• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Legitimacy of believing

A Blind Guy

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
193
Location
New Orleans, LA
Thought I would bring this up. Why is believing something that cannot be proven or quantified, and has no evidence for it more legitimate than not believing all of these stories.

My biggest thing with religion is that people are open minded about the possibilities.. But should we be? Religion defines itself in such a way that it cannot be proven incorrect, and actually can't even be observed. So the person pitching religion says "Well you can't disprove it so it has to be a possibility!"

But is it really a possibility, or is it just an unfalsifiable mental construct? Like Russell's Teapot cannot be proven or disproven, but it's obviously complete bullshit.

Like, a while ago we had superstition that couldn't be disproven because we didn't have the means. But now we know that witches and magic aren't real.
But people don't want to abandon their magical sky wizard because it promises them eternal afterlife.

Which would be a shitty existence, anyway.
 
I think religion is less about describing the actual world (like science is) and more about quelling existential anxieties and providing meaning and purpose to ones life. Getting the two mixed up leads to a category error.
 
Why do we need a purpose? Why does that scare so many people?

We have no higher purpose and to think that way would be arrogant, unless you think dogs, cats, animals and plants have a higher purpose, too.
Seriously, we live, we screw, we fight, we die. Get over it.
 
Some people like living meaningful lives, don't hate on them.

We are meaning makers in a meaningless universe.

So its natural that many would want to have a meaningful life, the only problem is when people are not tolerate of others belief or non-belief systems.
With that said, meaningful lives can be very rewarding.

And as for high purposes, i don't think there is one explicitly, but i think its everyone's duty (purpose) to create their own view points and values, while keeping in mind theirs is not anyone else's.
 
Seriously, we live, we screw, we fight, we die. Get over it.

That is IMO a really facile view of reality and nature. Many organisms develop partnerships and other types of non invasive strategies to live with each other. Not every form of life is a fight of tooth and nail. And human life is much more then those things. To say otherwise is to ignore our immense potential.
 
... No pretty much in the end we're just competing for resources so that our children can have better lives than other people's children.

However, many great things can take place during this process, as you can see from our technology and science. But also great tragedy.

I consider the invention of religion one of the worst things that ever happened to the human race. If not the worst.
 
what would be the point in believing something you know? kind of redundant, don't you think?
 
you cant have science without faith...
but you can have faith without science.

if you didnt believe in purpose, youd be dead already.
 
Types of Faith in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoyevsky)

Faith. Faith in God, faith in one's self, faith in other people is one factor that can determine someone's worldview. In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky shares his worldview by creating different types of faith. He does this through his character's lifestyles, their experiences, and showing how they change. In doing so, he shows the reader that he believes faith is what makes people who they are. Dostoevsky uses each of the brothers to show a different type of worldview.

Aloysha puts his faith in God and the good of people. He is trusting of everyone throughout the entire book. Aloysha does not doubt Dmitri's innocence, nor does he ever try to prove it. Rather, he seems to believe that the right thing will be done. The godly example for the brothers is Aloysha, the monk. He restrains himself from worldly activities. He does not get caught up in money or women, like Dmitri, nor does he try to rationalize sinfulness, like Ivan. Aloysha simply loves people and yearns to serve them. Otherwise, he would not have allowed himself to be involved in his brothers' affairs, delivering money and letters, among other things.

Ivan was the brother who didn't believe in anything. At least he tried not to. He said that he did not believe in God, but only the power of reason. This unhappy scholar worked hard to convince himself of this. Though one cannot be sure that he ever did convince himself, it is sure that he convinced Smerdykov. Smerdykov believed anything that he thought Ivan believed. These two characters parallel. Neither one wants to trust or have faith because they have never had the security of a father or anyone who had earned their trust. Therefore, they chose to tell themselves that they needed nothing to believe in.

Dmitri believed in the power of himself and things. Dmitri was a lover of money who trusted no one, not even the woman he loved. The closest thing to a confidant that Dmitri had was Aloysha. However, this was only because Aloysha was the only non-threatening figure in Dmitri's life. If he could not be in control of himself and his situation, through money or strength, then he did not know what to do. This is the reason for his acting rashly and violently; he was no longer in control. However, Dmitri's worldview caused him to act in ways that were not beneficial to him in the long run. He attacked his father, as well as made two threats to kill him, one verbally and one in a letter. Dmitri was simply acting in anger because he could not have money, or he thought he was losing Grueshenka. As a result, people thought that he killed his father in anger. Ivan's worldview also backfired on him. He was Smerdykov's justification for killing his father. Then Smerdykov's faith in only Ivan came crashing in, leading him to suicide.

