The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion [Archive]

Lockeownzj00

01-06-2007, 03:52 PM

You need to have convictions or you are empty.

What are you implying with this statement? I fail to see how an atheist can't have convictions.

ZAK, have you ever had to decided to believe in something that cannot be proved to another person?...I can't tell how I have felt strength to continue on when all of my own had dried up. Finding a belief and having a conviction is something that isn't necessarily rational or explainable.

First of all, if we're truly going to debate this, we need to clearly delinate our language. First you use faith as a belief of some kind, then as some sort of strength imbued upon you, and I'm not quite sure what either means.

But anyway. This is a tenuous argument in favor of religion. The idea that that God can not be "proven" or "disproven" is mythical: for example, there is no such thing as a non-alchemist. Why do we not say this? Because alchemy is not a system of beliefs or ideas that needs to be "proven or disproven," it is inherently flawed and therefore tossed out of the equation. My goal in saying this is to first prime the idea that religion is not exempt from these logical processes. This is also why atheism isn't "just as much of a belief" as religion is. It is the lack of belief. Bald is not a hair color.

What's even more ironic is that religious people use reasoning, explanation, and logic to explain their reasons for believing. So the entire concept that somehow a deductive belief isn't deductive is ridiculous. The concept of faith is pretty much a massive intellectual cop-out and joke.

I wrote this up a while ago. It's long as dick. I'll just paste the first section, wherein I attempt to prove that the universe is infinite and thus 98% of all religious ideology is wrong. Just scratches the surface, kinda. But whatevs.

~~~~
Suppose we were to take a rock. A nice, big one. Let’s make it an orange rock, so it stands out.

Suppose we were to take that rock, and send it off into space, right outside the orbit of the Earth.

Now let’s suppose that we kill every human being—nay, every sentient being in the universe with some device, except you.

Does the rock still exist?

Yes, of course it does. Let’s take it a step further. Let’s kill you, too. You commit suicide from the loneliness.

Does the rock still exist?

This is the easiest way to poke a gaping hole in religion and religious ideas. I have a feeling that most people trying to answer this question might change their answer a few times, but it’s the same principle as “If I die, does Europe still exist?”

As human beings—finite creatures with beginnings and endings—we tend to personify our traits on the world at large. Pragmatically speaking, this is fine: in social contexts, things begin and end (relationships, friendships, jobs); in construction things begin and end (buildings are built and torn down); in art the physical piece is created and exists till destroyed; essentially every facet of our lives follow this pattern.

We come across a problem when we attempt to apply this logic to the universe. ‘The universe exists, and therefore, had to have begun, and must, at some point, end.’

But if we return to our original analogy of beginning and end in social context, we will realise where this leap in logic comes from: for a building doesn’t truly cease to exist, it merely changes states. The physical structure has become a pile of rubble and ash, and socially, the buildings purpose (whatever it may have been—hospital, office, etc.) has vanished. Socially, it is important to delineate the difference between friends and non-friends, but the relationship never truly ceased to exist; even if you were to sever ties with the person, you would be in a state of non-communication, rather than “nothing.”

Pragmatically, it would be pointless to clarify that the building merely changed states every time it came up in conversation.

But when we discuss philosophy we can’t be so banal—we must be very judicious about our word choice. So as a friendship doesn’t truly end, neither does the universe.

Let’s go back to the rock.

You’re alive again, and the shining orange rock is still floating listlessly in space. Now we kill you. The rock still exists, right? And will continue to exist—existence is not precluded by sentience. That is to say, an object doesn’t need to be observed to exist. If the human race (and all other theoretically existing life forms) were wiped out entirely, Earth would still be floating round, nebulae would still be spinning furiously (or however it is nebulae spin), meteorites would still streak through the sky, and so on and so forth. And it would do so indefinitely. Even if by some random event a massive explosion destroyed every galaxy in the universe (a preposterous notion, really), the universe—existence—would have merely changed states.

So if the universe continues indefinitely in one direction, why wouldn’t it in the other? Indefiniteness does not have a “beginning.” Indefiniteness is forever.

The universe exists, has existed, and always will exist.

What is readily observable is that human beings, as finite organisms, view life through a filter. We begin, we end—why shouldn’t everything else? We struggle with our sentience and intelligence as a unique animal which is truly aware of its surroundings. It is understandable: an animate object, no matter how hard it conceivably tries, can never understand what it is to be inanimate. Even when it becomes inanimate, it will not have the sentience to observe this non-existence. This is where the frustration arises.
~~~

no one will read my post if it's too long, so i'll post part 2 about why we should choose to believe on or the other later.

ZAKtheGeek

01-06-2007, 04:06 PM

I think I have an argument shorter and better than, "Why wouldn't it?" Basically, just consider conservation of matter and energy. Neither matter nor energy can be created, and they exist now. Since they couldn't have been created, they must also have existed a moment ago (or just beyond the span of this observation, it doesn't really matter). And again, since they can't have been created, they must have also existed before that, and by the same argument, before any point in the past you could choose. So, logically, everything has existed indefinitely into the past.

And by a similar argument, everything will continue to exist forever.

I know it can be fun to bash on narrowminded misconceptions, but when you get to the positive side of the argument, this probably works better.

Darth SS

01-06-2007, 04:26 PM

Religion in general upsets me because you get five groups of people.

1) People who genuinely believe their religion, practice fully, and use it as motivation to help others. They do good in the world, and I applaud them for that.
2) People who are fervent in the appearance of practicing their religion, and assume that they are somehow superior to the rest of us because they're so "devoted."
3) People who show up at their respective masses once a week, go through the motions and say the right things and the right times, all the while thinking "God I'm hungry. I should go and get a clubhouse after this." They then walk out and act as if they've been completely absolved of any kind of responsibility or wrong-doing.
4) People who believe their religion to the point of naivety. They think that their religion can solve absolutely anything, and if you have a problem, you need only convert. They'll try to push their religion on you in a good natured way, and all they think about is their own religion.
5) People who believe their religion to the point of violence. Their religion is better than everything else, and if you disagree then you can (and are) going straight to hell. They fancy themselves fire-and-brimstone preachers of old, but ultimately come off as crazy.

Now, for those of you that are wondering, here's my religious belief(s).

There is a God.
I don't know what he's told man, because man is fallible, and no holy text survives translation six times wholly intact.
However, to me, the fact remains, there is a God.

I don't give a flying fuck about Him.
-If I'm going to help someone, I'm going to help them specifically to help them, not to appease some greater being.
-Furthermore, the problems I have here down on earth are my problems. I've made them. I'm sure as hell going to deal with them. I don't mind help in some fashion, but at the end of the day it's in my hands and my hands only.
-Finally, and this is the big one, if I fault someone, and need forgiveness, I want the person I faulted to forgive me. I don't care if some great deity forgives me for faulting someone else. They are the one that was hurt by me, they are the one with the ability to forgive me.

In the end, I want to do good in the world specifically because the world needs some good done. I don't care if some great being is happy with it, I don't care about appeasing his arbitrary standards. I care about people.

Mirai Gen

01-06-2007, 04:51 PM

Un moderated, hmm? INSULT SLINGIN' TIME!

If anything gets Locke posting on this forum again, it's the Big Big Thread Of Religious Discussion. Sup bud!

Anyway.

My big question now that it's 'okay' to talk about this. Are there people who actually did the whole rebellion thing, and when they started and grew up as children of religion, did they 'grow out' of religion when they became adults? I'm honestly curious, because I've seen it happen for so many people and yet I don't have enough religious friends to see this sort of thing happen.

Okay, let's stir the pot of this UnMod thread a little better.

Personal beliefs: I'm entirely too adamant about science having reasonable and perfectly legitimate explanations for how things work and why and what's happened to create where we are now to assume some big spooky father figure 'up there' beyond space actually did it all for me 'cause he could.

That should spice things up a bit.

Loki, The Fallen

01-06-2007, 04:52 PM

Hate to start poking holes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death

So... you see... even your orange rock eventually will cease to exist. All we'll be left with (In theory mind you, as all of this science stuff is theoretical) is this massive expanse of photons. Thats pretty darn close to nothing.

So... in theory, the universe has an end.

And referencing creationism, at least in the Bible, we see that:

1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Hey, couldn't this be done from a previous heat death or something? (Well, according to the whole Entropy theory thing, the beginning of the universe was a bit different... ah well, I try.)

This was just about 10 minutes of looking up the little I remember from my Indoctrination Center days, who knew it�d come in handy!

So really, I enjoy the show. Please continue. :D

Darth SS

01-06-2007, 04:57 PM

Just touching briefly on Loki's post...

Just because there's nothing in the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It hasn't ended anymore than a child's sippy cup ends because there isn't any milk in it.

Back to Mirai;

I was a good little catholic boy until about four years ago.

I wouldn't say that I grew out of it. I'd say it's more that I discovered the world, and then discovered that I'd essentially been lied to my whole life. You hit a point where you either make your religion fit what you now know, or you realize your religion doesn't fit with what you now know and you abandon it.

I chose option B.

Mirai Gen

01-06-2007, 05:04 PM

Back to Mirai;

I was a good little catholic boy until about four years ago.

I wouldn't say that I grew out of it. I'd say it's more that I discovered the world, and then discovered that I'd essentially been lied to my whole life. You hit a point where you either make your religion fit what you now know, or you realize your religion doesn't fit with what you now know and you abandon it.

I chose option B.
Thanks for answering my question, but somehow I get the distinct feeling you're overglorifying this...I can understand that as you're going along, and you stop and think about it, you go, "Oh, wow, that totally makes no sense." The theoretical homosexual who doesn't even think about straight and gay until the subject is brought up.

But I can't shake the feeling that "Been lied to" is a bit unfair. The religious tell you what the truth is to the best of their abilities, and if you're in a catholic household, that's the truth to them. I also might be a bit sensitive about the issue, because I think that there's a substantial difference between "The truth you know" and "being lied to" are different on drastic degrees.

See this is why I'm very hesitant to carry on very long into religious discussion in general. It almost always ends up with "Truth is in the eye of the beholder" being the best arguement slung around, and that makes a really irritating debate.

grunthork

01-06-2007, 05:04 PM

I believe in my religion because of faith alone. Most people ( I believe) do not think of religion the way i do. Faith is NOT based on fact, or logic as we know it. It is not trying to explain the universe. It is simply believing in something, and many times ,you dont know why you believe in it. I can't put my faith into words, but i will just say that it's a belief that i developed by myself, it doesn't explain the world, but it is based on feelings i have. I believe what i believe. No need to make it more complicated than i already have.

Darth SS

01-06-2007, 05:09 PM

Well, if you're told that apples are blue your whole life, then it's true that apples are blue.

Then you're told that apples are red. If you believe that, then you have been lied to your whole life.

That's...that's pretty much what happened. I mean, I have this friend named Ryan. Great guy, incredibly catholic. He just chose to believe that apples are blue, and that red apples was the lie.

Does this make what I think, or believe true?

Well, no. As we were taught in Theory of Knowledge, you can subjective truth, or you can have absolute truth.

Ultimately, religion should be an absolute truth in that it's either real and right, or it's not. No means of perception changes that truth.

Really, we're all just rolling the dice and hoping that our subjective truth and the absolute truth are the same thing.

Elminster_Amaur

01-06-2007, 05:35 PM

What do I believe? Well, you could say that I'm a Buddhist Christian. Why do I classify myself like that? Well, Upon inspection of the religious texts of most of the major religions (for these purposes, we're going to say Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Daoism), and a few writings of those considered to be the most "experienced" at their religion throughout the ages, it's obvious that they are all using the same techniques to bring about the same feeling of inner peace and have only been differing on the language used to describe it. Even science is starting to say the same things, in yet another variation of words. So, I have tried to see what, exactly, it is that they're trying to say.

This is what I've come up with from my readings and experimentation with some of the techniques the Shaolin developed for those purposes(ie. not the techniques they developed to become better fighters):

1. There is only one source of thought in the entire universe/all planes of existance.
2. That source is known by many names: God, the Dao, the Undifferentiated Energy Field, Allah, Yvwh(sp), the Universal Mind, etc.
3. The cause of suffering is the fragmentation of the Universal Mind.
4. Meditation and Prayer can help bring you back into union/communion with God/the Universal Mind.
5. Thought is the creative force in this universe, since everything else tends toward chaos.
6. Everyone is a part of the whole, and yet only a small fraction. Loneliness arises from the belief that you are a separate being.

I'm sorry for the length, but that's what I've read from what they're saying. It is my belief that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" is a metaphor for returning your mind to a state of one-ness with "God", since Jesus used metaphors for nearly everything. (He was one of the first people to use metaphors for teaching the pschizo people of that time).

Mesden

01-06-2007, 05:38 PM

My big question now that it's 'okay' to talk about this. Are there people who actually did the whole rebellion thing, and when they started and grew up as children of religion, did they 'grow out' of religion when they became adults? I'm honestly curious, because I've seen it happen for so many people and yet I don't have enough religious friends to see this sort of thing happen.

My parents and the majority of my family are staunchly Catholic.

I, and my younger brother are not.

I'm a Deistic Agnostic and he is an Atheist. My parents have frequently told us we're on the wrong path, etc, but we both sort of realized that there's no way what we've been told is true.

And what that was is that A: God is somehow perfectly Omnipotent and Omniscious. That statement alone vastly contradicts oh so much in the religious belief.

B: That 'God' is all loving. There is no way. At all.

C: The entire concept of Heaven and Hell.

D: More than I care to go on about -- but that happens to be some of the biggest reasons.

As far as Agnosticism goes, I'm kind of inclined to believe that, hell, the idea of a high being above ourselves isn't absolutely farfetched, even though it isn't proven or anything, and that the "Universe was always here" kind of irks me in the meanst of something can't just be there without some rhyme or reason -- that's saying matter was just there to begin with, and therefore didn't come from anywhere. Kind of an odd sounding reason to me, when you say it comes from somewhere, but it was just always there.

Same Logic for God, Really. He was just always there, right? The questions of "How did God Get there...? He was...just there? That makes no sense. How?" plagued me throughout my entire childhood of church going.

So, call it uncertainty and privatism of that as well. I pretty much respect all religious views (Or lack thereof) from the absolute neutral standpoint. =)

Azisien

01-06-2007, 05:38 PM

*jumps in sword swinging* (By the way, I think this thread is a fundamentally bad idea)

Hate to start poking holes...

...

...

This was just about 10 minutes of looking up the little I remember from my Indoctrination Center days, who knew it�d come in handy!

This doesn't invalidate Locke's argument. While I easily side with science over religion, any good scientist should know well it is a continual work in progress and to put it bluntly and in context, that our understanding of cosmology is NOT concrete at this point.

I have about 1200 pages of books on my bookshelf consisting of what is largely speculation about the creation of the universe, the nature of time, and the "death" of the universe. Heat death is part of the dozens of possible valid explanations, though there is very, very little theoretical evidence to support any of these theories and no experimental evidence to do so.

There is also a case for, lacking a better word, "reserves" of energy beyond our (current) scope of measurement. Matter is energy, it's a matter of states as Locke said, and the astronomical energy that fuelled the big bang and continuing expansion of the universe came from somewhere. I won't go into the mechanics of it, but there is some theoretical work that's been done on this.

As far as I'm concerned, dismissing logic and reason means a discussion about religion is largely futile. I view God as a reason for why the Sun comes up every morning. Actually, that was the reason the Sun came up every morning, long before the Torah, Bible, or Koran were written. Thanks to empirical science, we know why the Sun comes up every morning.

Some of the folk who cling to their religion with the above reasoning are then forced to retreat. All right, so God doesn't bring the Sun up...He causes plagues though! Like tsunamis and eclipses and locust swarms! Well...actually there are logical, empirical explanations for all of these things. Retreat!

Eventually, they are forced to go where science has not yet gone. Someone right now who is religious might believe in general relativity, evolution, and all that jazz, but maintains that God caused the big bang, created the universe, created the fundamental forces of nature, and so on. Eventually, though quite likely not in my lifetime, science will find explanations for these phenomenon as well.

ZAKtheGeek

01-06-2007, 05:52 PM

Some of the folk who cling to their religion with the above reasoning are then forced to retreat. All right, so God doesn't bring the Sun up...He causes plagues though! Like tsunamis and eclipses and locust swarms! Well...actually there are logical, empirical explanations for all of these things. Retreat!
But then problems start happening when people refuse to retreat. They use the uncertainty inherent in all of science in order to maintain their own beliefs above mere "guesses."

TheSpacePope

01-06-2007, 05:53 PM

Ultimately, religion should be an absolute truth in that it's either real and right, or it's not. No means of perception changes that truth.
In a word, religion is about participation. When you participate in a religion, you focus you personal energy. This is definitively a good thing. As far as the contemporary belif structure, there have been too many religions borne of fear of the unknown and the search for truth to believe in any of them as a standard.

Absolute truth does not apply, because it implies absolute knowledge, which we lack. As a whole, the athiest movement on the boards is not wrong, per se, however, anyone that believes that their standard is "more correct" than any other is totally wrong. We all know that just because you cannot empirically prove something does not mean that it does not exist. As a matter of fact, the "my religion is better, and/or more right than yours" belif is jsut a cause for strife. It has been happening since the dawn of religon. Tribes slaughtered each other over different belif structures, just as the men of today do.
]s illusory as religon is, there is no reason at all to discount it as fallacy or fiction just because you do not share the same belifs as other people. It is my belif that humans all come from the same location, my belif being that we evolved, or were evolved by others, in the great rift valley in Africa. Then we split into our various tribes by migration and took on all of our unique characteristics. That actually fits into most creationists and intelligent design theories as well as the theory of evolution. We are no different biologically as our differences are categorized by skin deep differences as well as thought processes. So we all belive different things, there is not a reason in the world to be fighting over it.

IF you told Bhudda, Mohammed, Jesus, Zoraster, Voidivama, any of them, that the movements that they started would eventually lead to bloodshed, they'd have laughed and told you that we are all one, there is no reason to fight. I truly believe that. Prophets were gifted with a higher concentration, giving them more peace with themselves and their brothers. Thier teachings sought to stimulate that growth, not to stunt it. All organized relgion has it's problems. Modern Christianity was created in 325 Ad at the The Council of Nicea. And there are similar re-writes to all religons in all sects. The Sumerians believed that we were cloned by aliens. And in fact that the Garden of eden was a place set aside for these decendants, but Eve mixed her blood, (giving rise to the snake in the tree parable) diluting the strain and giving birth to modern man. They also believed that man all spoke one tounge, until the tower of Babel fell and there was a splitting of the tounges, ensuring that man couldn't come together without teaching one another first. There are many suce stories as this.

As far as anything goes, I think that Kharma is self-evident, and thus could be considered universal. There is mathematical equation that actually puts Kharma into a universal perspective. (i.e. Every action has an equal and opposite reation.) So you cannot blame Faith for anything, because Faith only serves to focus you as a spritual being. But as far as one "righteous" faith, you'd have to show me a faith where man had never murdered his brother in that Faith's name for me to adhere to it. I belive it is not who a man Believes in in His life, But What he believes in, and HOW he acts. All religious parables do is serve to give us guidance, but ultimately it is up to man to pick how to proceed. Do we destroy ourselves in the name of a God that we cling to, or do we grow together again, as we once did?

Some of you bring up good points, Darth SS, I actually think that we might agree on quite a few points. ZAC, do you beileve in asolute no-consequence existance? And Locke, I'm sure you are still an Altruist, so no problems there. And Nique, I have always admired your conviction when it comes to your faith. We as people can look beyond the bounds of our limited faith and bring each other together. As Deeprak Chorpa says, we are all illusions in each others realities, it is how you deal with these illusions that determines the heaven or hell of your reality.

ZAKtheGeek

01-06-2007, 06:06 PM

As a whole, the athiest movement on the boards is not wrong, per se, however, anyone that believes that their standard is "more correct" than any other is totally wrong. We all know that just because you cannot empirically prove something does not mean that it does not exist.
No, but we know there's no reason to believe in it. And if a contradictory idea is supported empirically, then there is reason not to believe it. Yet people still do. I think the problem many atheists have is precisely that: unbacked beliefs specifically contrary to backed ideas. It is indeed possible to be more correct, even in areas where the proof isn't near absolute.

ZAC, do you beileve in asolute no-consequence existance?
What does that mean?

Azisien

01-06-2007, 06:25 PM

As a whole, the athiest movement on the boards is not wrong, per se, however, anyone that believes that their standard is "more correct" than any other is totally wrong.

