Personal Importance of Religion

[VT-16]

(I'm an atheist but a spiritual one). I believe that perhaps there is a little bit more out there.

Then you are not an atheist, you´re an agnostic.

[General Zod]

(I'm an atheist but a spiritual one). I believe that perhaps there is a little bit more out there.

Then you are not an atheist, you´re an agnostic.

as per the definition atheism is merely belief/lack of belief that god or gods do not exist. so it's entirely possible to have an atheist that believes in reincarnation or spirits but not god or gods.

[kc8tbe]

but there are other kinds of prayer, such as commnity prayer which fills emotional and social needs to belong in a group unified by something in common. Prayer can act much as meditation does, to calm, to relax, to soothe - in fact, my faith draws no distinction between meditation and prayer. Prayer can be an anti-panic device - sometimes it's better to have something to do rather than to sit in a corner and twitch when disaster is unfolding. Prayer can give a structured outlet for such emotions as grief, which have the potential to become destructive to either the self or the community.

In my faith, there is a school of thought that prayer is also a means of making changing one's inner self in order to make changes in the outer world. In such a case, it might start to resemble self-hypnosis.

If a prayer is addressed to a diety (e.g. "God give me an A on my math test."), it is prayer. Community prayer (e.g. "May God be with us as we help ourselves study math.") and meditation (e.g. "May God help me find the intelligence within myself to do well in math.") can also be prayer in this sense. But community prayer and meditation can also make just as much sense with the "May God <verb>" removed, in which case they are not forms of prayer. I talk to myself all the time, often as a means of solving personal problems, but I don't call it prayer. Prayer may be useful for these things, but it is not necessary.

And one point, which I neglected to make earlier, is that religion is means of acknowledging we don't know everything about the universe, and never will. It's a recognition that there things out of out control, forces greater than us, things that are not concerned with us.

I also acknowledge that we don't know everything about the universe and never will. Heck, we'll probably never no everything about ourselves. One doesn't need to be religious to do this -- just pragmatic.

Atheists put their faith in science, in logic, they trust that the universe makes sense, even if that sense is not apparent to us.... Atheists put their faith in science, in logic, they trust that the universe makes sense, even if that sense is not apparent to us.... my religion knows it is the creation of Man, not of God. In the eyes of some, this makes it less valid. In my eyes, I know their religion is just as much a man-made construct as mine, or the chair I'm sitting in.

You make a very valid point about the usefullness of religion. But you also equivocate two different types of religion: secular (atheistic) religion and theistic religion. Atheists simply disbelieve in dieties -- they do not necessarily put their faith in science, logic, etc. Some atheists are Buddhists or Jews in the secular sense: they don't believe in the diety, but they do believe in the religions' other tenants. If your religion acknowledges that God is a creation of man (e.g. that God is "make believe") then it is a secular, atheistic religion. You are an atheist. This does not in any way demean your religion, but it does make it unfair to equate your religion's flexibility when it comes to other religions and your religion's uses for prayer to those of theistic religions.

[Durandal]

Atheists put their faith in science, in logic, they trust that the universe makes sense, even if that sense is not apparent to us.

Atheists believe that because it's held up so far, not out of the blind devotion that faith would imply. So far the scientific method has answered our questions about the universe through a systematic process of gathering evidence and reasoning. There is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue. It's like telling a mathematician that, given the series 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ..., he's got nothing but faith to tell him that the pattern of adding 1 to the previous digit to obtain the next digit will continue.

[Rye]

Atheists put their faith in science, in logic, they trust that the universe makes sense, even if that sense is not apparent to us.

No no no, faith is an irrational epistemology, based on the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. you can't go from irrational epistemology to that which is defined by rationality and equate them to being the same thing.

The acceptance of reason does not ultimately rest on an act of faith. Reason is about integating and understanding the information from the senses, whereas faith is, as already said, the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. It exists by contradistinction to reason, and requires that the faculties of reason already be defined before it can revolt against it, and, as such, cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason.

Indeed, you have to preaccept the rules of reason before you can make the claim that it is based on faith, in order for your argument to be reasonable, it requires the very thing you're arguing against and simultaneously using to be established before you attempt to relogate it to the term that is defined as its antithesis.

Which is nonsensical, it's a stolen concept fallacy.

Unless you weren't using that definition of faith, and were instead using the "confident trust in an idea, person or thing" which would be equivocating the use of faith, since you have to ask what that confident trust is based on. Reason, or faith?

