What Do You Think Really Happen with Religions in ST?

[Paradon]

Relax! Maybe you're just worried too much about what other people are doing.

Besides, pitbull is not a breed by the way and they have better temperament than the beagles. The only reason they fight is because they try to please their master..... Most of the fighting dogs that have confiscated are adopted right out in states and counties allows pitbulls. the dogs that are trained to killed people are not pitbulls. I cant' remember what they are called, but they are definitely not pitbulls. I know this because I love animals....that includes spiders and reptiles, too.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I can understand some people dislike for Organized religion (even if I am a rather devout member of one, I spent the majority of my life outside of such things) but I never understood the pure hatred and fear of some have to someone who wants to explore spiritual themes in life. After all, "To one that has faith, no explanation is necessary, and to those who do not have faith, no explanation is possible."

Since I found faith that rewards me in this life, I have to point out a logical thing. If there is no god, and after we die there is nothing. Then I as a man of faith have lost nothing. However if it IS true, then I have gained so much, and those who do not believe in a afterlife have lost a lot.

Now you are talking Pascal's Wager, which you must realize is the dumbest reason to believe anything.

Besides, knowing that this life is the only one that we all know for certain that we are going to have makes it infinitely more valuable, and lets us live it to the fullest. Living for an afterlife diminishes that. So don't generalize non-believers as "having lost a lot" because I think we actually gain a lot.

 

[T'Girl]

Now you are talking Pascal's Wager, which you must realize is the dumbest reason to believe anything.

Besides, knowing that this life is the only one that we all know for certain that we are going to have makes it infinitely more valuable, and lets us live it to the fullest. Living for an afterlife diminishes that. So don't generalize non-believers as "having lost a lot" because I think we actually gain a lot.

Well there nothing particularly "dumb" about Pascal's gambit,

If you're right (big if) and I live my life as a Christian and you live as you see fit, then at the ends of ours respective life's we have each lived the life we choose. At best you've lose nothing, but then your choice has also gained you nothing.

But if you're are in fact wrong, you have much to lose and I am the one who stand to gain a lot. I don't "live for an afterlife," I see the afterlife not as a goal, but a continuance of my existence. I don't walk through my life endlessly attempting to punch my ticket into Heaven.

Given the wide diversity of people of faith, likely there are those who indeed wrap their lives solely around access to Heaven, but it would be you who is generalizing if you think all people of faith are remotely the same in this regard.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Now you are talking Pascal's Wager, which you must realize is the dumbest reason to believe anything.

Besides, knowing that this life is the only one that we all know for certain that we are going to have makes it infinitely more valuable, and lets us live it to the fullest. Living for an afterlife diminishes that. So don't generalize non-believers as "having lost a lot" because I think we actually gain a lot.

Well there nothing particularly "dumb" about Pascal's gambit,

If you're right (big if) and I live my life as a Christian and you live as you see fit, then at the ends of ours respective life's we have each lived the life we choose. At best you've lose nothing, but then your choice has also gained you nothing.

But if you're are in fact wrong, you have much to lose and I am the one who stand to gain a lot. I don't "live for an afterlife," I see the afterlife not as a goal, but a continuance of my existence. I don't walk through my life endlessly attempting to punch my ticket into Heaven.

Given the wide diversity of people of faith, likely there are those who indeed wrap their lives solely around access to Heaven, but it would be you who is generalizing if you think all people of faith are remotely the same in this regard.

I think you are wrong on all counts.

The problem with Pascal's wager is that it is disingenuous. If there really was a God who was all powerful, he could see through the facade of "Oh, I'm going to believe in God, because it could be right, and , if it is right, then I'll go to heaven, and, if it isn't I don't lose anything". That not a genuine reason to believe.

It's a well-known logical argument why you should believe in God, even if there's a strong chance that it might not be true. Simply put, the argument is that you should believe in God just because there's a chance that you might go to heaven and avoid hell.

Blaise Pascal, a philosopher and mathematician in the 17th century, first formally put the argument forth. He is considered the founder of probability and he made other significant contributions. There's also a programming language named after him.

Pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this. No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's a gamble whether you believe in him or not. So let's treat it like a gamble, says Pascal, and look at the odds.

He described the payoff of this gamble like so. If you choose to believe in God, and you happen to be right, then the reward is infinity: eternal bliss in heaven. However, if you are wrong, then you lose nothing at all. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you GAIN nothing (in either of the previous two cases, you just die and that's the end). But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity: eternal suffering in hell.

Now here's the main thrust of the wager. Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.

Okay, that's Pascal's wager, now here are our reasons for not agreeing with it.

Reason 1: In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero. For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate 1/10th of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real. That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages.

Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.

Reason 3: If you can accept Pascal's wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Maybe if you don't own a complete library of Seinfeld episodes, you'll go to hell! Why not? You don't know. Maybe you have to send $10 a week to the Atheist Community of Austin for life. Hey, what's a measly ten bucks if it will save you from eternal hellfire? Or maybe God really likes nude mud wrestling and he will punish those who do not partake of His gift.

Does all this sound utterly silly to you? Good! That's probably because you know that you should only believe things that have some sort of clear evidence favoring them. You don't believe just any old preposterous claim about UFO's, pyramid shaped get-rich-quick schemes, or magic pixies just because somebody tells you they're true and because there's a chance you might be wrong. You have a brain—use it!

Notice the words I chose in my post: this is the only life that we are certain to have. In that respect, we all stand to lose the same thing, because the prospect of an afterlife has not been demonstrated to be true.

Given the wide diversity of people of faith, likely there are those who indeed wrap their lives solely around access to Heaven, but it would be you who is generalizing if you think all people of faith are remotely the same in this regard.

All people of faith do have one thing in common, and this is not generalizing: they have faith. Which means that they believe something regardless of whether there is evidence to support it, and they will likely to continue to believe it even if faced with evidence to the contrary.

Faith is not a pathway to truth.

 

[Arpy]

The question is what happened to religion in Trek. One of the things that I think happened in the Federation, among others, is that people learned to solve their differences via better communication and compassion with each other, and learned to bear the existential angst of life and death by being better to themselves and each other. They found internal peace and external brotherhood.

There's so much that can be said about religion and society and reason and science. One thing I want to point out is that rationality alone will not necessarily get you peace and prosperity. Plenty of people are plenty rational and still manage to be plenty crappy to themselves and everybody else.

Whether our goodness is overly rewarded in heaven or overly punished in hell, in this life, it should be explored and shared because it makes us feel better. None of us are angels, but we're not demons either, despite what the misanthropes may think. And if we continue "to strive to seek to find and not to yield," better it be in the direction of the angels. I think that's very Star Trek.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^^^ The problem with that is when we did have a "not quite laissez-faire" and far far less regulation than we have now, we (as a society) didn't have many of the problems that you sight.

When was this, exactly?

"power and wealth tends to be accumulated by the very rich and massive inequality is rampant"

Simply exchange the word rich with the word government, and your statement would be true. Wealth and power are increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a very few, the hands of the central federal government.

Which is to be expected, since the government is currently being run BY the rich to drive their own agenda. Who do you suppose it is that's been doing all the complaining about "redistribution of wealth" as a social agenda? It sure as hell aint the poor.

It is said man has a hole in the heart that can never be filled. He keeps wanting more and more...which is greed. I think God fills this hole, void....

Exactly, but it's not NECESSARILY God. Any sufifciently vague concept or ideal, strongly expressed and passionately clung to, will fill that apparent void. Everyone needs to believe in SOMETHING, and people who find worldly concerns insufficient will turn to different things to keep them grounded.

In some families, it's Jesus. In my family, it was Star Trek, and everything it represents. I think I'm one of thousands of people--including right here on this board--for whom Spock has a much greater influence than the gospels (I checked the Bible, but "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is suspiciously absent).

Since I found faith that rewards me in this life, I have to point out a logical thing. If there is no god, and after we die there is nothing. Then I as a man of faith have lost nothing. However if it IS true, then I have gained so much, and those who do not believe in a afterlife have lost a lot.

Pascal's wager... logic fail, considering you fail to take into account the possibility of choosing the WRONG faith and being sent to somebody else's hell. You and I stand to suffer the same potential losses if we don't pray to Allah five times a day, OR we could get sent to hell for not joining the Jehovas Witnesses and failing to be among the 144,000 chosen survivors.

And you must also consider the possibility that God might be cue, and your faith is a vast cosmic joke at your expense.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Besides, pitbull is not a breed by the way and they have better temperament than the beagles.

I know that, and the American Kennel Club has known that for a century. But not everyone else does, and there are alot of people out there who believe "the enzyme" theory that pitbulls are just naturally vicious.

the dogs that are trained to killed people are not pitbulls.

Yes they are. Pitbulls are very easily trained, easier than most dogs in fact. It's another reason they're so commonly used as fighting/attack dogs. Damlations and German Shephards have this feature too, although Shephards are harder to train to violence (less interested in pursuit) and Dalmations are harder to train by amateurs (too interested in pursuit).