Each of these characters' worldview changed because of the bad consequences that came from their previous worldview. Dmitri was forced to pay the price for his living such a rough life. Not only did he have to serve a prison sentence, he also had to endure a trial where all of his sins were relived in front of him and the rest of his world. However, it was through this low point in Dmitri's life that he began to see the need for others. He began to love people and get his priorities straight. Aloysha's influence helped him see that he needed something to secure himself to. Ivan also changed. He began to believe in his brother. This is a great accomplishment. However, he stops believing in himself. One could say that deep down, Ivan always knew that he needed other people, but it would hurt too much to allow himself to love. He was afraid that he could be let down. Nevertheless, he could not help himself. Ivan too leaned toward Aloysha's beliefs.

By the end of the book, the three brothers had faith in one another if nothing else. They learned that they loved each other. They found their commonality; they were humans who shared a father that did not love them like he should have. Each of their worldviews came to be almost the same one. This one worldview is Dostoevsky's. Dostoevsky tries to show that all humans are good at heart. This is the reason for Dmitri's reactions at the trial. He took the blame for his sin rather than let someone lie about it to make him look better. This can be shown in Aloysha's concern for the little boy who attacked him. Ivan stands up for his brother Dmitri when the reader thinks that Ivan does not care about his brothers. Through these events, the reader learns that the brothers love one another.

Love is what Dostoevsky bases his morality on. He begins with the elements of love with Aloysha, intellect with Ivan, and power with Dmitri. However, he ends the book with all of the characters re-evaluating their faith to begin to believe in love. This is the most important aspect of the book. That is it's point. Everyone needs to love and be loved. This is all that people have to base their faith upon, whether it be the love of God or the love of man. It is what keeps our world going. With love comes loyalty to those whom one loves. Love causes relationships to grow as relationships cause love to grow. The Brothers Karamazov is about brothers building relationships and learning to love.

Much of what Dostoevsky writes about parallels to his life. Dostoevsky was probably Dmitri with Ivan's intellect. He was a lover of money, a woman pulled him out of debt, and he spent a lot of time in prison. However, he was also a writer like Ivan. Then toward the end of his life, as a result of his experiences, he probably became Aloysha. Dostoevsky had no mother or father for most of his life. However, he did have several siblings. Having not had parents, Dostoevsky probably had to become like Dmitri, depending on no one. He was probably afraid to love for fear of losing love, much like Ivan. Then he learned that he needed his siblings and love, as each of these characters did. Aloysha was probably either a constant in his life that was an example for him, or Aloysha represented his current opinions as he was writing the novel. He simply used the other brothers to show the transition to Aloysha. To make the book about three brothers allowed Dostoevsky to show love in a family and in a relationship sense while relating it to his own relationships with his siblings.

Experience has everything to do with worldview. Truth is only truth to the extent of which one can understand it. People are only capable of understanding things according to their experience. However, they must have the faith to believe that there is more to life than just what they have experienced. Otherwise, one would never grow. There are some common experiences, in the book, that readers can identify with. Everyone has tried to live life on their own at some point. Everyone has felt unloved and probably pushed away someone because she was afraid to love. Everyone has relationships, most with her parents and siblings and friends. Everyone has to learn to love. Everyone has to break down barriers in order to love. Dostoevsky does a great job of making the characters and their experiences relate to nearly everyone in some way. He has convictions about love and people's need for it. He shows the need for family also. Hopefully, each reader can take a piece of Dostoevsky's advice and overcome their fears. Hopefully, they will have faith in people so that they can learn to love!

Rachel Dorough
Introduction to Lit.
5 May 1999

So, can we finally get over these faith vs. atheism fights?

LOVE. <3
 
you cant have science without faith...
but you can have faith without science.

if you didnt believe in purpose, youd be dead already.

What are you smoking. We can definitively have science without faith. Science is the study of things, not the faith in things.
Are you high?