In this sense, religion is a tool just as much as a hammer or knife - it's neither inherently bad nor inherently good, it's the use to which it's put that have a moral weight. To dismiss it as "make-believe" or entirely "made-up" is disingeneous - great works of art are "made-up", literature and drama are "make-believe",

And I don't sincerely believe in them either. I sincerely believe they are inventions, which is why I labeled normal religions as such. Yes, they have good parts, but they are still fiction.

religion is just as real as any of them, as real as the civilizations we have created, the cities we have built,

No, they're really not comparable. New York actually exists and so does the religion, the belief in christianity, for example, but the things it talks about are made up. This is what distinguishes fiction from New York. You can walk up the empire state building, you can't ascend to heaven to be with Enoch and the seraphim.

the customs and traditions we have developed. That is another area where my faith and Christianity diverge - my religion knows it is the creation of Man, not of God. In the eyes of some, this makes it less valid. In my eyes, I know their religion is just as much a man-made construct as mine, or the chair I'm sitting in.

Yes, the beliefs are man-made, fictional, not real. To believe them as true is intrinsically irrational, if you're taking the mythology at face value. By the same token, fraud is as man made as both the ESB and religions that are meant to be believed literally, but bares a much closer resemblence to one than the other. Being an invention doesn't intrinsically make it a good accomplishment.

[Broomstick]

but there are other kinds of prayer, such as commnity prayer which fills emotional and social needs to belong in a group unified by something in common. Prayer can act much as meditation does, to calm, to relax, to soothe - in fact, my faith draws no distinction between meditation and prayer. Prayer can be an anti-panic device - sometimes it's better to have something to do rather than to sit in a corner and twitch when disaster is unfolding. Prayer can give a structured outlet for such emotions as grief, which have the potential to become destructive to either the self or the community.

In my faith, there is a school of thought that prayer is also a means of making changing one's inner self in order to make changes in the outer world. In such a case, it might start to resemble self-hypnosis.

If a prayer is addressed to a diety (e.g. "God give me an A on my math test."), it is prayer. Community prayer (e.g. "May God be with us as we help ourselves study math.") and meditation (e.g. "May God help me find the intelligence within myself to do well in math.") can also be prayer in this sense. But community prayer and meditation can also make just as much sense with the "May God <verb>" removed, in which case they are not forms of prayer. I talk to myself all the time, often as a means of solving personal problems, but I don't call it prayer. Prayer may be useful for these things, but it is not necessary.

Excuse me, please go back and read more carefully what I actually said.

I was not defining prayer for you - I was giving a definition from my religion, at which point I even implied that it wasn't universally accepted even among my co-religious (which is why I stated it as "a school of thought" rather than "a major tenet").

I might also add to the larger audience here that I am NOT interested in a "debate" about religion, or engaging in protracted arguments with people who want to "prove" how irrational or stupid or silly or foolish my belief system is. Zero interest, got it? Someone asked about religion and I answered. That was NOT an invitation to debate a topic with prostelytizing atheists. Prostelytizing is one of the few things that do offend me. Be atheists if that works for you, but do not cram it down my throat, thank you very much.

And one point, which I neglected to make earlier, is that religion is means of acknowledging we don't know everything about the universe, and never will. It's a recognition that there things out of out control, forces greater than us, things that are not concerned with us.

I also acknowledge that we don't know everything about the universe and never will. Heck, we'll probably never no everything about ourselves. One doesn't need to be religious to do this -- just pragmatic.

Yes, you are correct. One does not need religion to do so, but religion is a means of doing so, one of many. If pragmatism works for you I'm perfectly OK with that.

You make a very valid point about the usefullness of religion. But you also equivocate two different types of religion: secular (atheistic) religion and theistic religion.

You are assuming I distinguish between the two. I don't. I see them as points on a spectrum that runs from fanaticism and blind faith through completely rationalized lack of faith. To me, there is no hard and fast line dividing the two categories you mention.

If your religion acknowledges that God is a creation of man (e.g. that God is "make believe") then it is a secular, atheistic religion. You are an atheist. This does not in any way demean your religion, but it does make it unfair to equate your religion's flexibility when it comes to other religions and your religion's uses for prayer to those of theistic religions.

Ah, I see, you misunderstand me. You are equating God with religion here. They are not the same thing. My religion - that is, the rituals and customs - are man-made. God, however, is not. To use an analogy: solar cells are man-made, the sun that powers them is not. The sun pre-dated man, and will endure after we are all dust. It is separate and distinct from the technology - solar cells - we manufactured to allow us to use the energy from the sun for our own purposes.

I understand that atheists view God(s) as make-believe. I believe that you are as wrong as you believe me to be, and on that point we will have to agree to disagree. I should also point out that my conception of Gods/dieties/spirits/etc. is not, as all too often characterized by atheists, as a Big Sky Daddy or Invisible Pink Unicorn or any similar caricature.

The Gods/spirits/whatever do not require our faith in order to exist... but religion does require human participation. It's a fine distinction, but important.

[Darth RyanKCR]

This is a question aimed at religious people, because I'm curious, and I'd like to see what people have to say.

Why is it important to you to have a religion? What does your religion do for you, if anything? And lastly, why do you believe your religion is the only true one?

I'll start you off with a quote from one of my friends.

My Christian faith is what makes life worth living for me. Without it, I would have no purpose in life other than eat, drink, do drugs, and have as much sex as possible. My relationship with Christ who is God not only keeps me sane and moral, but it grants me the peace within me knowing where I am, why I'm here, and where I'm going. I know that Christ is not only real, but is God the LORD Almighty and has predestined me to live with Him in glory forever. I know this because, as any true Christian, my heart has been changed by the Holy Spirit who is God. God's creation proclaims His name. I know that eternal life with Him in glory is more realistic than where I am now. I shall be there for eternity, while I shall be here for only a short season.

It is not "important" to have a religion it is just the way things are. Everybody believes in something. Some believe that the Scientific method will always work. Some believe that they die and come back again and again........ We all believe in something. We just choose what we think is the right one or the important one. For me it is out of experience. I was born had no blood flowing to my lungs for about three days and I would turn black when I was just 6 weeks. Perhaps I still had a small opening in the one vessel we have before birth. Also at ten I bleed out from my Aorta that caused me to have 50 pints of blood infused over the period of 48 hours and have no ill effects. And finally I was visited before a surgery and was comforted and some people asked things or told things to me that they would not have otherwise known unless I told them and they are of the same Faith as I. Too much experience to easily discount.

[Broomstick]

No no no, faith is an irrational epistemology, based on the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. you can't go from irrational epistemology to that which is defined by rationality and equate them to being the same thing.

The acceptance of reason does not ultimately rest on an act of faith. Reason is about integating and understanding the information from the senses, whereas faith is, as already said, the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. It exists by contradistinction to reason, and requires that the faculties of reason already be defined before it can revolt against it, and, as such, cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason.

Indeed, you have to preaccept the rules of reason before you can make the claim that it is based on faith, in order for your argument to be reasonable, it requires the very thing you're arguing against and simultaneously using to be established before you attempt to relogate it to the term that is defined as its antithesis.

Which is nonsensical, it's a stolen concept fallacy.

Look, as I said, I am not interested in partaking in an argument about these matters. I already stated that in my view religion satisfies emotional needs that reason does not. If you don't have those needs, bully for you.

My religion does not compel to take any holy writ as literal truth, nor does it have a problem with the scientific method, or reason, or science. If you demonstrate something to be true I have no problem with that. Since my faith does not depend on some Ultimate Revealed Truth I have no trouble acceptable new facts and observations about the unverse.

Unless you weren't using that definition of faith, and were instead using the "confident trust in an idea, person or thing" which would be equivocating the use of faith, since you have to ask what that confident trust is based on. Reason, or faith?

You want an argument, do you? Go elsewhere. Yes, "confident trust in an idea, person, or thing", you got it on the first try. And either reason or faith can bring you to such trust, or a combination of both.

No, they're really not comparable. New York actually exists and so does the religion, the belief in christianity, for example, but the things it talks about are made up. This is what distinguishes fiction from New York. You can walk up the empire state building, you can't ascend to heaven to be with Enoch and the seraphim.

Since I have no belief in Enoch, the seraphim, or even heaven as it is usually conceived I have to agree with you - but I agree with your statement for reasons completely different than the reasons you agree with that statement.

The initial questions were about RELIGION, that is, a system of beliefs - the very thing you stated exists: "The belief in christanity, for example" Religion does exist. The existance of God is debatable (pointlessly so, until either evidence of existance or evidence of absence is produced), the existance of religion is not.

the customs and traditions we have developed. That is another area where my faith and Christianity diverge - my religion knows it is the creation of Man, not of God. In the eyes of some, this makes it less valid. In my eyes, I know their religion is just as much a man-made construct as mine, or the chair I'm sitting in.