Now you are talking Pascal's Wager, which you must realize is the dumbest reason to believe anything.

Besides, knowing that this life is the only one that we all know for certain that we are going to have makes it infinitely more valuable, and lets us live it to the fullest. Living for an afterlife diminishes that. So don't generalize non-believers as "having lost a lot" because I think we actually gain a lot.

Well there nothing particularly "dumb" about Pascal's gambit

Yes there is. It assumes a binary choice (either A or B) in a non-binary situation (either A or B or C or D and/or E and/or F or G).

It breaks down like this:

If you're right (big if) and I live my life as a Christian and you live as you see fit, then at the ends of ours respective life's we have each lived the life we choose. At best you've lose nothing, but then your choice has also gained you nothing.

Partially true, except that non-Christians get to fornicate, imbibe alcohol on sundays, eat meat on fridays, blaspheme, gamble, lie cheat and steal without remorse. That's a lot of potential gain right there.

But if you're are in fact wrong, you have much to lose and I am the one who stand to gain a lot...

And this is where it falls apart, but neither you nor Pascal ever consider the enormous possibility that BOTH of you are wrong and you're BOTH going to hell for not worshiping Allah.

I'm sure Q finds this especially funny.

 

[Distorted Humor]

I for one do not drink, generally do not cuss, and waited till marriage, while before I became religious I drank, Cussed, and didn't wait.

now that I am older I know I not missing much on the Drinking, Cussing, and waiting.

That, and people of my faith live 10 years longer on average then those outside my faith, so right there is a measurable improvement in life.

( LDS females live 5.8 years longer then non LDS females, and LDS males live 7.3 years longer then non LDS males. And even when you remove the smokers, it only accounts for about 1.5 years of the 7.3 year difference for males and 1.2 years of the 5.8 year difference for females. )

http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol10/3/10-3.pdf

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yea that is just a statistic, and it was done with a bias. There is no demonstrable, measure ale benefit of religion that requires religion and is something that could one achieved secularly.


I wish you would respond to the Pascal's wager bit

 

[Distorted Humor]

Yea that is just a statistic, and it was done with a bias. There is no demonstrable, measure ale benefit of religion that requires religion and is something that could one achieved secularly.


I wish you would respond to the Pascal's wager bit

It is a peer reviewed study, That study only noteworthy issue is looking at non-smokers, as it was assumed that LDS had longer lives due to not smoking, when it turns out there are other benefits due to other practices. and i was referring to the code that LDS is brought up to has measurable benefits (Longer life) and thus is really a no cost.

As i said, I am not going to covert you over a message board, but I live my life according to a set of religious rules, and sure, you can do that secularly, but I doubt many people would or could live up to a LDS level without a religious backing, both in willpower and also in community.

So,

I follow the Pascal Wager, and the faith required gives me longer life, thus costs nothing. (It is a fair trade even without any hereafter benefit) so thus, it a good wager.

and this ignores any unmeasurable benefits, ranging from happiness, community, or just philosophical thought.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

`Hey ill respect most of what you said, save for the following

but I doubt many people would or could live up to a LDS level without a religious backing, both in willpower and also in community.

I believe people are good and live good lives, and they don't need the crutch of religion or anything else to do it. Morality is learned by just treating people right..

 

[Distorted Humor]

`Hey ill respect most of what you said, save for the following

but I doubt many people would or could live up to a LDS level without a religious backing, both in willpower and also in community.

I believe people are good and live good lives, and they don't need the crutch of religion or anything else to do it. Morality is learned by just treating people right..

If you had a secular group that agreed to meet the standard, sure. But part of the LDS is the community, so you would need that community to be there, and in history, it rare for such a community to exist without religion. Community both in mutual support to maintain the standard, but also a community of "Saints". Hard to explain unless you see it in action (And utah prob not the best place, as there a lot of Pride in Utah ) Secular group could do it, but I don't know one historically that has for any amount of time.

That might be a better way to put it.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

See, I don't believe in "standards" any more than I believe in governing dogmatic rules or beliefs. That being said the ATheist Community of Austin has members from all walks of life, gays lesbians, etc and they do fundraisers and they feed the homeless, and they do that without the need to preach before giving out the sandwiches,

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I for one do not drink, generally do not cuss, and waited till marriage, while before I became religious I drank, Cussed, and didn't wait.

now that I am older I know I not missing much on the Drinking, Cussing, and waiting.

Older people seldom do.

That, and people of my faith live 10 years longer on average then those outside my faith, so right there is a measurable improvement in life.

And the fact that Mormons overwhelmingly tend to be from white upper-middle class families surely has nothing to do with that.

 

[Distorted Humor]

I for one do not drink, generally do not cuss, and waited till marriage, while before I became religious I drank, Cussed, and didn't wait.

now that I am older I know I not missing much on the Drinking, Cussing, and waiting.

Older people seldom do.

That, and people of my faith live 10 years longer on average then those outside my faith, so right there is a measurable improvement in life.

And the fact that Mormons overwhelmingly tend to be from white upper-middle class families surely has nothing to do with that.

Worldwide, Most mormons are these days spanish or Portuguese speaking and live south of the border . But yes, we still have a lot of White Middle class in the US, but outside of Utah you would be surpised on how it wouldn't meet your normal exceptions.

 

[Distorted Humor]

See, I don't believe in "standards" any more than I believe in governing dogmatic rules or beliefs. That being said the ATheist Community of Austin has members from all walks of life, gays lesbians, etc and they do fundraisers and they feed the homeless, and they do that without the need to preach before giving out the sandwiches,

Well thats fine, but I don't mind standards...

that and LDS does not preach to those receiving our (sizable) aid, we just ask that they volunteer to give back.

Shrugs, as I said, I am very happy where I am at, I live in peace, and I hope you have peace as well, and I know some don't need faith to find peace, and none of us know till we are on the other side

 

[Paradon]

I think people need to feel something more than just being alive. We NEED to believe in something...and this where religion come in to fill the void...to fulfilled spiritual need. It said man has hole in his heart. He keeps yearning for more until there is no more.... This is called greed. This is what get people in trouble all the time, according to Buddha. God is powerful metaphor for people...good always trumps evil. What is there to stop someone from killing people because of greed if he doesn't believe? Nothing!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I disagree on all points but I'll start with this: even if we needed to believe something, wouldn't you want to believe in as many true things and as few false things as possible? Why would you believe in something that might not even exist, something in this case probably doesn't exist because it is logically contradictory?

Believing in something just because it feels comforting or good is not a good reason. Even heroin feels good for a while. Believing in something because of cultural indoctrination is also not a good reason.

The only reason to believe something is because it's likely to be true, regardless of how pleasant it is. The only way to discern fact from fantasy is to use things like reason and evidence, not appeals to emotion, or thinking "well I can't think of a reason that we are here, so I'll say that pthe reason must be God". These are not pathways to truth, and even if they are comforting, that comfort won't last.

 

[T'Girl]

the prospect of an afterlife has not been demonstrated to be true.

Nor proven to be false.

Faith is not a pathway to truth.

But is the pathway to salvation..

Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic

While Pascal intended his gambit to apply to Christianity , it's logic actually works with any faith where the individual is judged and there is an afterlife split between a positive and a negative existence, so includes Judaism, Islam and others. It also works with certain interpretations of Karma (Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh philosophies), if one sows goodness, one will reap goodness. So even if you believe that Karma is nonsense, why not sow goodness just in case?

If there really was a God who was all powerful, he could see through the facade of "Oh, I'm going to believe in God, because it could be right

Now you might be falling to the same mistake that many atheists do, that you somehow have to be a perfect Christian to be one at all. We're imperfect Humans and your acceptance of God might be imperfect as well, it not unusual for some Christian to struggle with their faith. We all can do just the best we can.

Now if you are total disingenuous and insincere, no just going through the motions like a mercenary won't work. But if you do imperfectly open yourself to accepting God into your life then yes it will work.

Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well.

Not true in the least. I've meet many Christians and people of other faiths, who never set foot in a house of worship. Similar with the money, contributing money is an option, I contribute time and gasoline instead (senior meals on wheels).

.

Partially true, except that non-Christians get to fornicate . People of faith have sex inside of marriage.

imbibe alcohol on sundays . I do that.

gamble . I do that too, admittedly not much.

eat meat on fridays . Fish and vegetables are good for you.

blaspheme . Crude and sloppy language is an advantage how?

lie cheat and steal without remorse . But not without consequence, even in the secular world.

And the fact that Mormons overwhelmingly tend to be from white upper-middle class families surely has nothing to do with that.

Mormons also apparently have an unusually low suicide rate. That should bring the life span statistic up a few points.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim, in this case, whoever claims that there is an afterlife, otherwise I'd be trying to prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist.