has a point to you, is your opinion, and you're welcome to that opinion.

Originally Posted by Replicon

We may be arguing about the semantic definition of religion instead of something more interesting. I'll re-state my opinion without using the word religion:

It is very, very possible to believe that some form of consciousness created the universe, WITHOUT said consciousness being an "active" part of our lives (by talking to us through ridiculous means like burning bushes). It's possible that some consciousness created everything, and left it at that. It's possible that something created the universe and genuinely doesn't care enough about "worship" to show itself to us. In fact, it's possible that something created our universe "in passing" and hasn't thought of it since. This is a stand-alone PHILOSOPHICAL perspective, and anyone can invent it on their own, without needing to refer to any pre-existing faith. There is a word for this: Deism.

Whether such a philosophy is desirable to you, or has a point to you, is your opinion, and you're welcome to that opinion.

I see your point, what I'm trying to say is that there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of god besides from religious texts, so why bother claiming there is one? If you're not influenced by religion to make this claim, then you'd be making it up in your head.

It's like if I claimed that centaurs are real. There is no evidence for the existence of centaurs anywhere. Now did I get my idea of what a centaur is from greek mythology or did I completely make it up independently in my mind? If it's the former then it would be equivalent to being influenced by religion, and if it's the latter then what's the point?

Hope that makes sense .

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I see your point, what I'm trying to say is that there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of god besides from religious texts, so why bother claiming there is one? If you're not influenced by religion to make this claim, then you'd be making it up in your head.

It's like if I claimed that centaurs are real. There is no evidence for the existence of centaurs anywhere. Now did I get my idea of what a centaur is from greek mythology or did I completely make it up independently in my mind? If it's the former then it would be equivalent to being influenced by religion, and if it's the latter then what's the point?

Hope that makes sense .

Yes, it makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

I think the place where we differ is that I don't believe there is evidence even of gods in any of the mainstream religions. There is no difference to me between being influenced by a god someone else made up and just making one up, other than it takes less creativity to be influenced by it. So, in my mind's eye, your "where's the point" remark really applies to both god-sources.

...well, except the difference is that one of those sides sometimes (depending on who) tries to push their views on everyone else through the letter of the law. Honestly, that last bit is the only practical matter I really care about.