Yes, the beliefs are man-made, fictional, not real. To believe them as true is intrinsically irrational, if you're taking the mythology at face value. By the same token, fraud is as man made as both the ESB and religions that are meant to be believed literally, but bares a much closer resemblence to one than the other. Being an invention doesn't intrinsically make it a good accomplishment.

Nor does it make it intrinsically bad.

Religion != God, God != religion. They are two separate things. As I stated, God (or Goddess or Brahma or spirits or "the ancestors" or what have you) can exist independently of us (or not exist at all - I don't claim to have a monopoly on Truth, unlike certain individuals of other religions). Religion, on the other hand, as I stated before, is the invention of mankind.

The OP was NOT a question about GOD, it was a question about RELIGION. Why is RELIGION important to me, not whether or not God (etc.) exists.

Assume hypothetically that I agreed with your position that God (etc.) does not exist. Would I stop practicing my rituals and rites? Probably not. Why not? Because they fulfill an emotional need that logic does not. I suspect that's what an earlier poster referred to as "secular religion". Fine, perhaps I am a "secular NeoPagan". It would be no more shocking that one of my co-workers who, despite being a devout atheist and not only a believer in the scientific method but a real research scientist, nonetheless still goes to synagogue and engages in the rites and rituals of the Orthodox Judaism he grew up with. When his father died he sat shiva and went faithfully to perform kadish - not because he believe the Big Sky Daddy would be pissed off at him if he didn't, but because the rituals ARE an effective way of dealing with grief. Seriously, the idea of taking a week off to vent one's grief, followed by a return to normal life with regular oppotunities to vent continuing emotions leading up to a ritual marking the anniversary of the death of a loved one has parallels in many human societies even if the details differ. It helps many people cope with devastating emotions in a manner that allows them to function in life until they get past the initial pain. And what the hell is wrong with that? Maybe nowadays we have more options pharmaceutically (although alcohol and opium have been around a long time) but how is a mental discipline or physical ritual any better or worse than popping a valium to settle one's nerves?

Now, as I have said several times, if religion doesn't work for you that doesn't bother me one bit - different strokes and all that. And if you read my posts on this forum at all much you'll find almost no mention of either God or religion. Why? Atheism is the predominant "faith" of this group and since I have zero interest in converting any of you to my viewpoint (in fact, my ethics forbid it) there's no point in playing the game. And I've also tried to make it clear that I'm speaking solely from my own viewpoint and I'm not a spokesman for all relgious people everywhere - if that wasn't clear, it should be after this sentence.

Now, is anyone here still unclear on the distinction I'm making between God(etc.) and religion?

[Coyote]

One of the problems Judaism faces in the Western world is that it isd constantly viewed through a Western lens, a lens distorted by people's experience with Christianity.

Christianity is the most widely-practiced religion in the West and permeates our culture to its roots: Christmas is a day off, the New Years celebration is based on a Christian calendar, the weekends are Sundays (a Christian invention, Judaism has Sabbath on Saturday) and so on. Yes, I know these were Christian adaptations of Pagan rites, but the fact is in the West, Christianity has vey successfully paved over these events with their own version.

Christianity is exclusive-- accept Christ or be lost. So naturally, people assume other religions must be based on the same thing. The phrase "the chosen people" for the Jews is seen as evidence that they too are as exculsive as others.

The Jews are "chosen" to be the priests in the afterlife. According to the legend, they were the first tribe that accepted the primacy of one God and they stayed largely faithful to that God even in the face of persecution by polytheists. So since the Jews got the "holy thing" right first, they are "chosen" to minister in God's Kingdom.

It has nothing to do with being "better" than other races or religions-- that is a layer that Christians paint on it because that is how they frequently feel, and assume the same must hold true for the Jews.

The Jewish belief is that the Righteous of All Nations will have a place in the Kingdom of God. Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, etc, even atheists (who may be somewhat surprised) but while they are all invited, it is the Jews that will be the priests.

And yes, Fuzzy, the Jews follow the teachings of the Old Testament ("Torah") which does state that there are to be no other gods, and technically, Jesus violates that rule. But the Christians think that Jesus was the messiah prophosied in the OT whereas the Jews disagree and say "we're still waiting".

It is the heart of the argument between the groups.

[General Zod]

Now, as I have said several times, if religion doesn't work for you that doesn't bother me one bit - different strokes and all that. And if you read my posts on this forum at all much you'll find almost no mention of either God or religion. Why? Atheism is the predominant "faith" of this group and since I have zero interest in converting any of you to my viewpoint (in fact, my ethics forbid it) there's no point in playing the game. And I've also tried to make it clear that I'm speaking solely from my own viewpoint and I'm not a spokesman for all relgious people everywhere - if that wasn't clear, it should be after this sentence.

nitpick: atheism is by no means a faith in and of itself. there's no unifying belief structure or religious code for atheists other than acknowledging that gods/god does not exist.

