Does God exist? (your opinion anyways.)

[BTGBullseye]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K5PGWZ0DWI

 

Excellent movie series... I have all of them.

 

At least he believes in God.

[Xalder]

@Xalder: yes, something like that, but what I am also trying to say is that you can believe in God and not be part of any religion or, conversely, you can believe there is no God and still be religious (like Dawkins).

 

Humanism is OK as long as this is synonymous with philanthropy but I don't think that it is a complete ideology by itself. I dislike the notion of humans existing for our own sake without any greater purpose, just like I dislike the Gaianists for whom the planet is a purpose onto itself and humans are a (somewhat undesirable) byproduct. I prefer to think that the self-organisation of matter in the Universe is the logical precursor to evolution of life, which itself then inevitably leads to sentience and further exponential development of universal intelligence until some kind of transcendence will allow the continuation of these beings beyond the life-span of this Universe...

 

@Doom Shepherd: he is one angry fella

 

Regards

 

Would not an achievement of some form of intellectual transcendence be the end-goal of any species? Us living today are a contributing factor for the future ability of our species to make such advances. Though that seems a bit of a tangent of what you're trying to communicate in this post.

 

I grant humanism/philanthropy (I've yet to study the difference between these two. I've seen humanism more than philanthropy so far, so I'll mostly be referring to humanism) isn't an ideology onto itself, but it's a philosophy through which ideologies may be molded for the benefit of improving the quality of life for everyone. In a broad sense, religions that instill a fear of punishment vs. reward after death causes people to focus on their selfish needs and desires to avoid that punishment or to earn that reward. I imagine most followers of such beliefs don't feel or realize this selfishness as a matter of not being truly selfish people to begin with. Such people will work with the intent of benefit for others, and so are subscribing to a humanist philosophy (in a general sense). This is how people who are atheist or agnostic can define their morals, in the genuine care and compassion for a fellow human over their own selfish goals and needs.

 

Facilitating this philosophy focuses people on the real reasons they perform charitable "good work" actions. As a result, we step away from inward focuses and towards genuine outward compassion for others around us. Everything I just said makes perfect sense in my head, but I'm not sure it really makes much sense overall.

[Vapymid]

Such people will work with the intent of benefit for others, and so are subscribing to a humanist philosophy (in a general sense). This is how people who are atheist or agnostic can define their morals, in the genuine care and compassion for a fellow human over their own selfish goals and needs.

 

I think that there are certain fundamental morals which are determined by the physical laws of nature. This means that people must adopt and abide by them whether or not they believe in God, if their society is to survive.

 

The religions and ideologies are, basically, attempts to formulate these fundamental moral principles, but they can easily go off on a tangent and accumulate a lot of self-serving fluff or expedient things that outlive their useful shelf-life, which then obscures the main message...

 

Regards

[Xalder]

Precisely. People can't keep clinging to one set of outdated beliefs with the speed at which society advances. It becomes a crutch on many issues - as seen in the U.S. where people are arguing over the rights of same-sex couples, abortion, sex education (some places will teach or offer to teach classes that don't talk about contraceptives and will focus on remaining abstinent until marriage), and there are people who will question scientific advances without really knowing anything about the subject matter.

[BTGBullseye]

So you're trying to say that religion just doesn't apply since we've advanced our technology some? That all forms of religion go out of date at some point?

 

Not something I believe, but you're entitled.

[Xalder]

Not my exact wording, but essentially and for the most part, yes. I would believe there's a growing number of people who don't truly believe in a religion. While they may still hold some of those beliefs, they adapt the way things are interpreted to better match with our current society. We live in a world of constant change, religion isn't exempt from such changes.

[BTGBullseye]

Religion does change some aspects, but should never alter any part of their core beliefs.

 

Take the second Vatican council of the Catholic Church for example... Mass went back closer to the way it was originally done, in the language of the people, (instead of Latin for everything, and nobody being able to understand) but didn't get rid of the alter or Eucharist.

 

Not everything goes out of date.