I do believe in purpose, just not a higher purpose. To think we have a higher purpose beyond reproducing kin is arrogant.
Seriously it's like none of you read what I'm saying.

So, can we finally get over these faith vs. atheism fights?

LOVE. <3

... How is this in any way legitimate.
 
I do believe in purpose, just not a higher purpose. To think we have a higher purpose beyond reproducing kin is arrogant.

If you were truly satisfied with that conclusion, you wouldn't be posting on a philosophy forum.
 
However, many great things can take place during this process, as you can see from our technology and science. But also great tragedy.

I consider the invention of religion one of the worst things that ever happened to the human race. If not the worst.

See this is why I've deviated away from Dawkins. He's turning thinking atheists into blanket statement atheists. Aside from river banks civilization came about (and was held together) largely by religion. I would say "outdated". Rather than unimportant or "worst things ever".
 
It's actually the source of great strength.

Through something else, yes. Still a crutch, my friend.

Steve Prefontaine put it well when asked if he believed in God. His response was, "I believe in me".

We should all believe in ourselves. It eliminates a lot of weakness. Instead of waiting and wishing for some cosmic police officer to make things happen for us, or what have you. Everything that anyone has ever done was because they did it themselves. Nobody outside us is helping us. All the great things, and all the terrible things, were just us. Humans have so much potential, but we squander it, sitting on our asses being lazy, not applying ourselves, and waiting for someone else to help us. We need to help ourselves, instead.

I definitely believe in the power of human beings, but only because I know what I have done and how I have changed myself, made myself grow stronger, branched out my mind on my own. It was all me, me me me, and other people. No God required.

Also to whoever said I had to believe there was rationality in reality... When did I ever argue that there was? Reality itself is not rational... it's reality. It has no emotions or anything. It has order and disorder and we can explain that with math.

We, human beings, have rationality, which is derived from our intelligence. It is known as logic and reason. Even if it only made sense to us, it wouldn't matter. We only interact with us anyway.
If it turns out that our logic and reason was wrong (which I don't expect it to be... It is called reason, I don't think you can do it any other way) then I would be fucking surprised.

We try to explain reality with our reasoning, which is possible, seeing as we have physics n' engineering, chemistry, molecular biology, and all this other cool ass shit.

Whenever someone asked "What is reality?" people shit their pants and thought it was the greatest question ever, because nobody could explain it. But it really isn't that provocative, that's just some dude being an asshole. Nobody knows what reality is. Nobody will ever know what reality is. That's an unanswerable question. What we do know, though, is that all this shit we can perceive is real, because we are looking at it. We can't look at it unless light, and I doubt light can lie to us. It doesn't have any reason to.

And to believe that the laws of nature aren't lying and that the natural forces of the universe are constantly in action and are not lying to our senses is basically what everyone does every second of the day. I mean what else are we supposed to do with the stimulus our brain translates for us? Ignore it?
 
See this is why I've deviated away from Dawkins. He's turning thinking atheists into blanket statement atheists. Aside from river banks civilization came about (and was held together) largely by religion. I would say "outdated". Rather than unimportant or "worst things ever".

Religion is basically the source of all ignorance in the world. Ignorance breeds hatred, misunderstanding, and fighting.
Religion naturally self segregates the human race based on beliefs, on top of the self segregation that we impose on each other because of race, geographical location, etc.
Religion is the reason we put women down for so long.
Religion is the reason why we had the dark ages.


Actually instead of religion I'll use the blanket statement of "Superstition". Which includes religion, anyway.

So yeah religion is pretty fucking bad.
 
Religion is basically the source of all ignorance in the world. Ignorance breeds hatred, misunderstanding, and fighting.

I think it's becoming obvious who breeds hatred and has a desperate need to subordinate other people's world-view to his own.


A Blind Guy said:
We, human beings, have rationality, which is derived from our intelligence. It is known as logic and reason. Even if it only made sense to us, it wouldn't matter. We only interact with us anyway. If it turns out that our logic and reason was wrong (which I don't expect it to be... It is called reason, I don't think you can do it any other way) then I would be fucking surprised. We try to explain reality with our reasoning, which is possible, seeing as we have physics n' engineering, chemistry, molecular biology, and all this other cool ass shit.