[Coyote]

Another thing.... sometimes people enjoy religion or religious community, celebrations, etc because they like it. Automatically assuming that their "brain is broken" or they are spineless, mewling and terrified of their own shadow is quite an indulgence in arrogance.

[Broomstick]

Now, as I have said several times, if religion doesn't work for you that doesn't bother me one bit - different strokes and all that. And if you read my posts on this forum at all much you'll find almost no mention of either God or religion. Why? Atheism is the predominant "faith" of this group and since I have zero interest in converting any of you to my viewpoint (in fact, my ethics forbid it) there's no point in playing the game. And I've also tried to make it clear that I'm speaking solely from my own viewpoint and I'm not a spokesman for all relgious people everywhere - if that wasn't clear, it should be after this sentence.

nitpick: atheism is by no means a faith in and of itself. there's no unifying belief structure or religious code for atheists other than acknowledging that gods/god does not exist.

Nitpick away.

So it's a lack of belief rather than an affirmation of belief. As I said, it's part of a spectrum.

Acknowledge there is no God? What, you stand up before the multitudes and spout something like "There is no God, Mohammed was not his profit, Jesus died and is still dead, and you New Agers over there are all fucking nutcases"?

No, atheism is not a religion but it's a related topic because it defines itself in relation to God(etc.), even if that definition is that God(etc.) does not exist.

Nor can one atheist be said to speak for all. There are plenty who simply do not believe and go their own way. There are others who insist everyone else must join them in their disbelief, and try to impose their world view on everyone else. They may not be religious in anything like the ordinary sense, but they sure as hell act like Fundie Missionaries(TM) Atheism in the US, at least, is heavily tainted with the Christian/Islamic attitude of "my way is the only way".

[Fuzzy]

Wow, I see that I was quite mistaken with some of the concepts of Judaism, thanks for clearing that up. I agree though, I do see the world through the "Western Lens," but hopefully I can fix that. At least I acknoweldge it.

[Alyeska]

I honestly don't grasp the "emotional need" for religion. Any and all emotions I'm aware of can be satisfied by reality and things that actually exist rather than make believe stories.

Two points.

One, Fiction. You gain pleasure, emotion from fiction.

Two, to many people, their religion IS reality.

[Alyeska]

Atheists don't have Faith. Atheists have Confidence. Confidence bassed on observations of reality. I don't have faith the sun will rise, I have confidence it will rise because I know the scientific workings (somewhat) behind how we orbit the sun, and because I know historicaly it has risen, and will continue to rise long after I die.

[Obloquium]

Atheists don't have Faith. Atheists have Confidence.

Which reduces to faith in the principle of induction.

[Obloquium]

This is a question aimed at religious people, because I'm curious, and I'd like to see what people have to say.

Why is it important to you to have a religion?

Because "(The Christian) God exists" is a basic belief I hold.

[DPDarkPrimus]

But why is that belief so important to you?

[Obloquium]

But why is that belief so important to you?

Because I believe it to be.

[DPDarkPrimus]

But why is that belief so important to you?

Because I believe it to be.

Any particular reason WHY it is an important belief?

The other people in this thread have been able to explain why their religious belief is important. I'm asking no more than what they've already done.

[Obloquium]

Any particular reason WHY it is an important belief?

No, it's not a rational belief. And furthermore I am distrustful of theists who claim that their religious beliefs are.

The other people in this thread have been able to explain why their religious belief is important.

I already told you. I believe my religious beliefs are important as a matter of faith. If your asking what I get out of it, I am skeptical of theists who claim natural sources of ethical and aesthetic benefit to establish their beliefs' significance. I am convinced God exists, that Christ his Son came to save man from eternal damnation, that I am saved, and that nothing is more important to me than those three truths. All four are statements of principle.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I said nothing about rationality. Most people have given emotional feelings, and emotions are far from rational. Please stop trying to avoid the topic of the thread.

[Kuroneko]

He seems to be saying that he simply takes it as axiomatic.

[Obloquium]

Most people have given emotional feelings, and emotions are far from rational.

My belief in God and the importance of my faith persists regardless of its ethical or aesthetic benefits or costs. I said as much in my last post.

[DPDarkPrimus]

So you simply believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus.