Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I was going for a walk today and I decided I have to post about this somewhere. Since we have a whole forum for this kind of stuff here, I guess this is as good a place as any.

I must admit I have a problem with conviction, that one "knows" things are a certain way. (I believe it was AgentOpaque who said "I know, or if you prefer, I believe...") I have nothing personal against it, and no comments herein are directed at anybody in particular, or even any particular group. If you have strong feelings about a deity or your religion, that is fine and I have no problem with it, that is, I wouldn't like you any less for it and I will not try and "convert" you as, indeed, I have nothing to convert you to. From here I will address my points to a theoretical "you", for the purposes of rhetoric. I repeat, none of this is directed straight at anybody, not even you, the reader, but a different "you": a rhetorical figure.

The basic question here is this: other people have other beliefs, some of which may contradict yours wildly. Some people assert there is no God as strongly as the best televangelist will assert there is. Some couldn't care less about monotheism at all and feel cows are sacred. And many people hold these convictions at least as strongly as you hold yours. Oppressed Buddhist monks in Vietnam immolated themselves; members of other religions become martyrs in the name of religious freedom. I'd say these are very strong convictions! It would not be enough to assume that these convictions are formed on faulty bases, because many such people have thoroughly researched their own religion and found evidence to support their viewpoint. What, then, makes your convictions more valid than theirs?

Bear in mind I'm not ridiculing anybody's beliefs. I am saying that it's possible to take them too seriously. (Telling somebody that they're going to Hell because they don't believe such and such is probably taking it too seriously.) I don't wish to show that "such and such belief is baloney", nor even that "feeling so strongly about this is stupid", but I do hope to show that such-and-such belief isn't really any more likely than an alternative belief, as it's all I can logically conclude (I'm willing to accept other logical conclusions, but I don't think there are any!). I'm not saying anybody here should change -- in certain cases I might think it'd be nice if they did, but that's irrelevant as it is not what I hope to gain from this. Rather, I hope to gain understanding, though I do hope to promote understanding in others.

I have more to say, and I do have a particular direction in mind for this discussion (if we don't get horrendously side-tracked), but I think I've said more than enough to get this ball rolling. Now I will address "you" the reader again, rather than "you" the rhetorical figure. What are your feelings of this? And if you do have convictions, why do you feel so strongly about them? And if you don't have any, why not? (I bet you didn't expect that one. )

(Keep in mind I do NOT want to get into long discussions about the Bible here, unless they are very relevant and this is unlikely. How can you say "God said such and such" if you can't prove God exists? And if you have the conviction that he does, well, the burden of proof is on you...)

- Kef

I believe what I believe simply because it makes the most sense to me. Although I could never claim to be certain about it (I don't think anyone can make that claim, whatever their belief), I'm fairly sure that there is/are no god(s).

I can understand why others believe other things. Firstly, they may have used a different form of logic to come to a different conclusion. I personally believe any such logic to be flawed - but I'm sure most theists would say the same about my opinions, so we're even.

Secondly, outer influences can have a huge effect on your beliefs - if I hadn't grown up in a community full of atheists, I doubt that I would ever have questioned my faith; conversely, in America, the Christian majority is so overwhelming that it's hard not to take on a theist point of view. You could call this being open to other ideas, or you could call it submitting to peer pressure (I prefer the former), but whatever you call it, it works both ways.

I think that's all I have to say....

So you agree with the essence of what I said?

Pretty much, yes.

Kef, I think we'd all be pretty foolish to disagree with you...everything you've said makes sense. You're right in thinking that no one belief is superior to another, at least on a human scale...
For argument's sake, even though I'm Christian, I'm going to use another religion for this explanation to be fair...

Let's pretend for a moment that the real and true religion is, oh...Polytheism, and the head God is Zeus, as the Greeks believe....now let's say that Zeus would be pretty p.o.'ed if we believed in anyone else...so those Christians that believe in Jesus Christ (and anyone that believes anything else) are, well, screwed...other humans who actually believe in Zeus really shouldn't condemn the Christians, but the final decision of condemnation lies with Zeus.

With this analogy comes my point - humans don't have the right to condemn others based on their religion - I know you didn't want Bible verses, Kef, but I'm going to use one anyway, because I think it's relevant to ANYONE; "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (Don't remember the chapter, sorry...) We as humans have NO RIGHT to judge others based SOLEY on religion or lack thereof (and while we're at it, Sexual Orientation, race, sex, age, financial background, etc., etc.) The only one who can do that is God (whoever He may be, whether it is Buddah, Jehovah, Krishna, or Zeus, or Bob, or whoever).

_________________

I don't mind that one. The shoe fits.



I could argue with that: "rights" are human inventions and therefore we don't really have them, nor do we really lack them. But that's a bit of a semantics game. I do agree that to judge in such a manner is silly and anybody who does so deserves what they get for it. But there are issues other than condemnation of others to consider, though admittedly lesser issues.



Erm, the Buddha is not a deity (except in very esoteric Hindu sects, and even then quite a lesser one I'm sure), but OK.

- Kef

My bad - goes to show you just how little I really know about other religions - which is why I personally refuse to say that mine is "better" than "your's" (I'm using your "rhetorical you", Kef ). Perhaps with these types of discussions, I can learn more about others' relgions.....and then I'll really be able to shoot 'em down! Kidding, of course.

_________________

While I agree with your post as a whole, I just have to nitpick a small point:



The Greeks no longer believe in Zeus and the pantheon of gods that went with him. That particular religion was proven wrong ages ago.

I think she meant ancient Greeks. And in any case, I think it's still as relevant as any other religion. Some religions go out of fashion; does that change their objective truth?

She couldn't have meant ancient Greeks if she was talking in the present tense. I wasn't protesting against her choice of hypothetical religion, I was just pointing out that her facts were slightly wrong. That's all.

Yeah, it's not necessary to nitpick semantics. And the system in question wasn't "proven wrong" any more than Christianity has been "proven wrong". As kef said, it simply went out of fashion.

_________________

I was only picking a different religion than my own, so that my argument would seem unbiased...that was the first thing that popped into my head.

_________________

Not semantics. I was pointing out an error in the facts (as Kef did with the mention of the Buddha). There's a difference.



Didn't the ancient Greeks believe that the gods lived atop Mount Olympus? I assumed that it had been proven wrong on those grounds...

In any case, the point is that those gods aren't worshipped any more, which was what I was saying in the first place.

You're completely missing the point. It was purely hypothetical. Hypothetical = NOT FACTUAL.

But the religion she used is real (or was real a few centuries ago), and I was just pointing out a single error. That's it. No need for argument.

Yeah, one being an error in understanding, another being an error in phrasing. Correcting the latter isn't as important as the former.

- Kef

I concur alongside you.

_________________

Not that phrase again.