Dostojevski story above said:
Ivan was the brother who didn't believe in anything. At least he tried not to. He said that he did not believe in God, but only the power of reason. This unhappy scholar worked hard to convince himself of this. Though one cannot be sure that he ever did convince himself, it is sure that he convinced Smerdykov. Smerdykov believed anything that he thought Ivan believed. These two characters parallel. Neither one wants to trust or have faith because they have never had the security of a father or anyone who had earned their trust. Therefore, they chose to tell themselves that they needed nothing to believe in.


A Blind Guy said:
Steve Prefontaine put it well when asked if he believed in God. His response was, "I believe in me".

We should all believe in ourselves. It eliminates a lot of weakness. Instead of waiting and wishing for some cosmic police officer to make things happen for us, or what have you. Everything that anyone has ever done was because they did it themselves. Nobody outside us is helping us. All the great things, and all the terrible things, were just us.

Dostojevski story above said:
Dmitri believed in the power of himself and things. Dmitri was a lover of money who trusted no one, not even the woman he loved. The closest thing to a confidant that Dmitri had was Aloysha. However, this was only because Aloysha was the only non-threatening figure in Dmitri's life. If he could not be in control of himself and his situation, through money or strength, then he did not know what to do. This is the reason for his acting rashly and violently; he was no longer in control. However, Dmitri's worldview caused him to act in ways that were not beneficial to him in the long run. He attacked his father, as well as made two threats to kill him, one verbally and one in a letter. Dmitri was simply acting in anger because he could not have money, or he thought he was losing Grueshenka.


Now, read the whole story again (or better, read the whole book). Try to understand and appreciate that reality is more than your own subjective experiences. Find wisdom and peace.

Dostojevski story above said:
Experience has everything to do with worldview. Truth is only truth to the extent of which one can understand it. People are only capable of understanding things according to their experience. However, they must have the faith to believe that there is more to life than just what they have experienced. Otherwise, one would never grow. The Brothers Karamazov is about brothers building relationships and learning to love.
 
Last edited:
I think it's becoming obvious who's full of hatred and has a desperate need to subordinate other people's world-view to his own.


I will not lie to you and say I don't hate religion. I fucking HATE it. It is useless superstition and is the cause of great suffering and woe, deludes the minds of millions and poisons them with stagnating ideas with no forward cultural momentum. I desperately seek to try and mitigate its effect on the human race because I see it as a cancer, a mind virus that is perverting the thoughts of billions of people on this planet.

We have ignorance towards many things directly because of religion. We segregate ourselves because of religion to the point where we cannot be reconciled. That is .... bad.

I wish to rid the world entirely of religion. That is my end goal.

I wish for people to understand that we humans, like all other life on this planet, are only on this planet, squabbling over our limited resources until the planet itself can no longer sustain us. The universe will not bat an eyelash when our planet dies. This is, by far, the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor, indeed.




Now, read the whole story again and try to understand and appreciate that reality is more than your own subjective experiences.

Steve Prefontaine was an American distance runner. He had no love of money, because he grew up poor. He believed in himself because he accomplished things through and by himself. He was a very knowledgeable and understanding person, and had many close friends and confidants. I believe in the power of myself. I do not have a love of money. I have many close friends and confidants.

The thing you just quoted is from a story that someone wrote. Why are you quoting that like it's the end all, be all psychological evaluation of the human species. That is just the biography of a character in a story, and from what I can tell, a pretty bad one, at that. I do not even know why the OP of that story put it in this thread in the first place. That is anecdotal to the extreme.

Reality is more than my subjective experiences, yes. I know that. But to think that there is some... cosmic.... thing, beyond the realm of our comprehension that cares about us is.... retarded. The only "God" that makes sense is Spinova's, and that one doesn't give a fuck about you, me, or anything. So we should we even call it God, since it has no effect on us whatsoever.

Also I will definitively say that there is no afterlife. You, as in, your consciousness, is only there because of your brain. When your brain dies, your consciousness dies, and once that happens, everything that was you is dead. Done. Gone. Finito. All of your memories, all of your experiences, gone. No longer in existence.

There is no such thing as the human soul.
 
To be honest, your psychology scares me.

You seem to be a classical case of religious fundamentalism, people who feels powerless and needs to exhibit power on others. Your religion is one which worships only the Self -- the worst of all.

I will not participate anymore in this thread.
 
Top