I disagree. I believe my, er, "belief" if you can call it that, is more correct than many others. However, it's scarcely my job to try and convince anyone of that, that's up to them and their personal evolution. I guess I'm an atheist with a fair load of liberal, but you've got your right to believe whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause detriment to others.

As a matter of fact, the "my religion is better, and/or more right than yours" belif is jsut a cause for strife. It has been happening since the dawn of religon. Tribes slaughtered each other over different belif structures, just as the men of today do.

Agreed, and I think it flows from my last paragraph as well as from your reasoning.

We all know that just because you cannot empirically prove something does not mean that it does not exist.

This is pretty much a negative proof fallacy - I've always likened it to a variation of the ad ignorantium fallacy. The form is slightly different from the archetypal one, but you're saying the same thing. Plus what Zak said.

I mean, I guess I haven't spotted any purple elephants under my bed, though I suppose there may be some purple elephants under my bed. There is absolutely no reason to believe this.

Mirai Gen

01-06-2007, 06:33 PM

I disagree. I believe my, er, "belief" if you can call it that, is more correct than many others. However, it's scarcely my job to try and convince anyone of that, that's up to them and their personal evolution. I guess I'm an atheist with a fair load of liberal, but you've got your right to believe whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause detriment to others.
The other end of the spectrum is the Inquisition, so I'm pretty cool with that theory.
I mean, I guess I haven't spotted any purple elephants under my bed, though I suppose there may be some purple elephants under my bed. There is absolutely no reason to believe this.
...Did you ever think there was a baker under your bed?

Red Fighter 1073

01-06-2007, 06:39 PM

You need to have convictions or you are empty.What are you implying with this statement? I fail to see how an atheist can't have convictions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I think Demetrius means when he said that is that you should have faith in what you believe or you "are empty".

Religion in general upsets me because you get five groups of people.
1) (Snipped)
2) (Snipped)
3) (Snipped)
4) (Snipped)
5) (Snipped)

Yeah, I think that you can believe in whatever the hell you want, its just that when you push your beliefs on other people. That's what I just can't stand. it's all fine and dandy that you are very religious, but just shut up about it, I don't believe in what you believe in, so stop converting me!

I also hate how easily offended people get when it comes to religion, like when stores put up Christmas decorations during the winter holidays. People have the right to do what they want. If you really dislike this, then just ignore the decorations instead of making a scene about and being all sue-happy.

Nique

01-06-2007, 07:11 PM

Whee! Response time!

What do you mean by, "functions?"

Physics, I guess?

It seems like kind of a leap of faith to go from "some people predicted some events" to God, Christ, divine interference and the afterlife. But I could be misunderstanding what you wrote.... I'm assuming this isn't exactly a main point. I mean, there's probably some accurate real-world information in Harry Potter books, but that doesn't validate anything else written in them.

What I mean is that if a 'miracle' like phrophesy is true, the question of 'how' comes around. Also the historical bit... And since I have reason to trust what the bible says in those aspects, then I guess I would belive it when it cites its sources also.

I don't belive in the 'afterlife', but that's a more specific point the thread may lean towards a little later.

I however will gladly watch this go to hell and have no part in it other than that.

Wow. Not even cautious optimisim? Well, better not get involved I guess... the stress might be bad for the baby.

What's even more ironic is that religious people use reasoning, explanation, and logic to explain their reasons for believing. So the entire concept that somehow a deductive belief isn't deductive is ridiculous. The concept of faith is pretty much a massive intellectual cop-out and joke.

I can't speak for everyone, but even though there is a certain amount of emotional attachment to my faith, it isn't something I've approached blindly or with vague definitions of what faith is. I guess, in your argument, that would make me having a deductive belife, but still wrong.

'Faith', to me, is like trust. Very literal. Do you trust someone who has been supportive to you? Someone who, to your knowledge, has never lied? You would have faith in that person to not lie to you, or to support you when they said they would, right? Faith in God is like that for me, becuase I find enough basis the Bible to believe that he exsists and that he cares about people.

The universe exists, has existed, and always will exist.

1. We're talking theory, in a way here. Aren't scientists still sort of figuring out the nature of the universe? I know that's simplified, and I don't mean to discredit current scientific belife... But we don't know how it works yet. Not really.

2. Regardless of how it (the universe) actually is, what belife in creation should really root itself in is the organization... how the universe is now. I mean, there are rational ways to work a creator into infinite exsistence. More important though, I don't think any rational person would claim to be able to explain from the scriptures all the technical aspects of how our universe got to be where it is now.

In the end, I want to do good in the world specifically because the world needs some good done. I don't care if some great being is happy with it, I don't care about appeasing his arbitrary standards.

Aren't these comflicting belifes though? I mean, if you belive in a creator, it stands to reason that his standards are actually natural or inherient to some goal?

We as people can look beyond the bounds of our limited faith and bring each other together.

I see no reason that this can't be a civil, even friendly disscussion. Everyone really has to be careful to leave biogtry at the door, though.

it's all fine and dandy that you are very religious, but just shut up about it, I don't believe in what you believe in, so stop converting me!

I also hate how easily offended people get when it comes to religion, like when stores put up Christmas decorations during the winter holidays. People have the right to do what they want.

So I can't talk about my potentially minority faith but I still have to endure the very religiously themed christmas music at the mall? Carolers at my doorstep? That sounds like a raw deal to me.

ZAKtheGeek

01-06-2007, 07:25 PM

Physics, I guess?
Well, if you're talking about laws of physics, then what you wrote doesn't make sense. These laws didn't "develop;" a fundamental assumption of science is that they have remained static for all existence. But to cut the semantics, believing that a being actively "set the rules" doesn't take you very far. I mean, if all this thing is defined as is the one that made everything and set the rules, then it doesn't satisfy the claims many religions make about their gods. It's still very possible that the being doesn't interfere with the actions in the universe, or that it even can; or that it cares or knows at all about us or even this planet. Hell, it might not even be observing the universe.

What I mean is that if a 'miracle' like phrophesy is true, the question of 'how' comes around.
Oh, certainly. But what I'm saying is that there's really no connection between that and any other Christian claims. Maybe the prophet was a psychic. Maybe a wizard did it. Maybe someone actively worked to make sure the prophecy was fulfilled. All crazy theories; nothing to base any major aspect of your life around...

Lockeownzj00

01-06-2007, 07:37 PM

So... you see... even your orange rock eventually will cease to exist. All we'll be left with (In theory mind you, as all of this science stuff is theoretical) is this massive expanse of photons. Thats pretty darn close to nothing.

So... in theory, the universe has an end.

That's still missing the point. Even those photons will break down and break down, etc. etc.; it's all the same. It can't become "nothing" in the strictest sense of the word, especially if, as you say, more things can follow this heat death.

To Mirai: Sam Harris uses the following argument. If we ever hope to advance in the most important ways in our society--in terms of dire things like stem cell research and physical religious conflict--we have to recognise that some sets of beliefs more accurately reflect reality than others. You're right that it's difficult to get people to agree, but ultimately, when it comes down to it, I think they can. These petty squabbles quickly become very important when we realize the implications. That is, religious debates aren't these timeless things that happen all the time and will never go anywhere: once we hit the wall with (again) stem cell research, we'll be forced to do something about it, and in that case, people will have to start recognising more cohesive logic.

I believe in my religion because of faith alone.

Mr. Harris, I give you the floor (full of typos from my feverish typing):

"But faith is an impostor. This can be readily seen in the way that all the extraordinary phenomena of the religious life--a statue of the Virgin weeps, a child casts his crutches to the ground--are siezed upon by the faithful as confirmation of their fath. At these moments, religious believers appear like men and women in the desert of uncertainty given a cool drink of data. There is no way around the fact that we crave justification for our core beliefs and believe them only becuase we think such justification is, at the very least, in the offing. Is there a practicing Christian in the West who would be indifferent to the appearance of incontestable physical evidence that attested to the literal truth of the Gospels? Imagine if carbon dating of the shroud of Turin had shown it to be as old as Easter Sunday, AD 29: Is there any doubt that this revelation would have occasioned a spectacle of awe, exultation, and zealous remission of sins throughout the Christian world?

This is the very same faith that will not stoop to reason when it has no good reason to believe. If a little supportive evidence emerges, however, the faithful prove as attentive to data as the damned. This demonstrates that faith is nothing more than a willingness to await the evidence--be it the Day of Judgement or some other downpour of corroboration. It is the search for knowledge on the installment plan: believe now, live an untestable hypothesis until your dying day, and you will discover that you were right.

But in any other sphere of life, a belief is a check that everyeone insists upon cashing this side of the grave: the engineer says the bridge will hold; the doctos says infection is resistant to penicillin--these people have defeasible reasons for their claims about the way the world is. The mullah, the priest, and the rabbi do not. Nothing could change about this world, or about the world of their experience, that would demonstrate the falsity of many of their core beliefs. This proves that these beliefs are not born of any examination of the world, or of the world of their experience. (They are, in Karl Popper's sense, "unfalsifiable.") It appears that even the Holocaust did not lead most Jews to doubt the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. If having half of your people systematically delivered to the furnace does not count as evidence against the notion that an all-powerful God is looking out for your interests, it seems reasonable to assume that nothing could. How does the mullah know that the Koran is the verbatim word of God? The only answer to be given in any language that does not make a mockery of the word "know" is--he doesn't.

A man's faith is just a subset of his beliefs about the world: beliefs about matters of ultimate concern that we, as a culture, have told him he need not justify at the present. It is time we recognized just how maladaptive this Balkanization of our discourse has become. All peretensions to theological knowledge should now be seen from the perspective of a man who was just beginning his day on the one hundredth floor of the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11th, 2001, only to find his meandering thoughts--of family and friends, of errands run and unrun, of coffee in need of sweetener--inexplicably usurped by a choice of terrible starkness and simplicity: between being burned alive by jet fuel or leaping one thousand feet to the concrete below. In fact, we should take the perspective of thousands of such men, women, and children, who were robbed of life, far sooner than they imagined possible, in absolute terror and confusion. The men who committed the atrocities of Setpember 11 were certainly not "cwoards," as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith--perfect[ faith, as it turns out--and this, it must finally be acknowledge, is a terrible thing to be."

Faith in God is like that for me, becuase I find enough basis the Bible to believe that he exsists and that he cares about people.

I will re-quote Mr. Harris:

This proves that these beliefs are not born of any examination of the world, or of the world of their experience. (They are, in Karl Popper's sense, "unfalsifiable.") It appears that even the Holocaust did not lead most Jews to doubt the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. If having half of your people systematically delivered to the furnace does not count as evidence against the notion that an all-powerful God is looking out for your interests, it seems reasonable to assume that nothing could. How does the mullah know that the Koran is the verbatim word of God? The only answer to be given in any language that does not make a mockery of the word "know" is--he doesn't.

1. We're talking theory, in a way here. Aren't scientists still sort of figuring out the nature of the universe? I know that's simplified, and I don't mean to discredit current scientific belife... But we don't know how it works yet. Not really.

No, we don't. Again we come to Occam's Razor. Which belief is more rooted in logical conjecture and verifiable evidence? If the only counter-argument you can propose is that our scientific knowledge is incomplete, than I have to respond that that's a very poor one: the fact that we boot-strapped ourselves up from the Wheel to nuclear energy should say something for the argument that we should hold our judgement because it's still not "done." Besides, even Stephen Hawking maintains that the universe is elliptical. So, so far it looks something like this:

*Stephen Hawking vs. Text written thousands of years ago.*

I'm gonna go with Hawking.

2. Regardless of how it (the universe) actually is, what belife in creation should really root itself in is the organization... how the universe is now. I mean, there are rational ways to work a creator into infinite exsistence. More important though, I don't think any rational person would claim to be able to explain from the scriptures all the technical aspects of how our universe got to be where it is now.

Rational in what sense? Please don't misuse words. I can also retcon and fancruft explanations for Metal Gear Solid 2's plot holes in seemingly "rational" ways, but these are entirely my creation and cease to be based off of any real observation or evidence at a certain point. So, no, you can't work them in "rationally," you can work them in "creatively."

I don't think any rational person would claim to be able to explain from the scriptures all the technical aspects of how our universe got to be where it is now.

I'd just like to point out some incongruity here:

Faith is NOT based on fact, or logic as we know it.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

As a whole, the athiest movement on the boards is not wrong, per se, however, anyone that believes that their standard is "more correct" than any other is totally wrong.

How so? Flat Earth is a worldview. Round Earth is more correct. We have to accept that certain belief systems are more logically flawed. Moral relativism is pointless and defeatist.

]s illusory as religon is, there is no reason at all to discount it as fallacy or fiction just because you do not share the same belifs as other people.

I'm not discounting it "just because" I disagree. Claiming that is a) circular logic, b) a fallacy itself. I am discounting it for more than binary reasons: because I truly believe it is sociologically harmful. And I think the evidence is on my side. Is that not reason enough? This idea of "ideological neutrality" is another cop-out that's been brought about by religious apologetics. Would anyone claim that we should be ideologically neutral about racism, or alchemy? Again: the concept in and of itself of persuading people toward truth isn't inherently flawed. It is not on this point that I have a problem with religious people--in a sense, we are both trying to do the same thing: project truth, which is a noble thing. Then, it simply comes down to dissecting the logic of each proposition: one clearly stands the test of time, and the other doesn't.

I guess I'm an atheist with a fair load of liberal, but you've got your right to believe whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause detriment to others.

I have some cognitive dissonance myself with stuff like that. Pragmatically, I don't go around trying to convince people. I have religious friends, and they in and of themselves cause little harm (though they obviously, at some point or another succumb to the pitfalls of religious illogic, usually with important decisions about their life). But simultaneously, I believe it's a problem of terrible importance, moreso with each passing day. Religion is a social indulgence--societies, groups of people, indulge in it. And on this large scale, it verifiably causes harm. In this sense I can't pretend it doesn't cause detriment. So it is, however, that I am but a 17 year old in New Jersey, and I can't do much of anything. I yield to Dawkins and Harris and the like for now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I think Demetrius means when he said that is that you should have faith in what you believe or you "are empty".

Ahh, I see.

Bob The Mercenary

01-06-2007, 07:49 PM

Just tossing something into the wind real quick.

The probable reason the Jews kept their faith during that time was that the Bible says somewhere in it that the Jewish people will always be in conflict and under oppression until the end of the world. They saw the holocaust as a confirmation of that scripture.

[Edit] What's even more ironic is that religious people use reasoning, explanation, and logic to explain their reasons for believing. So the entire concept that somehow a deductive belief isn't deductive is ridiculous. The concept of faith is pretty much a massive intellectual cop-out and joke.

The whole thing about logic and religion is that human logic can't be used to explain an eternal all-powerful being. People who use human logic and reasoning to explain religion will never win an argument. Try explaining the concept of the Trinity using human logic. This also applies to the whole "can he make a rock he can't lift" realm of thought.

Lockeownzj00

01-06-2007, 08:29 PM

Since when is logic divided into "human" and "non-human" logic? Seen any Trolls with Sudoku books lately?

So if the concept of the Trinity and religion was created by humans, it was necessarily created by said "human logic." So how is it exempt from the human methods of testing and falsification? Besides, how could you possibly claim to know that God somehow has his own special kind of logic? My guess is you used deductive reasoning: God is, or would be, a "special" entity, and therefore has to, or would have to, adhere to some kind of separate, "supernatural" line of thought. Except, you just used 'human' logic to determine that!

Where do we go from here? I don't know, because this line of reasoning is pointless.

Bob The Mercenary

01-06-2007, 08:35 PM

Since when is logic divided into "human" and "non-human" logic? Seen any Trolls with Sudoku books lately?

So if the concept of the Trinity and religion was created by humans, it was necessarily created by said "human logic." So how is it exempt from the human methods of testing and falsification?

If you can live forever in heaven without having to eat, drink, sleep, or even breathe, that constitutes a whole new set of rules in my opinion. Since it's definitely not logical to live forever without food.

The concept of the trinity and religion weren't created by humans.

notasfatasmike

01-06-2007, 08:40 PM

My goal in saying this is to first prime the idea that religion is not exempt from these logical processes. This is also why atheism isn't "just as much of a belief" as religion is. It is the lack of belief. Bald is not a hair color.
This is a common problem I run into in religious debates: people pretending there isn't a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is the "scientific position" of the two: that is, an agnostic does not believe there is a god, but would change their mind if provided with sufficient proof. This is what scientists do; assume something is not true until it is proven to be true.

An atheist, on the other hand, actively states that there is *no* god. For an atheist, the non-existance of god is a simple fact that no amount of evidence would change, much like the existance of god for a religious person. Either you're really an agnostic, or you're misusing the term atheist.

What's even more ironic is that religious people use reasoning, explanation, and logic to explain their reasons for believing. So the entire concept that somehow a deductive belief isn't deductive is ridiculous. The concept of faith is pretty much a massive intellectual cop-out and joke.

But here's the thing - in my experience, most religious people (myself included) *wouldn't* use logic to explain our reasons if those we were arguing against didn't demand it. Bob already touched on this briefly: the kind of logic that we use, which is inherently based in the natural world, cannot be used to explain the supernatural. Sure, we may have logic behind parts of our reasons, but primarily most religious people would say that they have had experiences in their lives in which they have felt the presence of something greater than themselves, something outside of the natural order for which they can find no other explanation for. The term "religious experience" didn't appear from nowhere. However, to the non-believer, someone who has never had such an experience, this argument holds no water, and rightfully so. (And in case you're wondering, yes, this is me saying that debate about religion is always going to be fruitless in terms of changing other people's minds. I'm still involving myself in this debate anyway.)

This does not, however, imply that there *aren't* logical reasons - it's just that I would be very surprised to find someone who truly and firmly believed in a religion without having experienced or felt something that was to some extent unexplainable.

*huge frickin' snip - hope you already read it!*
Your analogy, while clever, in no way, shape, or form *proves* that the universe is infinite. It suggests that it could be infinite, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, but such knowledge about our universe is literally outside of the realm of *possible* knowledge. I cannot imagine a way to prove that, in terms of time, the universe is finite or infinite, especially by scientific standards.

In regards to the quote from Sam Harris in your most recent post, his argument, as I understand it, is that since faith is an assumption about how the world works that is unprovable, it should be abandoned. Well, I've got news for you: if that's true, science should be completely abandoned as well, because it's based on the concept of causality, which is unprovable. Do I believe in causality? Absolutely. Is it provable? Absolutely not. Where's the difference?

(Also, I was impressed with his ability to pull some sort of Super-Godwin with that quote: he got in both the Holocaust AND 9/11! Boy, it's good to know that people are above using the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.)

To be honest and forthcoming, I'm probably only going to participate in this thread intermittenly (sp?), because as I said earlier, I really believe that such discussions are largely fruitless. I didn't mean to pick specifically on you, Locke, but you were the only person who had comments I really felt interested in commenting on at the moment.

Azisien

01-06-2007, 09:12 PM

In regards to the quote from Sam Harris in your most recent post, his argument, as I understand it, is that since faith is an assumption about how the world works that is unprovable, it should be abandoned. Well, I've got news for you: if that's true, science should be completely abandoned as well, because it's based on the concept of causality, which is unprovable. Do I believe in causality? Absolutely. Is it provable? Absolutely not. Where's the difference?

It's beyond unprovable, it's unobserved. At least with science, you have verifiable observation, and degrees of certainty. And if you must argue the subjective "religious experience" stuff, then it's objectively unobserved.

I have some cognitive dissonance myself with stuff like that. Pragmatically, I don't go around trying to convince people. I have religious friends, and they in and of themselves cause little harm (though they obviously, at some point or another succumb to the pitfalls of religious illogic, usually with important decisions about their life). But simultaneously, I believe it's a problem of terrible importance, moreso with each passing day. Religion is a social indulgence--societies, groups of people, indulge in it. And on this large scale, it verifiably causes harm. In this sense I can't pretend it doesn't cause detriment. So it is, however, that I am but a 17 year old in New Jersey, and I can't do much of anything. I yield to Dawkins and Harris and the like for now.

I suppose there's a problem of small tyrannies when it comes to it, yeah. Do we necessarily have to remove the entire belief system to get rid of the internal factors of that system that do cause harm?

If you can live forever in heaven without having to eat, drink, sleep, or even breathe, that constitutes a whole new set of rules in my opinion. Since it's definitely not logical to live forever without food.

The concept of the trinity and religion weren't created by humans.

I'm curious as to when you were last in heaven and lacking the requirements of food, drink, sleep, oxygen, and so on? Actually, yeah, these things were created by humans. I imagine by the humans who wrote all the biblical texts, from themselves and influences of the society around them at the time.

Bob already touched on this briefly: the kind of logic that we use, which is inherently based in the natural world, cannot be used to explain the supernatural.

Supernatural, like rain? (Which 10000 years ago, was probably supernatural to most humans). Supernatural like lightning? Supernatural like the sunrise and sunset?

ZAKtheGeek

01-06-2007, 09:18 PM

Your analogy, while clever, in no way, shape, or form *proves* that the universe is infinite. It suggests that it could be infinite, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, but such knowledge about our universe is literally outside of the realm of *possible* knowledge. I cannot imagine a way to prove that, in terms of time, the universe is finite or infinite, especially by scientific standards.
I've done that already. Post 24.

Also, both "atheist" and "agnostic" can mean a number of different things. Let's try not to get too caught up in semantics. Even though this is a religious discussion.

Lockeownzj00

01-06-2007, 10:03 PM

If you can live forever in heaven without having to eat, drink, sleep, or even breathe, that constitutes a whole new set of rules in my opinion. Since it's definitely not logical to live forever without food.

The concept of the trinity and religion weren't created by humans.

Okay. Who was it created by? And how do we know about it?

An atheist, on the other hand, actively states that there is *no* god. For an atheist, the non-existance of god is a simple fact that no amount of evidence would change, much like the existance of god for a religious person. Either you're really an agnostic, or you're misusing the term atheist.

This is an interesting delineation that I've never run into before. While I still disagree, I'm very interested in the idea; I've never heard this argument used.

Still, I think I'll side with Isaac Asimov on this one:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Functionally, I understand what you're saying, but what this boils down to is two things:

1) Socially, the difference is grand. People who tend to use the word agnostic simply tend to be much more forgiving to religion in a broad sense. This is why I would use the term atheist in my case, as Douglas Adams did--a self-professed "radical atheist" to clearly point out his position.

2) Semantics. Scientists are both of what you are saying; "if" evidence for God were to appear they'd readily study it, but it's the same as saying "if" evidence for Zeus appeared they'd study it, too. Scientists so strongly, strongly suspect that there is no God that it is pointless to say "agnostic" or "atheist" in this case, in which case I think it's a technicality.

the kind of logic that we use, which is inherently based in the natural world, cannot be used to explain the supernatural.

But you do use it to explain the supernatural. Any time you open your mouth and say anything even remotely in defense of religion, you are using logic, and negating your own argument.

Besides, this is a relatively recent concept. A thousand years ago, it was absolutely canonical to say that God was logical, God was science, and there was no separation between the two. So I think it's just demographically, sociologically obvious: it's just the fickleness of society (kind of like that joke about Communism).

most religious people would say that they have had experiences in their lives in which they have felt the presence of something greater than themselves, something outside of the natural order for which they can find no other explanation for.

Excuse me for being skeptical--so, the evidence for belief is people who think they feel "a presence" in themselves? First of all, this is so vague that there is barely any point in trying to counter it. I don't understand what any of that means.

You're telling me that a more likely explanation isn't the complexity of the human brain? The brain which we know, for a fact, that we can open up, and probe certain sectors to fuck with peoples' proprioception, making them think people are behind them when there's no one? Again, I'm siding with evidence.

Besides, I can only deduce that these people that "can't find any other explanation" for these phenomena are simply not thinking hard enough. People have been crediting euphoric rushes, water drip-drip-dripping, and strange noises in the house to the supernatural as long as we've been around. I can't really see why this is any different.

However, to the non-believer, someone who has never had such an experience, this argument holds no water, and rightfully so.

That's kind of a sad assumption. I have had a religious experience: I've taken LSD.

And I'm not joking. There was an experiment in the 60s when LSD was relatively uncommon. Our favorite Timothy Leary dosed half of his class with real LSD, and half with fake. Nobody knew what it was. The same amount of people from both groups reported that they had so-called "religious experiences." These rushes of feeling, this intense euphoria and astounding intellectual perspective is a natural process. Just like Out of Body experiences. The fact that the OBE effect can be achieved by pharmacology should completely put to rest the debate that it's a "supernatural" experience, because we cn clearly induce it when we want to and how we want to.

In fact, I just had a similarly "religious experience" after reading Asimov's The Last Question (http://adin.dyndns.org/adin/TheLastQ.htm) (I'm serious. I was like a child babbling after I read that story, simply uttering "oh my god" over and over again, pacing around my room).

I defy you to present me with unexplainable examples that go beyond hearsay. The James Randi Foundation is waiting on the line, too.

Your analogy, while clever, in no way, shape, or form *proves* that the universe is infinite. It suggests that it could be infinite, and I wouldn't argue otherwise, but such knowledge about our universe is literally outside of the realm of *possible* knowledge. I cannot imagine a way to prove that, in terms of time, the universe is finite or infinite, especially by scientific standards.

Scientific knowledge is frequently based on extrapolation. Indeed, many of our past advances in science were previously huge tracts of scientific gray area. If your only counter to my logical proposition that the universe is infinite is that you simply don't want it to be so, I can't accept that answer.

Like I said, I'm also pretty sure Stephen Hawking has talked extensively about time/space's elliptical nature, so I don't think I'm alone here.

(Also, I was impressed with his ability to pull some sort of Super-Godwin with that quote: he got in both the Holocaust AND 9/11! Boy, it's good to know that people are above using the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.)

It is such a terrible misfortune that you should paint Sam Harris as appealing to emotions. The catalyst to his book was 9/11, and addressing why religion is no longer an innocuous problem in the world today. Naturally, he uses it as the centrepiece for the book. I suggest you buy a copy of the book before you compare him to any of the dregs of society that publish alarmist novels.

Final note: I'd also like to call on forumites to stop damning this thread. It's high time for people to realize that debates can be had about religion that don't involve petty insults. So far it seems to be going fine. So don't JYNX it, yo.

phil_

01-07-2007, 12:09 AM

Hopfully helpful imput! Locke, here's a troll doing Sudoku, taken from that nifty short story you linked to. Spoilers will continue until I move on to my other imput, because I don't want to spoil the pattern of the story. Go read it, folks, if not for this argument, then for your enjoyment.The Cosmic AC surrounded them but not in space. Not a fragment of it was in space. It was in hyperspace and made of something that was neither matter nor energy. The question of its size and nature no longer had meaning in any terms that Man could comprehend.So, Man can no longer understand the manner of the Cosmic AC's existance. If they were capable of understanding, the Cosmic AC could have explained it to them. But the Cosmic AC presumably understands the way it exists. The logistics of its existance are beyond man, but known to itself.

This is what folks would like to convey when they speak of God's logic. God makes sense to himself, but the way he exists and operates can't be fully understood by humans, even if he tried to spell it out for us. It can only be understood by an almighty being who exists outside reality. That understanding is divine logic.

Now, probably unhelpful critisicm. I too have had religious experiences, notasfatasmike. I didn't even use drugs. But I don't consider them proof of God's existence. Self-hypnotic suggestion, wishful thinking, youthful optimism (like I ever had that); maybe one of those. But I no longer consider those feelings God's presence. But, yeah, non-believer, had those experiences, doesn't convince me.

42PETUNIAS

01-07-2007, 12:27 AM

An atheist, on the other hand, actively states that there is *no* god. For an atheist, the non-existance of god is a simple fact that no amount of evidence would change, much like the existance of god for a religious person. Either you're really an agnostic, or you're misusing the term atheist.

Well first, i might be wrong in this usage, but I've always used atheist as believing there is no god, and agnostic as someone who either refrains from belief, or from serious belief knowing that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Secondly, atheist is someone who will not believe in god no matter what evidence?! Is that a joke? There may be five people on earth, for any religon, who could look at all the evidence in the world and not feel doubt in their beliefs.

If Zeus came down from Mt. Olympus, lightning bolt clutched in his hand, dressed in a toga, followed by the entire set of greek gods, and then visited everyone on earth to deliver a set of extraordinary feats, then I, an atheist, would convert. Seeing this, you, seeing incredible evidence, would probably convert. Many, many, many religious people would convert. Does this mean I'm agnostic? By your definition, pretty much all of the world is agnostic, despite the fact that they feel very, very strongly that what they believe is correct, and are willing to live by their religon.

TheSpacePope

01-07-2007, 01:11 AM

As a whole, the athiest movement on the boards is not wrong, per se, however, anyone that believes that their standard is "more correct" than any other is totally wrong.I said that there is not a more correct religious viewpoint, because they are all attempting to define the undefinable. I thought we were talking religion, not science. You at most are taking it out of context. I am not here to dispute scientific fact. Empirical evidence is not required for the faithful. It is a matter of trust as Nique said. Again, it is just a statement that people should not look at their personal viewpoint as more correct as someone else when it comes to matters of the faith. It is fine that you think that they are wrong, but it doesn't make you more right than they are when you don't know how the final hand is dealt either. You simply cannot know, because you have not experienced the phenomenon, to use Asizens science to make the point. I know that you feel strongly about that, and you think that they may very well be deluding themselves, but that in and of itself is no reason to call them deluded. * perhaps deluded is to strong, this was not meant to be taken as an insult to anyone, jsut an observation* They believe what they believe, it is only when religion is used as a pretext towards violence that it no longer has anything to do with faith and falls into the realm of politics.

I'm not discounting it "just because" I disagree. Claiming that is a) circular logic, b) a fallacy itself. I am discounting it for more than binary reasons: because I truly believe it is sociologically harmful. And I think the evidence is on my side. Is that not reason enough? This idea of "ideological neutrality" is another cop-out that's been brought about by religious apologetics. Would anyone claim that we should be ideologically neutral about racism, or alchemy? Again: the concept in and of itself of persuading people toward truth isn't inherently flawed. It is not on this point that I have a problem with religious people--in a sense, we are both trying to do the same thing: project truth, which is a noble thing. Then, it simply comes down to dissecting the logic of each proposition: one clearly stands the test of time, and the other doesn't.
For the bolded part I will always love you. That is the exact statement that I am trying to make. That religion is supposed to be a noble cause, one to teach men how to treat each other and how to live. As for the red part, that seems a little slanted, just because I harbor no Ideological Bias, and do not judge people based on their religion, just as I do not judge based on race, that is hardly equal in comparison to racism or alchemy. Now I agree that both racisim and religion have caused evil. But it was not the pure idea of religion that caused these things. It was men. Not to pick on science again, but Science invented the atomic bomb, but we hardly are willing to give up science because it devised a way to kill us all, are we?
Nique, I believe that I owe you an explanation. I actually take offense to you calling this statement that I think that you took out of context bigoted. I want to soldify what this means. We as people can look beyond the bounds of our limited faith and bring each other together. That is more of a call for those of different faiths to stop laying waste to one another than an indictment of any particular belief. I believe that we can look past our differences and find what makes us similar. That is all I am saying, that ideological bias can have an effect on how we view things, as well as statements, I assure you that no offense was ment. Please do not throw the bigot word at me, that was uncalled for, and it is quite a hurtful word for me, given the fact that I do not judge anyone base on their race, religion, creed, anything. Like I said in my first post, I believe that we all came from the same fount, no matter how you believe that came to be, the evidence points to civilization rising in Africa first. I also believe that we can go back to all being one people if we could for once not argue about what is going to happen to us, (In the global sense, with the war and the killing and the ethnic cleansing and the whatnot) and focus on how we can rise above our differences. I never insulted your religion, I actually said that I admire your faith. No insult was meant by those words.
Also, I agree with Locke, I think that this IS going well. I want more input. Also I am really interested to hear what everyone's personal belifs ARE. That way we may come to a better understanding about each others faiths and belifs. I actually want to know Nique, what religion you believe in so that I may better understand what my error was in your eyes. I am interested. You seem to have a very strong faith, and I would like to know how you are focusing that energy.

Krylo

01-07-2007, 01:35 AM

you think that they may very well be deluding themselves, but that in and of itself is no reason to call them deluded. Indeed.

How many times have I been called deluded for my unwavering faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her hooves? Far too many, I shall wager. Simply because the non-believers, and those whom she does not favor, shall never be gifted with her numerous blessings does not mean she does not exist. Indeed, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, blessed be her hooves, lives with all of us (though not within us, that's just silly). Our beliefs are just as logical and valid as any other. We have faith that she is pink, and we know that she is invisible because we cannot see her.

How is THAT deluded?

TheSpacePope

01-07-2007, 01:50 AM

How is THAT deluded?
How does that sarcasm contribute to the discussion?
Are you indicting religion with your statement, or trying to be funny? I really am confused in this respect. I don't really take that as blatantly insulting, although I am sure quite a few others would.

I can only assume you were being sarcastic. Like I said, it does not matter what you believe in. As long as you are not hurting anyone by doing it, go ahead and worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What, in reverse gives you the right to call someones divine creator a Pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster even, that in of itself is a cop-out of a discussion. Putting someone's faith in a ridiculous light does not make you right in the least. That would be calling a 12th century doctor deluded because he thinks that tiny living things are on your insides and they are devouring you. (Which they did) Which was later proven. ( taking a bit of creative license here but hey...) So I guess that in the absence of definite proof then we should believe in nothing. I personally have never been to Europe, and therefore think that it is figment of the liberal media. I am sure those of you that claim to live in this "Europe" would disagree with me, but all I have is circumstantial evidence that you exist, sorry.
And just because I support other people's belief gives you very little right to insult it. (not that I care personally, you aren't insulting my belief structure.)
Not a fair way to discuss this matter though.

Blessed be her hooves Krylo. Blessed be her hooves.

Krylo

01-07-2007, 02:09 AM

Not a fair way to discuss this matter though. .
On the contrary. It's the ONLY way to discuss this matter. Attempting to use normal logic only leads to "Well, religion is illogical" or "All view points are equal." Only by presenting a viewpoint that is OBVIOUSLY inequal and then equating it to religion, can one even HOPE to make the point that... no, not all viewpoints are equal.

Like I said, it does not matter what you believe in. As long as you are not hurting anyone by doing itYour views are not the views of society, nor should they be. If I were to begin believing that a painting had a headache (an actual case of schizophrenia), I would be medicated until I no longer believed that the painting had the headache.

Why? Well there are many reasons. Firstly: So long as I am believing in things that are not real, these ficticious beliefs will paint my entire worldview, and cause me to act irrationally, and often in harmful manners.

Good examples range from people who think they're Cleopatra, to religious people who refuse to so much as talk to those who are not of the same faith.

Now, while it's entirely POSSIBLE to subscribe to false worldviews without causing MUCH problem, that doesn't make it actually healthy. Most children believe in the Boogey-man, for instance. And, this is, for the most part, harmless. They do a thorough search of their room before bed and they're fine. It, however, DOES interfere with their life in negative ways.

But, let us place this 'harmless' view on a wider spectrum. What if most of congress and the president believed in the boogey-man? What if they believed he would kill and eat children? Would there be strike teams of trained soldiers attacking closets? Would this 'harmless' belief quickly lead to a harmful reality? The answer, if history and current events (ahem, homosexuality, ahem) have taught us ANYTHING, is yes.

Secondly: There is always a chance that someone who is seeing, hearing, or believing in things that are not there will do something violent to themselves or someone else. What if that picture on the wall started telling our friend the schizophrenic that the only way to fix its headache was to kill himself? And repeated it over and over, along with how worthless he is? There's a good chance he's going to hurt himself.

On the same note, there are murderers and serial killers whose faith has perverted their world view enough to lead them to murder. I'm not even going to bother discussing Islam. No, let's hit closer to home. Such as the mentally disadvantaged boy from the mid 90's whose parents were siblings. He went to church and in church he heard that incest was a sin. A rather mighty sin. In response this boy killed his parents, and claimed that it was God's will.

Of course, you don't need to KILL someone for religion to be detrimental to other people. Take our dear friend Reverend Fred Phelps, for instance (www.godhatesfags.com). He believes himself to be doing God's work. Now, I could sit here and point out why, even IF there were a god, he would be terribly wrong--however, that particular debate hasn't been sparked yet. Instead, let me simply ask the readers here today what Phelps would be like were religion not around.

Religion is, and has been, a constant source of hate and strife just as much as it has been a source of hope and love. The Crusades. The Heresay Examinations. The Witch Trials. Great degrees of sexism. The villification and enslavement of the human sex drive--which leads to all kinds of other problems. Or even things as small as social ostracization and the splitting of society amongst invisible and man made lines of belief. If you want to call that little.

It's fun to say that you can believe what you want so long as you don't hurt anyone else, but the fact of the matter is that religion, as a whole, IS HURTING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW AS WE TYPE THIS.

I can not stress that enough.

And no. Belief in God is NOT an equal assumption. You might be able to call it a valid assumption, but never, ever, an EQUALLY valid assumption. In the absence of evidence the more valid assumption is that something does not exist--so long as it remains an assumption and not a statement of absolute undeniable proof. Just as it is more valid to assume than an invisible parakeet who hovers via telekinesis without displacing air is NOT hovering behind you and getting ready to eat your brain. You have no proof that he isn't--yet it is obviously a more valid assumption that there is, in fact, no parakeet there.

If you really want to, you can accept the minute possibility of the parakeet, but to live your life according to that possibility is fallacious.

TheSpacePope

01-07-2007, 02:21 AM

You lovable scamp, why didn't you just say that the first time, I worked out a frenzy on WII Boxing before I posted.

I actually agree with you. In a lot of cases, belief has hurt people, and it is hurting people right now. *ahem Israel and Iran ahem* I just would like to talk about a constructive way to bring people together that wont sacrifice their faith. Which may not be even possible.
I have a more scientific belief viewpoint and will share it, as soon as some others share their viewpoints. It could be as simple as the word science, or your particular doctrine of religion. I will read it if you send it to me. I try and read on all faiths, to give myself a better idea on how to bring people together, again without abolishing the religion that some need so much to go on. I respect that person that needs their faith, that it drives them, because Life is beautiful, and if you have a lens to focus that beauty, it helps you see it up close. With science and Art we do these things, religion is just another aspect of that lens.

Religion is, and has been, a constant source of hate and strife just as much as it has been a source of hope and love. The Crusades. The Heresay Examinations. The Witch Trials. Great degrees of sexism. The villification and enslavement of the human sex drive--which leads to all kinds of other problems. Or even things as small as social ostracization and the splitting of society amongst invisible and man made lines of belief. If you want to call that little. This is the problem, and I am desperately seeking a solution.

Not absolution.

POS Industries

01-07-2007, 02:46 AM

It's fun to say that you can believe what you want so long as you don't hurt anyone else, but the fact of the matter is that religion, as a whole, IS HURTING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW AS WE TYPE THIS.

Actually, that's not exactly true. People are hurting people over religion right now, which is in now way different from all the people hurting each other over land, food, water, drugs, race, shoes, politics, wedding dresses, and even the very concept of true love. If a person is the type that's going to kill someone for any given reason, they're going to come up with a reason to do it whether that reason is religion, the last piece of pie, or whatever-the-hell.

See, there's (A) believing in something, and there's (B) being part of an organized religion. Now, it's nigh impossible to have B without A, but very easy to have A without B, and much more pleasant. This, I think, is where Krylo is having a hard time making a separation. While I feel organized religion is the source of many of the major problems throughout history, I would never dare to mock a person for believing in it, especially if they themselves aren't hurting anyone with it, and furthermore if those beliefs inspire them to help people.

And this has, moreover, been my experience. Belief in a god has caused a great deal of strife in the world, but it does a lot of good for a lot of people. Religious organizations have fed, clothed, and given shelter to the homeless, found families for orphans, aided the sick in underprivileged countries. Just as people are hurting other people over religion, many more or helping people thanks to their beliefs.

Just because I don't happen to believe in, say, the divinity of Jesus Christ doesn't mean I'll slight the good works done in his name.

Mirai Gen

01-07-2007, 04:08 AM

Actually, that's not exactly true. People are hurting people over religion right now, which is in now way different from all the people hurting each other over land, food, water, drugs, race, shoes, politics, wedding dresses, and even the very concept of true love. If a person is the type that's going to kill someone for any given reason, they're going to come up with a reason to do it whether that reason is religion, the last piece of pie, or whatever-the-hell.
Baseless. You can't just tell the individual evil humans that they're doing something wrong even though their religion (Which told them to do that) is okay.

Yes, humans do the evil, but if it's my damn religion that wants to say I'm going to go perform female genital mutilation because God or Allah or whoever told me to, I'd like to see you tell me I'm wrong. It's like Divine Right of Kings all over again. God told me to do this. Are you going to get in the way of His will?

I'm not going to be the first person to urge to start some changes. But I know that just because it's a religion doesn't make it right, and using the blanket of "Humans do evil, not religion" is just bullshit.

It's like the Batman villain Scarface. If there isn't the influence of the puppet who says "Do evil things!", the Ventriloquist is perfectly normal. Who are we really punishing here, the stupid puppet, or the Ventriloquist?

POS Industries

01-07-2007, 04:21 AM

Well, organized religion itself is pretty much a purely man-made concept, in my opinion, and it's a human-made idea that inspires some humans to do evil, so yes, I'm going to blame individual, real people that exist in this particular plane of existance for the wrongs they commit in the name of a doctrine of order that another bunch of humans probably came up with. Religion (by which I don't mean a god, to be clear), not being a conscious living thing, cannot be responsible for anything because it doesn't think, it doesn't feel, and it doesn't act.

To say it's religion's fault that crazy people go crazy and kill each other is no different from blaming video games for doing the exact same thing.

Lockeownzj00

01-07-2007, 04:41 AM

It is a matter of trust as Nique said. Again, it is just a statement that people should not look at their personal viewpoint as more correct as someone else when it comes to matters of the faith. It is fine that you think that they are wrong, but it doesn't make you more right than they are when you don't know how the final hand is dealt either.

Look. You boiled the argument down and swiped it aside quite deftly, but unnecessarily. Just sticking "it doesn't make you more right" in there really provides no counter-logic. All you're saying is that you disagree in a more long-winded fashion.

You simply cannot know, because you have not experienced the phenomenon, to use Asizens science to make the point.

We're agreeing. And once again, atheists' arguments prevail, because theirs makes the least assumptions. Atheists assume that since one's body and brain, the center of consciousness, shut down, they cease to exist, and that's the end of it. A religious person believes in a world of milk and honey that follows death. These ideas are not on equal playing ground. One is reasonable and the other is beyond conjecture. The one you should be telling this argument to is the religious.

They believe what they believe, it is only when religion is used as a pretext towards violence that it no longer has anything to do with faith and falls into the realm of politics.

This is a colossal canard. I defy you to explain how people strapping bombs to themselves in the name of Allah is politics. This line of reasoning is so vague and undefined and no one gets called on it. People are encouraged to do these things because of extreme religious faith. They hate the people they are committing acts of violence against because of religious faith. Even if they are being orchestrated by a massive political machine, people can only be orchestrated in the name of God if they believe in God. Religion, above all else, because there is no standard of skepticism or criticism towards it, is considiered essentially exempt from any logical discourse, and it's why it's so 100% successful in getting people to blow themselves up.

That religion is supposed to be a noble cause, one to teach men how to treat each other and how to live.

Be careful. I did not call religion or spreading it a noble cause. I called spreading truth a noble cause, which is what the religious are doing in principle. This is an admirable trait: in the case of religion I simply think it's terribly misguided.

I harbor no Ideological Bias, and do not judge people based on their religion, just as I do not judge based on race, that is hardly equal in comparison to racism or alchemy.

The point of that passage was to say that no sane person (these days) disagrees that racism is a flawed ideology and that alchemy is patently false. There is no such thing as being "ideologically neutral" towards them because we know them to be irrelevant ideas. We have established that in the collective realm of thought. Yet in religion, we see this apologetics, which I propose need not be.

How does that sarcasm contribute to the discussion?

First of all: this thread needs a little laugh here and there.

Second of all: I think the sarcasm was warranted. The Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible Pink Unicorn) is an established parody of religion. Its use is to metaphorically portray the brazen preposterousness of belief.

Krylo: massive applause for the presentation of a much-needed point through the Boogeyman.

I just would like to talk about a constructive way to bring people together that wont sacrifice their faith.[/url]

And here's where we ultimately disagree. As Krylo has pointed out, religious convictions necessarily affect one's worldview. The inherent flaws and pitfalls of religious belief are too great to ever unify people--indeed, "without sacrificing their faith" simply isn't possible. Theoretically--theoretically, it may be. But again, once again, I fall back on the most likely solution:

1) Peoples of the Earth, through intense discussion and council, finally realize the errors of their ways and unify all their beliefs in a glorious amalgamation of faith, from Buddha to Jesus. Religion ceases to interfere with scientific advancement, no longer causes social harm, and all religious wars become the stuff of legend.
2) Humanity will, in the next century or so, hit a brick wall, where it realizes the very nature of its being is based upon scientific advancement. While religious faith has been waning, the choice between retrograde or progressive becomes clear. Humanity, as a social construct, slowly realizes the essence of humanity is building upon scientific discovery. It is forced to realize the inadequacies of religious belief (with a few stragglers, but a downward trend) and grows out of its "godliness."

Will this be an easy transition? Not necessarily. I believe those with extreme religious convictions will see themselves the end coming, and become even more virulent and violent (warning: incoming Hitler analogy. please to not misconstrue; Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) does not apply in this case). Like the Nazis in WWII, who in the last days only increased the intensity and extent of their genocide, the "fundamentally religious" will go out with a bang (quite literally); a violent spasm which may very well cost many human lives but will still be a spasm of death, not revival. My prediction is also contingent on humanity surviving. Something could clearly come up and screw us out of a future, and much of that has to do with our own cultural and societal in-fighting: the end of humanity would not be a galactic cataclysm, but a petty civil war.

[quote=TheSpacePope]I respect that person that needs their faith, that it drives them, because Life is beautiful, and if you have a lens to focus that beauty, it helps you see it up close.

Be careful throwing around ideas like "life is beautiful." I completely agree with you but if we start mucking up the debate with even more subjective words like that it will go beyond repair.

I yield the floor to Mr. Harris once again:

...The fact that unjustified beliefs can have a consoling influence on the human mind is no argument in their favor. If every physician told his terminally ill patients that they were destined for a complete recovery, this might also set many of their minds at ease, but at the expense of the truth. Why should we be concerned about the truth? This question awaits its Socrates. For our purposes, we need only observer that the truth is of paramount concern to the faifthful themselves; indeed, the truth of a given doctrine is the very object of their faith. The search for comfort at the expense of truth has never been a motive for religious belief, since al creeds are chock-full of terrible proposals which are no comfort to anyone and which the faithful believe despite the pain it causes them, for fear of leaving some dark corner of reality unacknowledged.

Actually, that's not exactly true. People are hurting people over religion right now, which is in now way different from all the people hurting each other over land, food, water, drugs, race, shoes, politics, wedding dresses, and even the very concept of true love.

...The difference being that land, food, water, politics, love, and shoes are necessary facts of life. I might side with you on drugs, and maybe wedding dresses, but the point is that while religious conflict in the end is still conflict, it is needless conflict. It is conflict that can be logically and should be logically avoided. There is no good reason to let ourselves succumb to it, and if we did away with it, if we grew out of it, a huge chunk of our conflicts would wither away.

If a person is the type that's going to kill someone for any given reason, they're going to come up with a reason to do it whether that reason is religion, the last piece of pie, or whatever-the-hell.

That's not strictly true. I suggest Paradise Now as a great movie that follows the tale of two suicide bombers and what they go through before the attack.

The point is that religious faith and conviction changes people. Perhaps what may have existed before Yoosef's faith came along was an extreme attentiveness and deep conviction to whatever task he was provided with. Paired with religion, he became a killing machine. It is still religion which is at fault. It is religion which poisoned his mind with delusions of grandeur: salvation, martyrdom, and infidels, which is not the stuff of fundamentalists, but the Koran itself. Religion, in numbers (perhaps a tautology), turns otherwise unassuming or at the very least "normal" people into fanatics.

This is how cults work. Cults are distinctly different from say, serial killers. A serial killer is a crazy going crazy. A cult is an infectious disease, a toxic meme that spreads and consumes even the most reasonable of people. All religion is, really, is a worldwide cult with lots of cells, each with varying degrees of conviction.

Now, it's nigh impossible to have B without A, but very easy to have A without B, and much more pleasant.

Much more pleasant, perhaps. Ideologically baseless? Still pretty much the same deal. It's just religion with fewer words, a lot of waving of the hands, and empty words like "something" and "spiritual."

Belief in a god has caused a great deal of strife in the world, but it does a lot of good for a lot of people. Religious organizations have fed, clothed, and given shelter to the homeless, found families for orphans, aided the sick in underprivileged countries.

These acts in and of themselves are "good," but since the Nazis were the first to discover that smoking is cancerous, it does not follow that the Nazis are good, too.* Acts of kindness that truly stem from religion, indeed, are the most morally deceitful, because they do not originate from some independent and personal wish to be altruistic, but a desire to either a) follow the tenets of one's faith/please god b) give religion a good name c) not go to hell. None of these involves selflessness.

To say it's religion's fault that crazy people go crazy and kill each other is no different from blaming video games for doing the exact same thing.

Yeah, last time I checked, World of Warcraft wasn't purporting itself to be a harbinger of absolute truth in this world and the next.

*again, misconstrue analogy = no. Not saying religion = nazism, using Nazism as a doctrine that is accepted to be flawed and false and obsolete which we all immediately recognise

Mirai Gen

01-07-2007, 05:13 AM

Locke ninja'd me. With a novel.

I believe the fundamental difference between an idea and a belief is that the belief usually both attracts other followers moreso than the idea, as well as entails some sort of end gain on my part. Creation theories and apocalypse nigh predictions are optional.

I have an idea. I'm going to go kill a couple people every day. Sometimes I'll mix it up and only kill one person. I go to jail.

I have a belief. My belief says that the best way for me to get into heaven is to purge infidels, and the greatest glory is to die doing exactly that.

See the difference?

Note: this is actually pretty awesome. I use this forum as a testing board when I analyze things, and the ban on religion has made this subject pretty uncharted. Flexing my "religion muscles".

Nique

01-07-2007, 05:21 AM

We've got a lot of conversations going on here... :sweatdrop

Just before I start - I really have to echo spacepopes sentiments towards Krylo. I thought the idea was to have this thread work? Locke may be more articulate, even determined, in his arguments here, but he isn't beating us over the head with a harsh and sarcastic analogy. I have no problem with you expressing that point, but tact?

Well, if you're talking about laws of physics, then what you wrote doesn't make sense. These laws didn't "develop;" a fundamental assumption of science is that they have remained static for all existence.

I'm not sure that's accurate. They have been around for a very long time, but aren't there theories about how the universe(s) work prior to the bangs/crunches?

But to cut the semantics, believing that a being actively "set the rules" doesn't take you very far. I mean, if all this thing is defined as is the one that made everything and set the rules, then it doesn't satisfy the claims many religions make about their gods.

That alone no. But... Look. I thought all I was supposed to do to satisfy a simple, honest question. Those are my basic reasons. I can go into great detail about bible history, bible translation... specifics on my religion that make me believe that it is true. But that's such an extensive argument in an already crowded thread. I don't think it's really prudent to keep going 'well, what about this?' Let's save the 'differance between religions' stuff until after we get through with this who 'Atheist - Agnostic - Theist' stuff.

Maybe someone actively worked to make sure the prophecy was fulfilled. All crazy theories; nothing to base any major aspect of your life around...

...The rulers of Babylon read Isaiah's book and said 'we'd better let the Persians drain our river and invade our city in a few years'?

It is major if what the rest of the bible says is true, isn't it? If (and stay cool locke, we're dealing with an IF scenario here) large portions of the bible are proven true, than the safest assumption is that the rest of it is also true.

I will re-quote Mr. Harris:

Again we come to Occam's Razor. Which belief is more rooted in logical conjecture and verifiable evidence? If the only counter-argument you can propose is that our scientific knowledge is incomplete, than I have to respond that that's a very poor one

It wasn't a comparison of 'belifes' - merely pointing out a potential flaw in your example. The belifes aren't mutually exclusive either.

Rational in what sense? Please don't misuse words. I can also retcon and fancruft explanations for Metal Gear Solid 2's plot holes in seemingly "rational" ways, but these are entirely my creation and cease to be based off of any real observation or evidence at a certain point.

Um... wasn't this my point? Rational in the sense that they wouldn't presume to explain complicated scientific ideas through the bible, becuase you won't find it there. Genesis doesn't go over Quatum theory or Newtonian laws. They could, but as you said - it would be an endless string of creative 'what ifs'.

A rational person who keeps faith in their religion will look something like this; A person who views his religion at least in part through the filter of 'facts' about the world around him. An established 'Holy Book' can provide this person with 'facts' upon which to base his belife. Not 'gut feeling', not 'religious expieriances'.

If there is a discrepancy bewteen my faith and scientific ideas, I do default on faith - up until I am given a satisfactory reason to re-visit my understanding of the Bible in regards to the issue.

If the Bible said 'And God did most definatly NOT make huge reptilian-like creatures which went extinct' I would probably understand it's time to re-analyze my understanding of that verse.

I'll leave evolution alone for now, becuase I am almost sure we talked about it in a ID vs. Evolution thread before.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

No, becuase we aren't expressing the same idea. My use of 'faith' is that it is based on something tangible.

because I truly believe it is sociologically harmful. And I think the evidence is on my side. Is that not reason enough?

We talked about this too, I think, somewhere else. Religion as a concept cannot be blamed for the wrongs commited under it's name, anymore than Politcal ideaology can. Specific belifes can be harmful (racisism etc), but don't put my belife system in the same bracket as the KKK... I mean, my whole thing is being fair, telling the truth, not killing, not supporting the wars or conflicts of any country... I'm not saying that I'm perfect or even that my religion is, but how is that ideaology socially damaging?

This is actually a good oppurtunity to bring this up. PBS has a series called "Independent Lens". "Knocking (http://knocking.org/)" is going to air on this program on May 22nd at 10pm (check local listings blah blah blah). I've seen it, and the essential thesis seems to be summed up by the film's catchphrase 'Fundamentalism and Freedom meet at the front door'. I'd truly be interested in seeing what you think, locke, so watch it if you can/ want. The film seems to project the idea that the ideology of this religious group is actually socially beneficial.

The concept of the trinity and religion weren't created by humans.

Actually, I'd argue that they were.

Nique, I believe that I owe you an explanation. I actually take offense to you calling this statement that I think that you took out of context bigoted. I want to soldify what this means.

I was kind of adding that as a warning becuase it can so easily happen, not becuase you or anyone else was being bigoted. It was phrased poorly, but I was actually agreeing with you to an extent. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I know that you aren't a bigot Spacepope. It was more like 'yes, this disscussion can go great! Just so long as everyone doesn't turn into a moron, not that anyone has yet!'

I actually want to know Nique, what religion you believe in so that I may better understand what my error was in your eyes. I am interested. You seem to have a very strong faith, and I would like to know how you are focusing that energy.

Again, no error! But this (http://www.watchtower.org/), this (http://www.jw-media.org/), and this (http://knocking.org/) should answer your question.

And this has, moreover, been my experience. Belief in a god has caused a great deal of strife in the world, but it does a lot of good for a lot of people. Religious organizations have fed, clothed, and given shelter to the homeless, found families for orphans, aided the sick in underprivileged countries. Just as people are hurting other people over religion, many more or helping people thanks to their beliefs.

Excellent. Exactly what I was getting at earlier.

I'm not going to be the first person to urge to start some changes. But I know that just because it's a religion doesn't make it right, and using the blanket of "Humans do evil, not religion" is just bullshit.

No one is saying that just because it's a religious belife it's ok. Obviously, some people choose to belive very directly harmful things. But it's not 'bullshit' to say that not all religions or religious belifes are bad. 'Religion' is neither - it is a banner under which to motivate a person or a group. It is the philosophy which drives the specific religion which makes it harmful or beneficial.

It's like the Batman villain Scarface. If there isn't the influence of the puppet who says "Do evil things!", the Ventriloquist is perfectly normal. Who are we really punishing here, the stupid puppet, or the Ventriloquist?

Your analogy is confusing. The puppet is the supposed 'illusory' thing, making it the religion... but we punish the person who drives it. Ta-da! People use religion as an excuse, not the other way around.

Edit: Dang! Ninja'd by Lock and MG.

Bells

01-07-2007, 07:45 AM

Dang!! 7 pages in 2 days? You guys sure do like this subject...

So, just because i dont want to miss the party i'll put something in there that im not quite sure if someone else already talked about... mainly because im nto going to read 7 pages since you guys write so god damn much.... (Really... make a book series called "This is what i think about that..." )

Its about the bible...

Now, personaly for me, the Bible has the same Writen value as the Trilogy "The Lord of The rings"... why? Both are fictional works of art that try to teach morals and values using magic and mysticism as a plot device...

The thing is that, this, dosen make the bible Void or null of its value... at all!

I think people that are really religious tend to become dependent of making a fiction reality...

I mean... people go on Rage to talk about how the bible is not "true facts", "thus" the entire religion would be fake... and there are people who go on a rampage to talk about how the bible IS "true facts" and "Thus" is the only religion that is right...

My saying? Who cares?!

I dont need the Bible to be realistic for me to belive that the 10 commendments can be good idea... or that caring for others before yoruself can be nice... its actually pretty much common sense...

But a LOT of people tend to belive what the Bible says not because its the right thing to do or because there are a bunch of good teachings (and others not so good...) in there... but because its "Teh Truth"...

Isnt that one of the major problems? Its not the religion that is wrogn... not at all... but stupid people who wrongly use this knowledge, or simply dont get the freakin point of it all...

So yeah... im not a religious person... but i like the Bible, i think everyone should read it, together with moby dick and Lord of the Rings... those are 3 Very nice Books, that teachs you nice things, makes you think, its great... even being Fiction

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-07-2007, 08:04 AM

I’m going to start out by saying that I will do my best to make sure that none of you have any clue where I’m coming from while I poke various arguments (of differing logicality, no doubt) with relative impunity.

Because it’s more fun this way.

First on the docket:

Well, if you're talking about laws of physics, then what you wrote doesn't make sense. These laws didn't "develop;" a fundamental assumption of science is that they have remained static for all existence.

Wrong. Explicitly wrong. In the current model of the early universe, most physical models point the symmetry breaking at least once.

Which means I have to explain symmetry. Let us take a science experiment... or better yet, an active representation of science. Let us take a flashlight. This operates on several chemical and electromagnetic principles—in that, if physics is wrong, the flashlight is also wrong (from this perspective).

No matter where you take this flashlight in the universe, it will always work—provided that it is still in working order; flashlight stasis, if you will. External conditions may change, but if those move away and the old space is entered, the flashlight will work. The act of merely being in a different place does not change the way the laws of physics work. This is called ‘spacial symmetry’.

Similarly, fifteen minutes from now, that flashlight will (presumably) work, just as it worked fifteen minutes ago. And it will continue to work identically for years into the future, and past. Well, we really believe it will.

HOWEVER!

The current model of the early universe states that there were at least three breaks in temporal symmetry. From the Grand Unified Force (Supergravity/Grand Omni-Dynamism/Whatever, I don’t care), Gravity and the Electronuclear force came. From thence came Strong and Electroweak. And therefrom, Electromagnetic and Weak.

Four primary forces from one ‘Superforce’.

The point of this, however, is that, under even the electroweak force, that flashlight will not work. Hell, nothing electronic would work. Spacetime itself would even expand at a slower rate. Insomuch as the electroweak force does the job of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear force, it also has astoundingly different properties from either. In essence, the very laws of physics as we know them would only appreciably apply in terms of Gravity and the Strong Nuclear force.

This is to say, if none of that made sense, that the laws of physics do change, in a sense. (That is to say, the way in which we observe the universe and are able to interact with it change.)

Of course, the grand cosmic joke is that we could have been living with the electroweak force and creating science from it, without realizing that it would eventually break and everything would change. (Well, we couldn’t, since it’s a temperature thing, but pretty much any other force could conceivably go through the same thing with a different catalyst.)

And then there's the whole 'singularity' problem, but that's a rather widely-known bag of chips there, so I won't bother opening it.

---

And as to what Nique’s talking about, I believe I know.

In Nova’s Elegant Universe (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html), there is something like it. Within the eighth chapter of the second hour (bottom most movie in the middle column) there is a much more engrossing explanation (right off the bat) than any I could provide. However, for those of you not wanting to mess with that:

You see, our universe is kind of like a finely tuned machine. Scientists have found that there are about twenty numbers... twenty fundamental constants of nature that give the universe the characteristics we see today.

These are numbers like, how much an electron ways, the strength of gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak forces. Now, as long as we set the dials on our ‘universe machine’ to precisely the right values for each of these twenty numbers, the machine produces the universe we know and love. But if we change the numbers by adjusting the settings on this machine, even a little bit, the consequences are dramatic.

For example, if I increase the strength of the electromagnetic force, atoms repel one another more strongly so the nuclear furnaces that make stars shine break down. The stars, including our sun, fizzle out, and the universe as we know it, disappears.

Of course, the rest of that goes into String Theory, which is, itself, a philosophy, (or at best, mathematics) so let us not, I think, go down that road.

Still, from a philosophical perspective, I’ve always found this to be a rather unfavorable question. We could only ever consider why our universe works in a universe that works. In a sense, we have to be from a working universe. (Wherein, working is defined as, acting like ours, since it’s shorter.)

Now, the universe could well be very different, but capable of supporting us, and we would still wonder, but, that wouldn’t necessarily lead to an intelligent creation, just a different measure of ‘seven’ on two dice—or something rather like that.

The thing is, while it is unfavorable to assume that there are an infinite number of potential universes (unless you’re a String Theorist, then you can believe that until the cows come home and people will respect you for it), it would also explain the perfection of this universe as well as any deity. Since, for infinite universes, infinite ones would be like ours, and we would only exist in them.

There are also a number of other explanations, including String Philosophy... and from a less convoluted point, even this delicate system, alone and solitary, could spring up by chance.

Admittedly, that’s all not saying very much—but if you predicate an argument on ‘what if the universe were slightly different’, everything involved is slightly “reaching”.

Well, organized religion itself is pretty much a purely man-made concept, in my opinion, and it's a human-made idea that inspires some humans to do evil, so yes, I'm going to blame individual, real people that exist in this particular plane of existance for the wrongs they commit in the name of a doctrine of order that another bunch of humans probably came up with. Religion (by which I don't mean a god, to be clear), not being a conscious living thing, cannot be responsible for anything because it doesn't think, it doesn't feel, and it doesn't act.

To say it's religion's fault that crazy people go crazy and kill each other is no different from blaming video games for doing the exact same thing.

By the same (or rather, similar) token, one might blame Classical Liberalism, Socialism, and Communism for causing people to kill one another, because organizations based on those beliefs are killing people RIGHT NOW.

Hell, the organizations might be poor, crappy simulacrum of the underlying ideology, but in the end, that’s pretty much what the church itself often is: a very crappy simulacrum of the ideology.

And, I mean, grand truth here now or in the hereafter aside, there are armies that exist and wars that happened solely to protect or further these ideologies. There are militia that exist to protect classical liberalism from its government. And, in the future, these things will continue to be just as they are now.

And yet, to argue that these three—and similar—ideologies (which, also, are based on personal beliefs and vastly unprovable desires) need to be entirely expunged from the Earth is a viewpoint many would consider, basically... bunk.

The real issue there, is that all organizations suck, independently of the ideologies they’re founded on.

And lastly:

So yeah... im not a religious person... but i like the Bible, i think everyone should read it, together with moby dick and Lord of the Rings... those are 3 Very nice Books, that teachs you nice things, makes you think, its great... even being Fiction

It is not hard to make the argument that very little of the Bible is redeemable. Penn and Teller jump instantly to mind as proponents of the idea that practically every lesson the Bible has to offer is “Bullshit”, and that all the lessons that aren’t are better served in other sources that aren’t so inundated with poor life lessons, bad ideas (I believe they brought up the whole 'stoning' thing), and poor writing.

And, I respect Penn and Teller for Bullshit!. I find it enjoyable and right a good majority of the time. Admittedly, it’s abrasive, but frankly, the world could do with a good deal more of that.

Also: Moby Dick is a horrible book.

Loki, The Fallen

01-07-2007, 08:44 AM

I'll have to finish reading up on the other arguments later, because of the sheer quantity of words. I have had the opportunity to scan posts that refer to my argument to Locke's "Orange Rock" theory.

Darth SS's point:

Just touching briefly on Loki's post...

Just because there's nothing in the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It hasn't ended anymore than a child's sippy cup ends because there isn't any milk in it.

I never said there would be nothing. I said all that would be left 'In theory' is an infinite expanse of photons. That is nowhere near 'nothing'. It may very well be an end, because what will happen when the only possible change in state of a universe is those random unexplainable quantum events, such as strings and such? Heck, maybe this whole thing will start again. Doesn't quite stop what I was getting to.

Azisien says:

This doesn't invalidate Locke's argument. While I easily side with science over religion, any good scientist should know well it is a continual work in progress and to put it bluntly and in context, that our understanding of cosmology is NOT concrete at this point.

I have about 1200 pages of books on my bookshelf consisting of what is largely speculation about the creation of the universe, the nature of time, and the "death" of the universe. Heat death is part of the dozens of possible valid explanations, though there is very, very little theoretical evidence to support any of these theories and no experimental evidence to do so.

I'm still waiting to review the rest of Locke's paper (Hope it gets post too, it may be a nice read), but the rock will eventually not exist. Its existence is finite.

I realize the point too. 'The universe may or may not have a beginning or and end'. Cool. But if one can believe that something's existence and or creation cannot be explained by science, could there not also be a being that also exists outside of science's explanation?

As for your second point, I have already said in my post that it was a 'theory'. There is also no way we can prove it really, it’s just a best guess right now. I'm sure there are other ways the universe can 'end', but that was just the one I remember off the top of my head. (I remember vaguely of another entropic end, but thing that was going to happen much sooner then heat death.) There could also be 'The Big Crunch' or others. (I love science! It has such fun names for theories!)

And a third point from Azisien:

Some of the folk who cling to their religion with the above reasoning are then forced to retreat. All right, so God doesn't bring the Sun up...He causes plagues though! Like tsunamis and eclipses and locust swarms! Well...actually there are logical, empirical explanations for all of these things. Retreat!

Science will always find a way to explain things. But who set the rules? Who caused this all to happen this way? The statistics of the universe working out so that life could exist, or that the current universe could exist the way it does are astronomical. (heh) Call it retreating if you must, labels help people understand things I guess.

Eventually science may find a way to explain why the moon orbits the Earth (Doh, they did, didn't they?). Perhaps some day we'll find out it isn't gravity. Science is weird like that. They are constantly revising theories and laws because sometimes things happen outside of what is expected.

Arguing for Entropy here, science has that 'Law' of thermodynamics which has been proven enough for science to consider it pretty solid. There is also the 'fact' that all matter decays too, as listed in that Wikipedia article. Of course I would much rather link to a real science site but that was easier to find online, and it didn't seem all that far off from what the Indoctrination Center taught me. It seems pretty solid from what I gather, but I have faith that we humans or perhaps someone outside of our current scientific beliefs, will find a way to end it all a bit faster. :P

Nigue's words:

Quote:
The universe exists, has existed, and always will exist.

1. We're talking theory, in a way here. Aren't scientists still sort of figuring out the nature of the universe? I know that's simplified, and I don't mean to discredit current scientific belief... But we don't know how it works yet. Not really.

2. Regardless of how it (the universe) actually is, what belief in creation should really root itself in is the organization... how the universe is now. I mean, there are rational ways to work a creator into infinite existence. More important though, I don't think any rational person would claim to be able to explain from the scriptures all the technical aspects of how our universe got to be where it is now.

He said it pretty well.

Then Locke is back with:

That's still missing the point. Even those photons will break down and break down, etc. etc.; it's all the same. It can't become "nothing" in the strictest sense of the word, especially if, as you say, more things can follow this heat death.

Well, my quote from the good book (or evil book depending on how you feel) didn't show the universe being created from absolute nothing. 'The earth was without form and void' Could be a description of the way the universe was before the Big Bang, since we can't find out what it was like, especially because 'in theory' time didn't exist as we knew it either.

We also have to remember when it was written. Try explaining theories such as this to children, or to cave people, or to others who have yet to acquire this much knowledge. One might have to describe it using the words and terminology of the times.

Azisien's remark regarding the supernatural:

Supernatural, like rain? (Which 10000 years ago, was probably supernatural to most humans). Supernatural like lightning? Supernatural like the sunrise and sunset?

How about supernatural like the existence of time prior to the Big Bang? How about supernatural as time near, or in, a black hole? Or even Quantum Strings? There are things Science can't explain yet, and I'm sure they will try to figure it out sometime if we last. Heck, eventually we may finally figure out the universe can be explained using a simple math equation, (or even just by a number *cough* 42 *cough*)

Science may know some answers, and may be able to answer why things exist the way they do, but some things may never be explained. That’s where religion can fill some holes. Of course, religion can also help things outside of science too... but that’s the other discussion.

Just prodding some arguments here. I really enjoy these responses (as do the Mods I'm sure.) Now I just have to read the other conversation as to why having a 'cool invisible best friend' is causing all the woes in the world. :rolleyes:

--EDIT--

Reading the thread backwards, I noticed this thought:

1) Peoples of the Earth, through intense discussion and council, finally realize the errors of their ways and unify all their beliefs in a glorious amalgamation of faith, from Buddha to Jesus. Religion ceases to interfere with scientific advancement, no longer causes social harm, and all religious wars become the stuff of legend.

You wont find many fans from one group, as they believe this to be a sign of the end times, etc. There are books about it too and stuff...

Bells

01-07-2007, 10:14 AM

It is not hard to make the argument that very little of the Bible is redeemable. Penn and Teller jump instantly to mind as proponents of the idea that practically every lesson the Bible has to offer is �Bullshit�, and that all the lessons that aren�t are better served in other sources that aren�t so inundated with poor life lessons, bad ideas (I believe they brought up the whole 'stoning' thing), and poor writing.

And, I respect Penn and Teller for Bullshit!. I find it enjoyable and right a good majority of the time. Admittedly, it�s abrasive, but frankly, the world could do with a good deal more of that.

Also: Moby Dick is a horrible book.

Yes, but being the first one to try that (or one of the first), the book at least deserves respect...

Like i said, its something of a amazing study book, and a historical pice that gives a LOT to study about... but its just not something worthy of "shoot or get shot by" like most people tend to belive

P-Sleazy

01-07-2007, 11:09 AM

but we both sort of realized that there's no way what we've been told is true.

And what that was is that A: God is somehow perfectly Omnipotent and Omniscious. That statement alone vastly contradicts oh so much in the religious belief.

B: That 'God' is all loving. There is no way. At all.

C: The entire concept of Heaven and Hell.

Comming from a Catholic, how does A contradict the religious belief? To me it makes perfect sense that God's all knowing and all powerful. However, God chose to limit itself (for purposes of us not knowing exactly what god is) in the involvement God has upon us by giving us our free will. Yes, God could still control us if God wanted to, God could kill us all with a massive flood, God could (insert actions here). But the the reason I beleive God doesn't do that is because God is all loving (Hence point B). If God were to do any of those things it would mean going back on the promise God made to Noah to never destroy the earth like that again and showing a rainbow to show God's sadness. God could have brought those people back from the dead, but didn't. God was displeased with how evil humans have become and decided that something needed to be done. The flood with Noah is a bad example of his omni potence yes, but I feel its good to use because it shows that God does limit itself in what it does.

As for Free will, He gets around that with the aspect of a conscience and that little voice inside that tells you whats right and wrong, thus influencing your actions, but not controlling them.

As for C. You're also forgetting Purgatory.;)

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 11:59 AM

I don't have a ton of time to be online right now on account of the Jets game, so I'll just be quick.

I hope Locke doesn't once again come back at me with the unholy force of a fission bomb and completely dismantle my argument, as is usual, but I'll be damned if I don't keep trying. :D No pun intended.

Acts of kindness that truly stem from religion, indeed, are the most morally deceitful, because they do not originate from some independent and personal wish to be altruistic, but a desire to either a) follow the tenets of one's faith/please god b) give religion a good name c) not go to hell. None of these involves selflessness.

At the church I go to, I've been taught that those are the reasons we shouldn't be focusing on when doing "good deeds". It shouldn't be out of a sheer fear of hell that we do these things, because we're taught that good deeds won't do anything, it's only through faith that one goes to heaven. However, we should do these things to bring others to faith. To that end, these acts can be considered selfless. Trying to attract others to saving faith.

Mesden

01-07-2007, 12:17 PM

Comming from a Catholic, how does A contradict the religious belief? To me it makes perfect sense that God's all knowing and all powerful. However, God chose to limit itself (for purposes of us not knowing exactly what god is) in the involvement God has upon us by giving us our free will. Yes, God could still control us if God wanted to, God could kill us all with a massive flood, God could (insert actions here). But the the reason I beleive God doesn't do that is because God is all loving (Hence point B). If God were to do any of those things it would mean going back on the promise God made to Noah to never destroy the earth like that again and showing a rainbow to show God's sadness. God could have brought those people back from the dead, but didn't. God was displeased with how evil humans have become and decided that something needed to be done. The flood with Noah is a bad example of his omni potence yes, but I feel its good to use because it shows that God does limit itself in what it does.

As for Free will, He gets around that with the aspect of a conscience and that little voice inside that tells you whats right and wrong, thus influencing your actions, but not controlling them.

As for C. You're also forgetting Purgatory.;)

Saying that god is omnipotent and omniscious, and yet limiting himself, therefore if he is somehow limited then he is not omnipotent. Any being that is omnipotent and omniscious will not become angry -- he already knew it was going to happen, and if he didn't, then he's not omnipotent.

The aspect of free will does not exist if he's omniscious -- it's a silly concept. And, yeah, you're going out on a limb by assuming he just limits himself this way (I mean, is that all Christianity does when confronted with logic? Go to making assumptions that kind of get around the logic? And not even that?). The phrase "God works in mysterious ways" sickens me, because he's actively 'testing' us and making us brood and suffer over his mysterious giant game called humanity.

If that's all loving, I don't know, I feel kind of let down.

And, finally, yes yes Purgatory, I really don't care for the semantics. =P

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 12:22 PM

The way I understand it, free will lets us do absolutely anything we want without predestination, but if we happen to do something wrong, or "sin", God works it out for the better.

And how come anyone omnipotent can't be angry? You can know something bad is going to happen and be angry or sad all the same. But, it also says that we were created in God's image. Meaning he shares the same set of moods as we do, love, hate, sadness, etc...

[Edit] w00t for incoming page 8. :)

ApathyMan

01-07-2007, 12:38 PM

I do believe in God. I also believe that organized religion is formed from secular politics. Hell, most eveything we know about God originates from texts that are really more health and wellness books than religions.

In other words, the entire subject is so bloated and inane with historical fallacies and leaps of logic that I just choose to ignore religion entirely and live in a temporal society. The forces above us are impossible to comprehend, so I just throw it on the backburner and focus on living a decent life.

And frankly, I doubt God would really care all that much, because if man truly was made in God's image, then He would certainly have changed the channel by now.

Loki, The Fallen

01-07-2007, 01:13 PM

I mean, if you look at this all detatched like, this has got to be the most entertaining thing you could put on TV. You've got a bunch of people claiming to be on your side killing each other, all this while most of the people don't care and are doing other goofy things, like making movies for You Tube and getting in screaming matches over who's bosses/overlords are dumber! It's like the ultimate reality tv...

But I see what you mean, I think he would find our internet a bit more entertaining. :D

It's probibly even more entertaining for him because he sees the one person on the planet that found the one bag of holding he left us, and knows that person is going to store it in the portable hole he found in his backyard...
---
edited because I can't spell...

P-Sleazy

01-07-2007, 01:56 PM

Saying that god is omnipotent and omniscious, and yet limiting himself, therefore if he is somehow limited then he is not omnipotent. Any being that is omnipotent and omniscious will not become angry -- he already knew it was going to happen, and if he didn't, then he's not omnipotent.

The aspect of free will does not exist if he's omniscious -- it's a silly concept. And, yeah, you're going out on a limb by assuming he just limits himself this way (I mean, is that all Christianity does when confronted with logic? Go to making assumptions that kind of get around the logic? And not even that?). The phrase "God works in mysterious ways" sickens me, because he's actively 'testing' us and making us brood and suffer over his mysterious giant game called humanity.

If that's all loving, I don't know, I feel kind of let down.

And, finally, yes yes Purgatory, I really don't care for the semantics. =P

Just because God's limiting himself doesn't mean God itself is limited in the power God has. Its the same as saying I have an infinite amount of money, but I'll only spend $20 a day. Just because you have all that money (power) doesn't mean you have to use it. Does that mean I'm poor?

As for the omniscious, just because God knows everything that will happen, if action A happens doesn't mean God won't try to "influence" you with that little voice in your head to either Follow through with action A or change over to Action B or C depending on the outcome of each. Because God is omnipotent, doesn't that mean that God also knows what will happen with each action and then also know which action A, B, C, etc. you choose to perform? Doesn't that offer God the perfect Knowledge then to do just the right amount of influence so that it really does seem like "God works in mysterious ways"

Theres also a really good quote from one episode of Futurama that I can't think of at the moment.

Found it. "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

EDIT: Typo with Omniscious. Was spelled Omnipotent...Yea...

Mesden

01-07-2007, 01:58 PM

And how come anyone omnipotent can't be angry? You can know something bad is going to happen and be angry or sad all the same. But, it also says that we were created in God's image. Meaning he shares the same set of moods as we do, love, hate, sadness, etc...

[Edit] w00t for incoming page 8. :)

Less on the omnipotence and more on the omnisciousness.

I mean, he'll directly get pissed and forsake man at the first mistake, as if it was some surprise, and that telling them wouldn't have sprouted their curiousity that he gave them, etc...

Edit:

Just because God's limiting himself doesn't mean God itself is limited in the power God has. Its the same as saying I have an infinite amount of money, but I'll only spend $20 a day. Just because you have all that money (power) doesn't mean you have to use it. Does that mean I'm poor?

As for the omniscious, just because God knows everything that will happen, if action A happens doesn't mean God won't try to "influence" you with that little voice in your head to either Follow through with action A or change over to Action B or C depending on the outcome of each. Because God is omnipotent, doesn't that mean that God also knows what will happen with each action and then also know which action A, B, C, etc. you choose to perform? Doesn't that offer God the perfect Knowledge then to do just the right amount of influence so that it really does seem like "God works in mysterious ways"

Theres also a really good quote from one episode of Futurama that I can't think of at the moment.

Found it. "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Yet again, this is all a blatant series of assumptions that have been added on to christianity ever since people started applying logic to it. I mean, what's and why's the point for god to watch and influence this massive little game of his?

Sounds like a very sadistic god for the sake of it all.

I mean, an eternity of unrelentless pain forever just because you were a 'bad' person in real life just seems like a grotesque fate that he already knew was going to happen.

Maybe there is a God, that's why I'm agnostic to this. But so help me there can be no way this omniscious being is all loving in a sense of what he's doing.

I mean, eternity of hell for less than 120 years on earth which were spent making the wrong choices -- eternity is the key word.

Loki, The Fallen

01-07-2007, 02:31 PM

Mesden-
I mean, eternity of hell for less than 120 years on earth which were spent making the wrong choices -- eternity is the key word.

He did make it rather easy to get out of that whole eternity of damnation thing. (Well, depending on the specific branch you believe in.) Of course, the downside is the bit of persecution (granted, not as bad in this country as others) and being the butt of jokes for a while. Oh, and of course being demonized by the "Enlightened".

Mesden

01-07-2007, 02:44 PM

Mesden-

He did make it rather easy to get out of that whole eternity of damnation thing. (Well, depending on the specific branch you believe in.) Of course, the downside is the bit of persecution (granted, not as bad in this country as others) and being the butt of jokes for a while. Oh, and of course being demonized by the "Enlightened".

And that falls into a slew of 'branch' based christianity, which just makes it worse that there are several branches claiming they're right and everyone else is wrong in the name of the same god, who still fits the sadistic, overviewer of the world who set up all of this based on...what exactly?

As far as I'm lead to believe, what you just said really doesn't change what I said.

I just have a hard time believeing 2 of my best friends are rotting in hell because they were mentally ill.

Yay Catholicism.

Loki, The Fallen

01-07-2007, 03:01 PM

Well, I'm no big fan of the many branches myself. (Well, some of the branches are cool and all, but my opinion is Catholicism got the whole thing pretty weird... I mean, HATS!) Not sure every branch thinks the other is wrong (once again, maybe Catholicism, I'm not sure as I have not studied it, but, I mean, once again, HATS?!) (Of course, who am I to judge?)

The only thing that I'm challenging is the notion that for 120 years of making mistakes you are damned for eternity. It's more along the lines of 120 years not making that one pretty simple choice that will lead to Damnation. Last I read, he wasn't looking for perfection, otherwise he'd be pretty lonely up there, as we've all messed up at some point.

I guess from a point of view it could be considered 'sadistic', but would you prefer one who just forced everyone to do exactly what he wanted, instead of giving them a chance to prove themselves?

And I bet there are exceptions made... at least, from what he had written, regarding certain extenuating circumstances. But then again, I'm not Catholic, so I can't tell you what they believe.

Mirai Gen

01-07-2007, 03:27 PM

No one is saying that just because it's a religious belife it's ok. Obviously, some people choose to belive very directly harmful things. But it's not 'bullshit' to say that not all religions or religious belifes are bad. 'Religion' is neither - it is a banner under which to motivate a person or a group. It is the philosophy which drives the specific religion which makes it harmful or beneficial.

Your analogy is confusing. The puppet is the supposed 'illusory' thing, making it the religion... but we punish the person who drives it. Ta-da! People use religion as an excuse, not the other way around.

Edit: Dang! Ninja'd by Lock and MG.
All I'm saying is that you need to punish the person and make sure that you don't ignore the religion, otherwise they end up as a martyr for their cause and other followers (and possibly themselves) are even more motivated.

The reason I used the Scarface villain is because the Ventrilloquist doesn't know he's not real. Take that as you will. The Ventriloquist is our human, here, and Scarface is god. In the end, The Ventriloquist is doing all of the evil acts, but you can't just punish him and ignore that there's a part of him that he thinks is directed by a higher power. You just can't leave a man to be punished for his actions without explaining why his actions deserved punishment, and using the blanket of religion doesn't exclude people from that.

But, it's tough to keep going when we've got this many topics going. I'll stand aside.

P-Sleazy

01-07-2007, 03:41 PM

Mesden

01-07-2007, 03:54 PM

I'm gonna second that part Loki said about us proving ourselves. And again, God's not looking for us to be perfect.

The same could be said about your "blatant series of assumptions" that God isn't omnipotent or omniscient or all loving. As far as I'm concerned, If God wasn't all Loving, there wouldn't be a purgatory, nor would there be a means for us to have our sins absolved, and Jesus wouldn't have happened. If God wasn't Omnipotent there wouldn't be a virgin Mary, parting of the sea, the plagues, passover, again Jesus. If God wasn't Omniscient, then there would be no prophets or scriptures fortelling of the comming of Christ.

And its not necessarily that if you're X branch of Christianity you're doomed to hell. Hell, even Jews and Muslims and Buddhists ect. (Minus Satanists) have a chance to go to heaven if they lead even half decent lives.

And then you also have your metally ill priests/people that tell you who goes to heaven and hell. That is not their call to make. Yes we can make our own judgements and take a guess. But it is not our place to judge others and their destination. The best we can do is make someone into a saint.

And remember just because thier a priest doesn't mean thier automatically high and mighty. Remember the Priests in NY that abused little Children? Just goes to show that even the people who have power to influence the people in their church aren't perfect.

And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

Just because God throws out little miracles (Long old ones that haven't been proven, if you're gonna put the Atheist viewpoint in there) that means he 'loves' us? If he loved us, he wouldn't place millions upon millions of people in states of worldly agony, outside of any christian contact and therefore unable to be christian. I don't see how he ignores this entire majority of the world, only to place his incomprehensible LOVE for all of us in the hands of nothing but Europeans and branches of the Middle East in the form of several Prophets who go out to contradict themselves at every passing turn and preach horrible ethics of punishment that the Bible preaches...and...

You know, it just doesn't come off as some actual caring being. Or rather, not all loving.

Archbio

01-07-2007, 04:00 PM

Loki, The Fallen

01-07-2007, 04:05 PM

Just wondering,

Due to the enormity of the Thread so far,
Due to the many questions and points being discussed,
Due to the no other threads being allowed regarding any religious topic,

Is there any possibility for Sub-Threads or something to be started within this thread? We have many points being discussed, and it could help people weed through the information and respond to the thoughts they wish, without reading the (1, 2, 3...9) 9 Pages we have accumulated as of now? I'm not sure about the logistics, but there are some interesting points and topics started and being discussed and I'm sure there are more that some may wish to bring up. (Like me, I'm so not going to start a new line when we have this much going...)

Your thoughts?

Lockeownzj00

01-07-2007, 04:25 PM

They could, but as you said - it would be an endless string of creative 'what ifs'.

And therefore inadequate to the scientific counterparts, which would be more grounded in reality.

I'll leave evolution alone for now, becuase I am almost sure we talked about it in a ID vs. Evolution thread before.

I appreciate how you're approaching this thread as a discourse. As you said about Bible prophesy before--it will definitely come up, but we'll save it for later rather than muck it up now.

No, becuase we aren't expressing the same idea. My use of 'faith' is that it is based on something tangible.

I merely meant in the sense that it shows the disparity between religious ideas and how inconsistent they are not even as a general framework, but from person to person. Another reason why they are so ineffectual.

Religion as a concept cannot be blamed for the wrongs commited under it's name, anymore than Politcal ideaology can.

In what sense? Fascism can surely be blamed for discontent; so can National Socialism. Ideologies, ideas are not these listless wisps of nothing that float in the air, unassuming and unharmless. I am curious how it is that you assume that belief systems are less harmful than individual beliefs; belief in numbers can cause the greatest harm. Religion, especially due to its highly unstable and unpredictable "logical" nature, has been responsible for more mass hysteria and discord than I think is necessary.

And I didn't really compare religion to the KKK, but let's compare for a second, shall we? The KKK was/is one organization, in one country, which did some horrible thing and spread some horrible ideas for about 70 years. Religion has done horrible things and spread horrible ideas (if you wish me to give examples, ie dates and occurrences, i shall do my best) for quite likely thousands of years (even if this number fluctuates greatly, it's still significantly larger than 70, and spans the entire globe). I suppose it's hard to swallow that "Religion is worse than the KKK," but not in the sense that you might think. It's been around longer, and it's even more deadly because it's shielded in our public debate.

The film seems to project the idea that the ideology of this religious group is actually socially beneficial.

I'll definitely give it a look. It goes without saying that if ideology can be socially harmful, ideology can also conversely be socially beneficial.

It is the philosophy which drives the specific religion which makes it harmful or beneficial.

But this is exactly it. The argument we're making, or at least I'm making, Nique, is that it is an inherent facet of religion and 'faith' to be harmful or at the very least unhealthy (as Krylo said before--
"Now, while it's entirely POSSIBLE to subscribe to false worldviews without causing MUCH problem, that doesn't make it actually healthy.") Think about it. The only religions which are quite harmless and maybe even personally and socially beneficial are ones which are barely even religions at all. How about Buddhism? I've heard the phrase before, "Buddhism is the religion of no religion." So it's no surprise the only religion that really is an exception to the rule is 95% social and personal philosophy, 5% God.

I mean, think about what religion is: a system of belief purporting to know all the most elusive, absolute truths about the world (and it's happened to know these for thousands of years, yet somehow scientists are not keenly interested). Which will lead you to eternal salvation in a place called heaven, personal comfort, and edification with an invisible being. Other systems which purport the same thing are clearly wrong by virtue of the fact that they are not perscribing to your own. Isn't that in and of itself going to end up doing some harm, no matter what incarnation it crops up in?

mainly because im nto going to read 7 pages since you guys write so god damn much....

I understand why you didn't read and such, but please do us the common courtesy in the future of avoiding this "tl;dr."

I dont need the Bible to be realistic for me to belive that the 10 commendments can be good idea...

About half of the commandments are just rituals. The rest are good starting points, but nothing that anyone with common sense couldn't divine.

This is to say, if none of that made sense, that the laws of physics do change, in a sense.

I don't think in the way that matters. I'm not an expert on these scientific matters, unfortunately, but even these breaks all fall under the functions of the universe, no? Gravity and such being a subset of the main parameters. Shit, I need a good analogy. Haha.

(unless you’re a String Theorist, then you can believe that until the cows come home and people will respect you for it)

I'm curious as to your thoughts on String Theory--maybe you can PM them to me? I can't say I'm extremely well-educated on science, but in the past year or so I've been slowly educating myself, and the dichotomy between proponents and opponents of String Theory has always interested and, admittedly, confused me (I do own a copy of The Elegant Universe, though, which is on my list to read after a few others). So, penny fer ya thoughts.

The real issue there, is that all organizations suck, independently of the ideologies they’re founded on.

Again I present that the difference is that all those political organizations and ideologies are fallible, or at least considered so in the public arena. One can be publicly anti-communist or anti-liberalist or what have you, and we can, and have, waged clearcut wars against each other as a civilization by these delineations.

The problem is that there is no standard for criticism for religion. You really can't be that openly against religion; even worse because religion claims to have the word of God. Yet there are many different organizations who each claim to have the word, and what happens is a giant elephant in the room. No one wants to talk about it. No one knows how. How do you tell someone that their beliefs are unfounded when they can just keep pulling the God card? It's why it's so effective. It's why it's the singlemost deadly force in brainwashing people. So it just keeps eating us away from the inside, infecting all areas of our public debate and society, and in this sense, is distinct from the rest.

I'm still waiting to review the rest of Locke's paper (Hope it gets post too, it may be a nice read), but the rock will eventually not exist. Its existence is finite.

I think you missed the point of the analogy. There are two things to be learned from this:

1) The immediate image that is conjured in your head. The moment we lightning-bolt all sentience, the rock is still there, meaning, the universe exists outside of our own observation and consciousness.

2) The rock does still "exist" in the way I'm trying to convey. As I said earlier:

As human beings—finite creatures with beginnings and endings—we tend to personify our traits on the world at large. Pragmatically speaking, this is fine: in social contexts, things begin and end (relationships, friendships, jobs); in construction things begin and end (buildings are built and torn down); in art the physical piece is created and exists till destroyed; essentially every facet of our lives follow this pattern.

We come across a problem when we attempt to apply this logic to the universe. ‘The universe exists, and therefore, had to have begun, and must, at some point, end.’

But if we return to our original analogy of beginning and end in social context, we will realise where this leap in logic comes from: for a building doesn’t truly cease to exist, it merely changes states. The physical structure has become a pile of rubble and ash, and socially, the buildings purpose (whatever it may have been—hospital, office, etc.) has vanished. Socially, it is important to delineate the difference between friends and non-friends, but the relationship never truly ceased to exist; even if you were to sever ties with the person, you would be in a state of non-communication, rather than “nothing.”

The rock, as a philosophical point, still hasn't ended. It's merely changed states. And in this sense it makes my point.

But if one can believe that something's existence and or creation cannot be explained by science, could there not also be a being that also exists outside of science's explanation?

"Could" is too lofty a word. I take the Logical Positivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical Positivism)s' side and say that so little evidence and so great extrapolation is required that it is useless to even attempt to entertain the idea, and that even if it were theoretically possible in this minute way, it doesn't redeem the overall fantasized image of a benevolent God. There is "insufficient data at this time to make a meaningful answer. (http://adin.dyndns.org/adin/TheLastQ.htm)" :) I'd prefer to stick to Occam again.

Science will always find a way to explain things. But who set the rules? Who caused this all to happen this way? The statistics of the universe working out so that life could exist, or that the current universe could exist the way it does are astronomical. (heh) Call it retreating if you must, labels help people understand things I guess.

I don't know if I agree with that. For one thing, some scientists say that Earth-like planets may not be as rare as we previously thought (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uoca-epm090506.php). Seth Shostak argues this very convincingly in his series "The Search for Intelligent Life." So any Earth-centric theory could potentially be bunk.

But even besides that; life wasn't this pristine, magical process that magically flowed into existence--rather, for billions of years, there was, for our purposes, cosmic junk floating around; Earth itself was a volcanic ball of...volcanoes for a long time. Or something like that.

Science may know some answers, and may be able to answer why things exist the way they do, but some things may never be explained. That’s where religion can fill some holes. Of course, religion can also help things outside of science too... but that’s the other discussion.

I disagree. Religion is an artificial cement in these holes, not mending the theories, but shoddily patching them up so that they barely even hold water. The holes in science are being filled by science itself. Whether science will "solve everything evahh" I think is another debate. I'd be fine with having it but it throws off and distracts what we're talking about here. Even if science is incomplete, it corrects itself. I find "there's totally some guy up there" an inadequate filling of these scientific gaps in knowledge. Christopher Hitchens said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

B_real_shadows: Please explain to me how you arrived at these conclusions.

However, we should do these things to bring others to faith. To that end, these acts can be considered selfless. Trying to attract others to saving faith.

For one thing, if you're helpnig them because you want them to understand Jesus, it still isn't that altruistic. But I can understand why it would be considered selfless from your point of view. Again we simply come down to the actual merits of either 'side.' I believe 'saving' people with your faith is still an insufficient reason compared to real reasons for humanism.

And how come anyone omnipotent can't be angry?

How can we seriously be debating this? In this quibble I hope to point out the patent ridiculousness of all that is theology. How can we possibly purport to know such things which are inherently unknowable?

*looking for Sam Harris quote here; spend half an hour trying to find it and couldn't; will insert when i find*

And then you also have your metally ill priests/people that tell you who goes to heaven and hell. That is not their call to make. Yes we can make our own judgements and take a guess. But it is not our place to judge others and their destination. The best we can do is make someone into a saint.

How is it your call to say it's not their call to make? Historically, traditionally speaking, they are only doing what's probably best; if anything, they are being more literal to the scripture.

To Loki: perhaps we can find a way to categorize our posts by topic so that the conversation can flow more fluidly?

So, I spent my entire morning on this (or afternoon, I woke up at 2). Hoorah!

Marinan

01-07-2007, 04:36 PM

And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

Just because God throws out little miracles (Long old ones that haven't been proven, if you're gonna put the Atheist viewpoint in there) that means he 'loves' us? If he loved us, he wouldn't place millions upon millions of people in states of worldly agony, outside of any christian contact and therefore unable to be christian. I don't see how he ignores this entire majority of the world, only to place his incomprehensible LOVE for all of us in the hands of nothing but Europeans and branches of the Middle East in the form of several Prophets who go out to contradict themselves at every passing turn and preach horrible ethics of punishment that the Bible preaches...and...

You know, it just doesn't come off as some actual caring being. Or rather, not all loving.

There's an old greek philosophical discussion detailing this. Stating that, since we, as humans, have no power, perhaps that is why the world is at it is. It is not that the gods have brought us suffering, but that as beings of power, they have certain restrictions on them that come only through being creatures that have any power at all.

In a Christian discussion, this could mean different things, as God sees that it would be an evil to not allow suffering in the world, because of the enormous positive long term effects that come from it. It would be wrong, however, for we mortals to act the same way, and as such, because we understand that we should not allow suffering, we understandably judge God in a mortal light. But as the Light of the World, his light shines brighter than our own.

P-Sleazy

01-07-2007, 04:47 PM

Words starting with the prefix omni- or all- don't designate "kind of, sort of" concepts, like you're treating them.

Where am I treating them as "kind of, sort of"? The examples listed there in that quote of me you have are ways that god expresses those 3 characteristics. And those are just the ones off the top of my head. The Omniscient one is the one that gave me the most difficulty so if thats the one you're referring to as "kind of, sort of" then I may be able to give you that.

And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

Just because God throws out little miracles (Long old ones that haven't been proven, if you're gonna put the Atheist viewpoint in there) that means he 'loves' us? If he loved us, he wouldn't place millions upon millions of people in states of worldly agony, outside of any christian contact and therefore unable to be christian. I don't see how he ignores this entire majority of the world, only to place his incomprehensible LOVE for all of us in the hands of nothing but Europeans and branches of the Middle East in the form of several Prophets who go out to contradict themselves at every passing turn and preach horrible ethics of punishment that the Bible preaches...and...

You know, it just doesn't come off as some actual caring being. Or rather, not all loving.
Firstly, in reference to the bold, if that was in reference to me, then I'm sorry. I did not and do not intend to come off like that.

Secondly, I don't beleive this is a sadistic game of God's. And he isn't sending people to hell if you're not christian. Nor did I say that he was. I have Jews listed who I'm fairly certain are not christain. Buddhists, Do they even have a god? (Don't mean to trample on any of you, I know a whole lot about this religion.) Muslims beleive in Jesus but don't think of him as the christ. So they COULD be a form of christians at a stretch. And I also wrote in etc to show that its not just those religions but most religions in general.

The reason why I excluded Satanists is because they acknowledge Jesus and God and Christianity and then go about destroying everything they stand for and worshipping Satan. And that, mind you, is a free will choice that they made themselves. Are they going to hell? It's probably more likely than someone in any secluded place on earth, who beleives in animalism or what have you. And yes, I know I sound like a total hypocrite here, so sue me.

To Locke:
I'm basing this off of Jesus giving the keys to the gates of heaven to St. Peter. And I speculate that St. Peter may have a say in who is let in, being the "gatekeeper" to heaven per say.

In addition, how is it someones call to make whose still living, doesn't know EVERYTHING about any one person like what they were thinking when someone did this, or know if someone truely feels remorse for any sins they've committed? Only someone who is omniscient could make one such call. A priest/bishop/pope/person, is not omniscient.

Azisien

01-07-2007, 05:12 PM

I was going to open up this post with a "HOLY!" but that would have been a little too campy - teach me to disappear for 16ish hours. This is going in directions outside of what I've been commenting on, and since only a few have commented on my own remarks, I only have a few points:

Of course, the rest of that goes into String Theory, which is, itself, a philosophy, (or at best, mathematics) so let us not, I think, go down that road.

I would rearrange the two. The Nova program made it look nice and flashy for the layman to enjoy, but it is at its heart a mathematical and physical theory (actually, it's evolved to superstring theory, and then to M theory, and hasn't progressed a whole lot in recent years, not that a lot can BE done until we have technological means for testing its hypotheses). If you're interested in that kind of stuff I recommend his book, off which the show is based, by the same name, if you haven't read it already.

Science will always find a way to explain things. But who set the rules? Who caused this all to happen this way? The statistics of the universe working out so that life could exist, or that the current universe could exist the way it does are astronomical.

I don't know. But instead of fabricating a reason out of nowhere, I settle with 'I don't know." And if you're an optimist, you can tack on a 'yet' as well.

Call it retreating if you must, labels help people understand things I guess.

I would have used a better word to describe what I think it is, if I had thought of one...

Eventually science may find a way to explain why the moon orbits the Earth (Doh, they did, didn't they?). Perhaps some day we'll find out it isn't gravity.

Yeah, it's pretty downpat. And I'm not positive on the gravity bit. I mean, maybe, but we're pretty clear-cut in our understanding of general relativity, and the theory has been tested to death with undeniable accuracy. Our understanding (and maybe the name too?) of gravity will change, but the phenomenon is there and real, even if it's called fiddlebop in 4503.

Science is weird like that. They are constantly revising theories and laws because sometimes things happen outside of what is expected.

Yes, that IS science.

Arguing for Entropy here, science has that 'Law' of thermodynamics which has been proven enough for science to consider it pretty solid. There is also the 'fact' that all matter decays too, as listed in that Wikipedia article. Of course I would much rather link to a real science site but that was easier to find online, and it didn't seem all that far off from what the Indoctrination Center taught me. It seems pretty solid from what I gather, but I have faith that we humans or perhaps someone outside of our current scientific beliefs, will find a way to end it all a bit faster.

I am aware of the laws. Also, not all matter decay is fact, so I wouldn't label it as such at all. Hypothetical at this point. Allow me to try and clarify my earlier point in relation to the orange rock stuff real quick. Supposing the rock continued to decay and decay and decay over billions and trillions of years, its eventual endstate is, I believe, as a bunch of scattered photons, or energy. Change of states.

Now, my other point addresses the growing popularity of breaking the law. Hah, by which I mean either the second law of thermodynamics is frequently broken, or there are yet more conversions of energy occurring on scales and through mechanics we do not yet understand (sub-Planckian, for instance). It is this very mechanism of "creating" energy and matter that would have caused a big bang, and it's something that can be observed in modern particle accelerators (well, okay, those are two different mechanisms, but you can get matter "generation" from both).

Now even supposing the rock in its many changed states is somehow "gone" in trillions of years, this doesn't mean the universe is gone. But I'd like to end that vein now, because I don't even want to argue that the universe is infinite, even if I do find cyclic models of spacetime interesting!

How about supernatural like the existence of time prior to the Big Bang? How about supernatural as time near, or in, a black hole? Or even Quantum Strings? There are things Science can't explain yet, and I'm sure they will try to figure it out sometime if we last. Heck, eventually we may finally figure out the universe can be explained using a simple math equation, (or even just by a number *cough* 42 *cough*)

Science may know some answers, and may be able to answer why things exist the way they do, but some things may never be explained. That’s where religion can fill some holes. Of course, religion can also help things outside of science too... but that’s the other discussion.

My only response is to give it time. But this is a nice summary of my whole point about forms of theological "retreat." Yes, there are things science can't explain yet, and scientists will happily acknowledge they don't understand it yet too. I prefer this to making a bunch of stuff up, to fill in the blanks, while there are blanks.

Heck, and I think Pope may have mentioned something about the Sumarians who believed something similar, but I think it's more plausible a "God" figure is actually a hyperadvanced organism that reached a sort of ascension long before a bunch of cosmic dust mingled together and decided to form our solar system. If a lot of the stuff in the Bible is taken literally, and it is, even in this very thread, then the capabilities of God are not in any way omni. Even by modern physics, any feats he's performed are, in theory, possible.

For if an alien decided to study us, and learn about us, and take particular interest in the Iliad, this alien might decide to use something like holographic technology and by our senses, become Zeus. And this alien might use technology (technology even we currently possess) to cause a massive lightning bolt and travel down with it. And before you appears Zeus, King of the Gods! And at least one person in this thread would happily convert, even though this alien is no God. It might just be a teenager with some 84th century toys.

And that sir, is some damn enjoyable rambling right there. I needed a break. :D

Loki, The Fallen

01-07-2007, 05:19 PM

We'll try that idea, here it goes.

As far as your arguments, I feel we have arrived at the statements of belief. Locke States:
I think you missed the point of the analogy. There are two things to be learned from this:

1) The immediate image that is conjured in your head. The moment we lightning-bolt all sentience, the rock is still there, meaning, the universe exists outside of our own observation and consciousness.

2) The rock does still "exist" in the way I'm trying to convey. As I said earlier:

I understand the point, and you understand mine:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen
But if one can believe that something's existence and or creation cannot be explained by science, could there not also be a being that also exists outside of science's explanation?

"Could" is too lofty a word. I take the Logical Positivists' side and say that so little evidence and so great extrapolation is required that it is useless to even attempt to entertain the idea, and that even if it were theoretically possible in this minute way, it doesn't redeem the overall fantasized image of a benevolent God. There is "insufficient data at this time to make a meaningful answer." I'd prefer to stick to Occam again.

We can say the same with other scientific theories. But maybe this leaves us at an impasse. If one can believe that one thing is infinite (which, as you said, is hard for us humans who have a 'finite' universe view) then I don't find it hard to believe that a being could exist with like properties. It is true there is insufficient data at this time. Perhaps someday we may find that out. For now, even if it seems odd to you, I'll stick to my belief.

I realize this may appear... what’s the nice word for it... Illogical, but when was the last time we humans were 100% logical? Guess I'll grab some books and start reading up on it more, and return to that point later.

More from your response
I don't know if I agree with that. For one thing, some scientists say that Earth-like planets may not be as rare as we previously thought. Seth Shostak argues this very convincingly in his series "The Search for Intelligent Life." So any Earth-centric theory could potentially be bunk.

Yes, there is a chance of another "Earth-Like" Planet, but statistically it’s kind of low. And I'm not saying there is no chance of other intelligent life out there, that’s a different topic. My point was the odds of things working out the way they do, in my opinion, point to an intelligent design. But I guess we have digressed slightly from the topic with this mini-discussion on creationism vs. ... um... scientific... something. I'll allow you to supply the name. I haven’t heard the new term for the constant universe existence theory. You have some interesting ideas.

I disagree. Religion is an artificial cement in these holes, not mending the theories, but shoddily patching them up so that they barely even hold water. The holes in science are being filled by science itself. Whether science will "solve everything evahh" I think is another debate. I'd be fine with having it but it throws off and distracts what we're talking about here. Even if science is incomplete, it corrects itself. I find "there's totally some guy up there" an inadequate filling of these scientific gaps in knowledge. Christopher Hitchens said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

A statement of opinion. Science can correct itself, but you will find just as many people who won’t agree on a 'Scientific fact' as you'll find people who will argue over 'Religious Truth'. Examples? There is a group of Liberal Christians who can't believe that Conservative Christians are real, just like there are scientists arguing over Global Warming being a man-made problem vs. natural cycles vs. sun spots. They still argue a lot. (Just examples of arguments here, not trying to change subjects.) Eventually all sides may come to an answer, the likely hood of it being found on an internet forum is kind of remote. It does make for a good conversation!

Possibly another topic that we can start in here... Based on your quote-
But if we return to our original analogy of beginning and end in social context, we will realize where this leap in logic comes from: for a building doesn’t truly cease to exist, it merely changes states. The physical structure has become a pile of rubble and ash, and socially, the buildings purpose (whatever it may have been—hospital, office, etc.) has vanished. Socially, it is important to delineate the difference between friends and non-friends, but the relationship never truly ceased to exist; even if you were to sever ties with the person, you would be in a state of non-communication, rather than “nothing.”

That appears to be a good argument for people experiencing an after-life. As matter simply changes states, so could energy? Maybe we can call that topic 7ish?

And for Mesden's issue with-
And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

The book explains it pretty well in the story of Job. According to it, we could not possibly understand his motives, what drives him. We can speculate all we wish, but perhaps we'll never understand him. Luckily, we don't have to.

Guess I'll check back later, as its quittin' time. Look forward to catching up to another 19 pages tomorrow!

--Edited because I can't believe I misspelled Locke's name...--

Mesden

01-07-2007, 05:20 PM

There's an old greek philosophical discussion detailing this. Stating that, since we, as humans, have no power, perhaps that is why the world is at it is. It is not that the gods have brought us suffering, but that as beings of power, they have certain restrictions on them that come only through being creatures that have any power at all.

Again, assuming that god has any form of restriction is inherently contradicting that god is god.

I don't know how I can make that clearer.

In a Christian discussion, this could mean different things, as God sees that it would be an evil to not allow suffering in the world, because of the enormous positive long term effects that come from it. It would be wrong, however, for we mortals to act the same way, and as such, because we understand that we should not allow suffering, we understandably judge God in a mortal light. But as the Light of the World, his light shines brighter than our own.

So, it's okay for God to allow and inflict suffering because God is God?

I really can't believe the fallback of "We're mortal so we don't know." If that's how it works, then that's just saying "I believe in god on Faith alone" -- blindness does not bode well for me.

Firstly, in reference to the bold, if that was in reference to me, then I'm sorry. I did not and do not intend to come off like that. I have Jews listed who I'm fairly certain are not christain. Buddhists, Do they even have a god? (Don't mean to trample on any of you, I know a whole lot about this religion.)

No, I was saying it was awfully bigotted to call preach that God is all loving in that context. Not you.

Secondly, I don't beleive this is a sadistic game of God's. And he isn't sending people to hell if you're not christian.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that The Bible says you get to go to hell if you don't accept God and Jesus.

I haven't read it in a long while (And when I did, it disgusted me), but saying that...defeats the purpose of believing in God as some kind of positive thing, and places it as a neutral point.

Muslims beleive in Jesus but don't think of him as the christ. So they COULD be a form of christians at a stretch.

I'm pretty sure you can't 'stretch' being a Christian, when being a Christian means you believe in Christ as your Messiah -- even though you happen to believe in this guy Mohammed as your Messiah.

That would be, oh, worshipping a false idol for the entirety of your existance, which is one of those Commandments.

And to end -- I noticed no one really touched on the entire latter paragraph of what I said, though they were happy to answer the slightly easier part of it with their own view of God's Mysterious workings.

Edit--

The book explains it pretty well in the story of Job. According to it, we could not possibly understand his motives, what drives him. We can speculate all we wish, but perhaps we'll never understand him. Luckily, we don't have to.

Again, that just can't fly. He's a sadist because it works for him! No, I'm sorry, a loving God would not torture his devout servant just to prove a point to SATAN that his people are followers. That sounds like a petty God trying to prove a point for the sake of proving a point -- by RUINING THIS MAN'S LIFE.

Free Will to live your life as you choose doesn't matter when God feels like makin' his point to make a point, neh?

I don't see that as all loving -- I don't really think you could 'stretch' that either.

Archbio

01-07-2007, 05:37 PM

Where am I treating them as "kind of, sort of"? The examples listed there in that quote of me you have are ways that god expresses those 3 characteristics.

No, they're not.

Your examples for omnipotence expresses that god is powerful. Powerful compared to the natural order, yes, but not all-powerful. Considering that in this framework, god is responsible for the natural order, it doesn't even approach being significative beyond "god has supernatural power".

Your examples for all-love are even more "sort of", and have the same weakness. All it expresses is that god isn't all-hating: god uses some of his power (assuming omnipotence here), not all, to save humanity. The rest being used to damn humanity. That's the crux of the argument that you supposedly address.

The omniscience examples are the worst: god (who can be mistaken for omnipotent) can predict what he's going to do and relay that information. That doesn't express anything.

Now, to be fair, it's doubtful that anything can be taken as an expression of omnipotence, it can only be measured against other characteristics. Omnipotence is purely abstract and causes problems with logic as we know it by itself ("Can God create something even he can't lift?"). Omniscience might not be possible to express, either.

The argument stands: logically, the god as described by christian tradition can't logically be omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving at the same time.

Marinan

01-07-2007, 06:32 PM

Again, assuming that god has any form of restriction is inherently contradicting that god is god.

I don't think thats how it works. If we don't understand, then no amount of arguing or debating will help. The only way to understand something like a god is faith. In faith, 1 = 100. In math 1 = 1.

Mesden

01-07-2007, 06:35 PM

I don't think thats how it works. If we don't understand, then no amount of arguing or debating will help. The only way to understand something like a god is faith. In faith, 1 = 100. In math 1 = 1.

Alright, so faith is faith -- I understand that, but it doesn't work for me. It can't, all-loving, a mortal definition that we use to describe god, isn't all-loving.

You can't describe God, apparently. Since you can't explain anything he does, you can't explain that he does love all of us, you just hope he does. You have faith.

Honestly, I'm a bit more worldly.

In that earlier post you quoted, check the entire latter part. I've got my reasons, you've got your faith.

That's about it between you and me, I suppose?

Marinan

01-07-2007, 06:41 PM

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-07-2007, 06:41 PM

I don't think in the way that matters. I'm not an expert on these scientific matters, unfortunately, but even these breaks all fall under the functions of the universe, no? Gravity and such being a subset of the main parameters. Shit, I need a good analogy. Haha.

I mean, I see what you're saying, and in a sense, you're right. The 'Laws of Physics' can be defined as the grand mass of all rules that govern interactions in this (or any) universe throughout the entirety of existance, but, perhaps, I took some leeway with the language.

What I was getting at is that, the way the universe interacts now is explicitly not the way it intereacted then. The four fundamental laws that govern the universe now were explicitly different than what they were then.

In a sense, these breaks in symetry do fall under the laws of physics. But in another sense, the entire structure of empiricism breaks down if we allow for breaks in symetry. If they were a constant part of the universe, any observations we made of the universe, and any tests we performed, would be immaterial, as they would be rendered obsolete by the changes in reality itself.

The laws that govern the universe in the here and now are so different then, that any tests we would do on anything now would not work then.

I suppose there's a good deal of linguistic specificity required there, but I feel that it does constitute a change because one of the tenets required of science to work is temporal symetry. Tests have to be repeatable and verifyable. If we accept that in the totality of physics, we need to deal with these breaks in symetry, well, there's really no way to compensate since the universe itself undergoes a massive change.

I feel that is pretty significant.

---
The following is a massive tangent.

Also, to understand Supergravity, I suppose I can somewhat explain...

The idea is that all the four fundamental forces of the universe are controlled by one 'messanger particle', the Supergraviton, since I have no idea what the word is, if there is one. (I don't know, maybe Omniton works better.)

So, let us say we have a mass. I mean, that's not a stretch, I have a mass right now. So lets say we have a mass. Mass exibits gravity, and emits gravitons which relay this force. If all four fundamental forces use the same particle, it cannot just emit a gravitational force. It must also emit an electromagnetic wave. In a sense, it has just become a massive photon. It must also emit the nuclear strong force, which would bind matter to it like neutrons and protons. It has just become a giant nucleus. It must also emit the weak nuclear force, which breaks down things as per bata decay. It has now become radioactive.

And it gets stranger. The weak force is currently limmited to less than the size of the nucleus of an atom. However, Gravity has a truly massive radius. Instead of just being radioactive, its presence makes huge swaths of area around it radioactive.

Which is somewhat irrelevant because the now-huge radius of its strong 'nuclear' force, which would try to combine the massive area into something like an atomic nucleus. Except that the strong nuclear force has to hadronize: this is called confinement. Whether or not it can when dealing with a twelve foot area is an entirely different question.

Imagine turning on a lightbulb and everything in your room is drawn up to it because of the gravity it creates.

All forces, always delivered with equal strength, and always on, doing everything to everything it touches.

And then there's potentially stranger effects that we can't imagine, based on the unknown nature of the size and state of these Omnitons.

Of course, this is all theoretical, since we can't observe Supergravity. It doesn't exist. At least, not anymore.

And whether or not we'll ever be able to recreate the proper conditions, particularly in such a way as to get retrievable, understandable information from them... let's just say, it requires an optimistic mind.

The preceeding has been... a massive tangent. Have a nice day.
---

I'm curious as to your thoughts on String Theory--maybe you can PM them to me? I can't say I'm extremely well-educated on science, but in the past year or so I've been slowly educating myself, and the dichotomy between proponents and opponents of String Theory has always interested and, admittedly, confused me (I do own a copy of The Elegant Universe, though, which is on my list to read after a few others). So, penny fer ya thoughts.

I mean, as long as I'm here, it's pretty short.

I feel that String Theory is an elegant and remarkable solution to the familial feud that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been undergoing. And, being a scientist at heart, I find the whole thing incredibly interesting.

However, in the end, and all mathematics aside, String Theory is entirely unfalsifyable. Therefore, it is not science. And because this not-science is being worked on by prominant physicists, I will work to never let them forget that it's not science.

Nor anyone else, for that matter.

Because it's fun.

ZAKtheGeek

01-07-2007, 06:48 PM

This thread is too much. I can't handle all the great discussion! I don't even have the time to! I'm in favor of subthreads, is what I'm saying...

I'm not sure that's accurate. They have been around for a very long time, but aren't there theories about how the universe(s) work prior to the bangs/crunches?
Based on what was written after this, yeah, that is pretty hard to swallow, and I'll probably need to read up on it more.

That alone no. But... Look. I thought all I was supposed to do to satisfy a simple, honest question. Those are my basic reasons. I can go into great detail about bible history, bible translation... specifics on my religion that make me believe that it is true. But that's such an extensive argument in an already crowded thread.
Fine, fine, I can appreciate that you weren't expecting me to try and investigate deeper. I guess I was pointing out why I personally am not convinced by this reasoning. It's how I do things.

...The rulers of Babylon read Isaiah's book and said 'we'd better let the Persians drain our river and invade our city in a few years'?
I said it was crazy. Kind of like "magical superbeing gives man the power to see the future." I don't really see why one dominates any other.

It is major if what the rest of the bible says is true, isn't it? If (and stay cool locke, we're dealing with an IF scenario here) large portions of the bible are proven true, than the safest assumption is that the rest of it is also true.
There's no reason to think that unless there's actually a logical connection among the proven and unproven things. In which case, the unproven things would most likely be proven anyway. With logic. Maybe we should try another example. Screw the Harry Potter, let's take some sort of geometry textbook (so it's about as proven as it can be) and randomly throw in some choice pieces of the Quran. Praise Allah? I think not.

Just to throw in something relevant to recent posts, faith is not understanding. Not at all. You're not understanding anything because you have no data on it. It's basically taking a guess and labeling it as the truth. Then saying that you understand something.

There's more to say, but I'm just sitting here refreshing the last page and watching new posts appear as I type. I'll just stick to whatever's current.

Mesden

01-07-2007, 07:02 PM

Perhaps, but I think that there is something a bit more people need to understand. You see, Faith is a form of understanding. In these modern times, many and such would have you falsely take it for fact that faith is not a form of reason, but for thousands of years it has been, and it always will be, even if you can't learn math from it, its actually better than a robotic logic that will only lead to the next theorem. Although, one could argue that they are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps they are only as good as eachother. The real point is that one's reason that God is God is their reason, your reason is your Reason. Understand?"

Well, let's take that logic:

Here's what it is to Understand. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Understand)

to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend:

If Faith let's you grasp the meaning of existance through faith alone, in this context, yes, it would be 'understanding'.

to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of

No human alive can really show that they are thoroughly familiar with God, and the meaning of everything. All they do is believe -- in this context, no, your faith isn't letting you Understand anything, since the logic of Faith has been in the fallback ever since it had begun to be questioned; we've seen a lot of examples in this thread of that.

to assign a meaning to; interpret

Yes, it's assigning meaning to your life and the reason of the universe -- your faith, atleast to yourself, is interpretting everything. That works, atleast on a personal level.

to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of

Faith gives you significance and importance as being a 'child of God' so to say, so yeah, on the absolute personal level and by faith alone, I guess you could call it 'understanding'.

to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled

Hell no, or else this thread would never exist. Faith is not agreed or settled in any slight way, there's no way it's come to an 'understanding' in this light.

to learn or hear

I guess you could be learning, by your own standards, and on the soleness of "It's Faith".

to accept as true; believe

That's all Faith is. That plus the state of thought to not let anything else get in the way -- including logic.

to construe in a particular way

Faith has been construing things ever since the questions started surfacing, and hasn't finished doing it yet. In this context, Faith isn't understanding at all.

to supply mentally

Sure, it supplies you with something mentally. Whether or not it's right is a sole matter of Faith. Ta-da.

to perceive what is meant; grasp the information conveyed

It's so argueable, that the only escape is "I believe on faith alone".

As Penn and Teller would say "If you're religious, and you belive it is real solely on faith, then we can't Touch you. It's an automatic draw. NO ONE can bust you."

to accept tolerantly or sympathetically

I'm pretty sure the Doctrine of Christianity is to be tolerant (Though the bible contradicts itself on that in many a place), and as an agnostic, I'm entirely sympathetic.

Most people here are tolerant enough in regards to Faith, so to be understanding OF it, sure, I guess that one works.

to have knowledge or background, as on a particular subject

Highly Debateable. Massively, unmistakeable debateable. You tell me it's actual knowledge and you've got Faith Backin' ya. Automatic Draw.

to have a systematic interpretation or rationale, as in a field or area of knowledge

Penn and Teller: "If you want history or fact, you are so screwed."

There's a lot of disregard to Rationality the second you step into pure faith. I mean, you yourself:

"In faith, 1=100"

There's no logic, no rationalism. In this context, you're far from understanding.

Automatic draw, when you pull the faith card.

Lockeownzj00

01-07-2007, 07:36 PM

Occam Strikes Again

In addition, how is it someones call to make whose still living, doesn't know EVERYTHING about any one person like what they were thinking when someone did this, or know if someone truely feels remorse for any sins they've committed? Only someone who is omniscient could make one such call. A priest/bishop/pope/person, is not omniscient.

My point was that neither of you has any evidence for the validity of your claim. Both of you would say that your religion backs you up, and historically, the priest who condemns people left and right has more of a precedent. It just goes to show how pointless it is to try to interpret religious law.

That appears to be a good argument for people experiencing an after-life. As matter simply changes states, so could energy? Maybe we can call that topic 7ish?

You don't seem to understand the argument I keep making: you are raping Occam like it's your job. It's a simple enough statement to make, but you're making far too many assumptions in your statement. I could just as easily say "isn't that a good argument for becoming a bowl of jello after I die?" and it would be equally unfounded. It's not a good argument for the after-life at all; you've made many leaps in logic.

1: When we die, despite our brain being shut down, somehow, our consciousness is retained in something.
2: This something is an essence which no one has ever seen, no one can point out on a cross-section of the human body, no one has ever studied in any real sense in any way, but everyone is sure exists.
3: Not only do you remain sentient in some sense after death, but you are transported to another world.
4: You may be transported to different worlds depending on your terrestrial behavior, which is all--
5: --judged by a supreme, invisible being, which no one has ever seen, no one can point out in the sky or on a map, no one has ever proven to converse with, but everyone is sure exists.

I have to stress that these leaps in logic and massive, astronomical assumptions are so grand and unfounded as to be useless. The idea of God, of the after-life, is an ideological trap; it appears easy and succinct, but there is a whole slew of implications with every assumption.

This is besides the point that you took one part of my analogy and misconstrued it. I said "things change states" to point out that things don't strictly "end" and become "nothing" as we traditionally view them, and somehow you turned that into "things change into other things" and broadly applied that to "death --> afterlife." When you die, you are socially "ended," but your body has merely changed states from organic to inorganic. This is where it stops. Making assumptions beyond this is patently ridiculous.

A statement of opinion. Science can correct itself, but you will find just as many people who won’t agree on a 'Scientific fact' as you'll find people who will argue over 'Religious Truth'...Eventually all sides may come to an answer, the likely hood of it being found on an internet forum is kind of remote. It does make for a good conversation!

God, I need that Sam Harris quote more than ever. >fume<

I addressed scientific disagreement in quotes below. Eventually, the theory which presents the most accurate case which is most grounded in the facts will prevail. Not so with religion.

Science and Intelligent Design

We can say the same with other scientific theories. But maybe this leaves us at an impasse.

No, we can't. I implore you to stop putting scientific theories in the same plane as religious ones. The type of extrapolation that comes from science does not resemble religious extrapolation at all. Even if String Theory turns out to be largely misguided, it is still more sensible to believe in it than Creationism. Scientific theories, even the most nebulous of them, are rooted in established fact and attempt to extrapolate future conditions through logical deduction. The disagreement among scientists you use as evidence for its ambivalence is in fact evidence for its self-correction. Scientists debate the facts with different considerations in mind in order to come closer to the truth. The fact that there are many "end-scenario" theories only shows that such a massive concept has a huge amount of factors to take into account. And, as has always, always occurred, eventually, through cooperation, collaboration, and testing (in regards to String Theory: they just built that particle accelerator, right?), we will come to conclusions. This puts scientific theories millions of leagues above anything theology could produce.

I'll stick to my belief...I realize this may appear... what’s the nice word for it... Illogical, but when was the last time we humans were 100% logical?

So what you're telling me is that despite truckloads of evidence to the contrary, you'll continue to "believe" because you feel like it? This paucity of self-reform and skepticism in Western thought is exactly thr problem. Religious logic seeps into everything, clouding our worldview. Thus it becomes acceptable to openly purport beliefs which are blatantly unjustified, all because of a "feeling." If scientists based everything on "feelings," we would be approximately nowhere right about now.

My point was the odds of things working out the way they do, in my opinion, point to an intelligent design.

What is working out "the way they do?" For every elegant part of nature I can point to you one baffling and entirely broken part. This elegance is a romantic illusion and entirely subjective.

Faith

Good move, Mesden. Let's try to define faith. I have a little passage from one Sam Harris that I'd like to provide...

What is faith, then? Is it something other than belief? The Hebrew verb 'emuna*...is alternately translated as "to have faith," "to believe," or "to trust." The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, retains the same meaning in the term pisteuein, and this Greek equivalent is adopted in the New Testament. Hebrew 11:1 defines faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the convinction of things not seen." Read in the right way, this passage seems to render faith as entirely self-justifying: perhaps the very fact that one believes in something which has not yet come to pass ("things hoped for") or for which one has no evidence ("assurance"). Let's see how this works: I feel a certain, rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence of her infatuation. I reason thus: my feelings suggest that Nicole and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection--otherwise, how could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly, this sort of faith is a tricky business.
...
Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse.

Beyond that, arguing with someone with such strong convictions about faith is like arguing with a Solipsist or Nihilist. They can not be "disproven" within their own framework, despite all logical and practical reasons to discount their philosophies. It's like Cops and Robbers: 'i shot you,' 'no you didn't,' 'yes i did,' 'i had an invisible shield,' etc. etc. and thus, useless.

Misc.

However, in the end, and all mathematics aside, String Theory is entirely unfalsifyable.

Isn't that what we're using the new particle accelerator for, though? To verify parts of the theory that have remained untestable for a long time?

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 07:37 PM

Now that I'm done suffering through the Jets game, let's take a look at suffering. :D

Mesden asked more than once something to the effect of "if God loves us perfectly, why does he put evildoers in hell for an eternity of pain?" For the simple reason that he puts believers in heaven. If believers get to go to a perfect world, why should non-believers not get the exact opposite?

Also, you don't go to hell if you're a bad person. You can go on a genocidal killing spree with a chainsaw, and if you feel sorry for your crimes in the end and want forgiveness, that'll do. Along with the trust in Jesus and such.

And, this isn't based on anything I've read or heard, I think the reason we weren't automatically put in a perfect world was because of free will. We are given the choice to follow god, or turn our backs. That's the way it was supposed to be from the start, at least until Satan entered the picture.

Mesden

01-07-2007, 07:42 PM

Mesden asked more than once something to the effect of "if God loves us perfectly, why does he put evildoers in hell for an eternity of pain?" For the simple reason that he puts believers in heaven. If believers get to go to a perfect world, why should non-believers not get the exact opposite?

Also, you don't go to hell if you're a bad person. You can go on a genocidal killing spree with a chainsaw, and if you feel sorry for your crimes in the end and want forgiveness, that'll do. Along with the trust in Jesus and such.

That was about one tiny piece of it. And really, that's not a loving God.

A loving God doesn't send good people to hell because they didn't believe something. That somehow, good people go to hell for being mistaken once is wrong.

And that bad people who make the right choice once go to heaven? Horrendous -- there's no all loving, that's favoritism for those that follow you, nothing more.

It doesn't fly with me. That may work for you, not me, not many other agnostics out there.

ZAKtheGeek

01-07-2007, 07:43 PM

But it's not a choice. If God wanted all people to live in a perfect world, they would. Since God is all-knowing, it knew based simply on the concept of everything it was to create that many people would end up suffering in hell. Even if you call it free will, the choice one makes is still a function of how their mind is made and what's in it, which is something God would have known ahead of time, as well as something that resulted directly from God's own actions, since it made everything.

Basically, to say that people going to hell is somehow a surprise to God is saying that God's neither omniscient nor all-knowing.

Azisien

01-07-2007, 08:04 PM

However, in the end, and all mathematics aside, String Theory is entirely unfalsifyable.

Isn't that what we're using the new particle accelerator for, though? To verify parts of the theory that have remained untestable for a long time?

Entirely unfalsifiable? Not from what I've read.

Strings aren't supposed to be invisible, nor are the extra spatial dimensions preposed by the theory. A sufficiently powerful particle accelerator could likely run verification experiments, but we're a while away from that. I believe there are also some theory-specific phenomena that would be easier to test, which could disprove the theory altogether.

The Large Hadron Collider is supposed to be capable of testing some characteristics that would exist within string theory, and note it's been a while since I've read up on the specifics myself, but as far as I can remember right now the predicted phenomena it can verify can also exist in non-string theory models. Supersymmetry, for instance. Saying that though, verification of supersymmetry is supporting evidence for string theory.

I'm personally excited about the hopeful verification of the Higgs boson. Gravitons, that'd be great too.

Uh, oh right, something about a religious discussion or something...

Care to enlighten me about the punishment of ignorance? Because if non-believers go to "hell," I really feel sorry for the millions of people stuck in hell for eternity because they've never even heard of Christianity/Judaism/Islam/etc. Or limbo. Take one for the team I guess.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-07-2007, 08:05 PM

Hmmm. I'm a Christian. Possibly even what many would consider a member of the "religious right". I'm also a scientist, a molecular biologist to be specific, and I did a minor in philosophy. After many debates the main conclusion that I can come to is that nobody has ever come to a solid conclusion, so how on earth will I? When it comes to religious discussion, the most logical oriented person fails at logic and it inevitably falls into the 'gut feeling' to whether or not you believe. Take for instance:

Religion is, and has been, a constant source of hate and strife just as much as it has been a source of hope and love. The Crusades. The Heresay Examinations. The Witch Trials. Great degrees of sexism. The villification and enslavement of the human sex drive--which leads to all kinds of other problems. Or even things as small as social ostracization and the splitting of society amongst invisible and man made lines of belief. If you want to call that little.

It's fun to say that you can believe what you want so long as you don't hurt anyone else, but the fact of the matter is that religion, as a whole, IS HURTING PEOPLE RIGHT NOW AS WE TYPE THIS.

No offense krylo, but thats a load of malarky. The same thing can be said of alcohol. At this very moment, somebody (many people) are suffering due to the existance of alcohol. Yet its the best disinfectant, a major chemical for use in science, a renewable and potentially cheap source of fuel, and is responsible for that wonderful smell in freshly baked bread. Religion hurts people, to be sure, but it helps a whole lot of people as well. My church, for instance, built a school for orphans in Haiti and currently funds the facility in materials, food, and training for teachers. My church also runs a drop in center on weekends so homeless people and troubled teens have a roof over their heads, food to eat, and games to play. Granted, many people in my church are incredibly irritating, as many people (religious and non-religious alike) are very closed minded, but I think an overall good effect is made. Bad people do not mean the whole thing is bad.

The only reason I can give to accept God and Jesus and the whole thing is the personal experience. People get changed for the better because of faith in God. It's also been done in a study that people of faith tend to cope with stress and problems and maintain happiness better than people without faith. Maybe thats purely psychological, or maybe its because once you've experienced God and you realize things about it you have a certainty and a knowing beyond what others can understand. Its impossible to explain, but when you simply know you're right, life is a lot easier to live.

And as for the whole "annoying proselytizing" thing, if you felt for sure that you knew the truth, wouldn't you want everyone else to know as well? I don't know anybody on this forum, but I wouldn't wish hell on any of you. In fact, I think most of you are decent people. So if I knew for sure that I knew the secret to heaven, what kind of horrible person would I be if I didn't want as many people as possible to join me? So yeah, its not about 'I'm right, you're wrong'. It's about 'I care for you and I want you to be happy'. I'm confused as to why people get offended about that... you should consider it a compliment.

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 08:09 PM

Exactly! Thank you for putting it into words.

Mesden

01-07-2007, 08:13 PM

It's not so much that people get mad that you tell them you would like for them to be Christian, because you think it'd be for the better.

Most people get angry about people telling them to be Christian, when, as far as they're concerned, they know they're right. I don't remember the verse, but it went something like "Invite them to your faith, if they decline, brush off your boots and move on" or something of the like, which, honestly, is disregarded alot.

I've been yelled at that I will go to hell from people I love and still love -- because I'm agnostic. I don't know how to tell you what kind of feeling this god inspired move implaced on me, but let me assure you, Religion isn't always good or always bad -- it's both all the time, and it's hard to tell when one outweighs the other.

Azisien

01-07-2007, 08:19 PM

It's also been done in a study that people of faith tend to cope with stress and problems and maintain happiness better than people without faith. Maybe thats purely psychological, or maybe its because once you've experienced God and you realize things about it you have a certainty and a knowing beyond what others can understand.

I think it's as simple as confidence. After all, who can deal with stress and problems more, and maintains happiness more, than someone who is confidence? It doesn't even sound unreasonable to me to figure that blind faith in the notion that "everything's gonna be okay" would cause a significant increase in confidence.

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-07-2007, 08:30 PM

Isn't that what we're using the new particle accelerator for, though? To verify parts of the theory that have remained untestable for a long time?

Very simply, in a sense we can attempt to verify some predictions made by the theory. Which would support it, yes.

[Edit: Azisien got about here before me. But nonetheless... something.]

But on a very real level, we are nowhere near the level of technology required to directly observe strings or their effects.

Which means that, insomuch as we can lend that much credence to String Theory by finding what it predicts, any other mathematical model that incorporates the new state of the universe that we find will be equally as valid as String Theory itself.

And so on and so forth until somewhere down the line we can actually look for strings.

And no particle accelerator, no matter how new, will enable this directly, because we just can't see things that small, at least not for a while. It would take a revolution in the technology we use to detect things themselves -- a vastly new method. This is, of course, assuming we can even ever see strings directly.

It's quite possible that we will never be able to, and would have to search for their equally miniscule (though concievably less restricted [see: quark confinement]) effects of strings. Which is a considerably larger pain in the ass.

Strings are, approximately, (to use the unnecessarily long form) 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 x 10e26) times smaller than an atom, or approximately 100,000,000,000,000,000 (1 x 10e17) times smaller than the smallest thing we've ever measured. So we're approximately 35% of the way there.

Welcome to perspective.

Now, it may happen, and sooner than we may think. And if and when it does become falsifyable, then it may become legitimate science (or alternately, an incorrect theory), but until then it's philosophy with numbers.

Lady Cygnet

01-07-2007, 08:31 PM

Again, that just can't fly. He's a sadist because it works for him! No, I'm sorry, a loving God would not torture his devout servant just to prove a point to SATAN that his people are followers. That sounds like a petty God trying to prove a point for the sake of proving a point -- by RUINING THIS MAN'S LIFE.

I didn't really want to get in on this, but God did not torture Job. God allowed Satan to do all that he did to Job. The point was that Satan felt sure that he could make Job, a devout follower of God, turn away from God. At first, it was just material things...but Job wouldn't turn away. That wasn't good enough for Satan, so he took away Job's children...but again, Job didn't curse God and turn away. Satan still wasn't satisfied, so he caused Job to become so ill that he cursed the day of his birth and begged for death...but even in the end, he still wouldn't curse God.

And after Satan finally gave up, God gave Job twice as much as what Satan took away from him, except for the children--he had 10 children before, and he had 10 children again. (reference) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:%2010-17;&version=49;)

~*~

The question of why bad things happen to good people has been debated for a very long time. Rabbi Harold Kushner even wrote a book about it. No human knows for certain why bad things happen to people, good or otherwise. One could assume that bad things are a natural consequence of having free will, or that God is not all-powerful, or that God is all-powerful, but because of His nature, He does not break the rules that He created at the beginning of the universe to eliminate the bad things.

This may not answer any question already put forth, but who would want to live in a world where we have no free will and do exactly what God says all of the time? One of the most beautiful things about human beings is our ability to analyze information, think, decide for ourselves what we choose to believe, and then decide how we will act as a result of our conclusions. Perhaps God feels the same way and wouldn't want a world full of drones and yes-men and yes-women who would do His will without question or thought for how their actions and reactions would affect others.

Perhaps life is something like an ant farm. It would be sadistically cruel to fill the ant farm with water, but it would also be cruel to be constantly sticking one's hands in the farm to take away any and all challenges in the ants's lives. Without any challenges, life becomes a drudgery that no longer requires any conscious thought.

Lockeownzj00

01-07-2007, 09:02 PM

Nature of God

Mesden asked more than once something to the effect of "if God loves us perfectly, why does he put evildoers in hell for an eternity of pain?" For the simple reason that he puts believers in heaven. If believers get to go to a perfect world, why should non-believers not get the exact opposite?

So this God is such a fickle creature that it actually cares so much about people acknowledging "him" that it sends some to an eternal place of fire and brimstone? So he's a creature of infinite power, but he's nothing like us, and we can't use human logic to understand him. Yet he gets offended when someone ignores him?

Mesden

01-07-2007, 09:05 PM

I didn't really want to get in on this, but God did not torture Job. God allowed Satan to do all that he did to Job. The point was that Satan felt sure that he could make Job, a devout follower of God, turn away from God. At first, it was just material things...but Job wouldn't turn away. That wasn't good enough for Satan, so he took away Job's children...but again, Job didn't curse God and turn away. Satan still wasn't satisfied, so he caused Job to become so ill that he cursed the day of his birth and begged for death...but even in the end, he still wouldn't curse God.

And after Satan finally gave up, God gave Job twice as much as what Satan took away from him, except for the children--he had 10 children before, and he had 10 children again. (reference) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:%2010-17;&version=49;)

That does not in any way make it okay. He fervently allows Satan to torture this man to prove a point? What? No, I mean, that's just a cruel test. Cruel when you could stop it, sicne your omnisciousness ALREADY KNEW. It just doesn't fit.

The question of why bad things happen to good people has been debated for a very long time. Rabbi Harold Kushner even wrote a book about it. No human knows for certain why bad things happen to people, good or otherwise. One could assume that bad things are a natural consequence of having free will, or that God is not all-powerful, or that God is all-powerful, but because of His nature, He does not break the rules that He created at the beginning of the universe to eliminate the bad things.

This may not answer any question already put forth, but who would want to live in a world where we have no free will and do exactly what God says all of the time?

One of the most beautiful things about human beings is our ability to analyze information, think, decide for ourselves what we choose to believe, and then decide how we will act as a result of our conclusions. Perhaps God feels the same way and wouldn't want a world full of drones and yes-men and yes-women who would do His will without question or thought for how their actions and reactions would affect others.

If God's Omniscious, then 'real' free will unto him doesn't work. If he limits himself for only the reason to watch this little system set up, then, well, let's use your analogy--

Perhaps life is something like an ant farm. It would be sadistically cruel to fill the ant farm with water, but it would also be cruel to be constantly sticking one's hands in the farm to take away any and all challenges in the ants's lives. Without any challenges, life becomes a drudgery that no longer requires any conscious thought.

We as being are just his ants, and he toys, and yes TOYS with us when he wants to.

Back in the biblical days, it's okay for God to just make a sweeping plague or perform terrible acts of cruelty to entire people for petty reasons (Kill all the first borns because the Pharoah is stubborn? Terrible). But when it comes to us, in any documented time ever, all we get is personal inspiration and a Bible, which has blatant verses of *TERRIBLE* things of acceptable behavior, which is still the word of an All Loving God?

I don't see an All Loving God through this. Maybe a God -- who knows, but nowhere can I concieve this being I've come to see and read about is All Loving.

Edit for Locke's Last Statement: Kind of repeating things, in a fashion. (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=475408&postcount=99)

EditEdit: I need sleep, Get back to you guys tomorrow night.

ZAKtheGeek

01-07-2007, 09:30 PM

The only reason I can give to accept God and Jesus and the whole thing is the personal experience. People get changed for the better because of faith in God. It's also been done in a study that people of faith tend to cope with stress and problems and maintain happiness better than people without faith. Maybe thats purely psychological, or maybe its because once you've experienced God and you realize things about it you have a certainty and a knowing beyond what others can understand. Its impossible to explain, but when you simply know you're right, life is a lot easier to live.
Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to be an intolerant ass. But just try seeing this through my eyes. Piece by piece:

It's also been done in a study that people of faith tend to cope with stress and problems and maintain happiness better than people without faith.
That's because there are no real problems when you're destined to spend eternity in paradise with your creator-superbeing. You really don't need to be concerned about the "real" world all that much.

Maybe thats purely psychological, or maybe its because once you've experienced God and you realize things about it you have a certainty and a knowing beyond what others can understand. Its impossible to explain, but when you simply know you're right, life is a lot easier to live.
Or maybe you're just unshakably deluded into a comforting mindset. That's why it's impossible to explain, and that's why it's easier to live.

This idea is also supported by some of the people that said they believe what they do because it gives them comfort and answers difficult questions. I'm still looking for other answers, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of them.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I'll burn in hell for eternity because I didn't accept G&J as my homies. Maybe I'm misinterpreting all of this. But seriously, if you look at this from an outside perspective and try to see it as I see it? Pretty damn convincing.

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 09:39 PM

On the topic of love, I'd like to quote Twiddy who was quoting Angels and Demons:

TheWizWhoDidIt (9:25:34 PM): Wise Guy Priest Thing: Do you love your child?
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:25:39 PM): "Yes."
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:14 PM): "Do you want to keep him from harm?"
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:16 PM): "Yes."
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:25 PM): "Would you let him skateboard?"
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:29 PM): "... Yes."
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:35 PM): "Even though he would be hurt?"
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:37 PM): "Yes."
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:39 PM): "Why?"
TheWizWhoDidIt (9:26:45 PM): "Because we learn from our pain."

Don't know if that'll do anything for anyone, I just liked the quote.

And ZAK, I've looked at it through someone else's perspective, and I still found mine as more convincing. I do agree that everyone participating should be as openminded as possible, but sometimes that just doesn't do the trick.

42PETUNIAS

01-07-2007, 09:45 PM

Because we learn from our pain.

Still, that doesn't justify damning up the kid next door because he didn't come over and join your family.

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 09:54 PM

Well, why should God give anyone this gift if they don't even believe he exists?

ZAKtheGeek

01-07-2007, 09:55 PM

Really, I'm just pointing out the merits of my position. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to actually be convinced...

Well, why should God give anyone this gift if they don't even believe he exists?
Because he loves all.

But, see, look at this. You can't ask for a logical answer involving God if God has its own unknowable uberlogic.

Darth SS

01-07-2007, 10:01 PM

...Sweet merciful grapefruit in the sky...

Okay, there's a lot I wanted to jump in on, but I felt that these were the best.

See, there's (A) believing in something, and there's (B) being part of an organized religion. Now, it's nigh impossible to have B without A, but very easy to have A without B, and much more pleasant.

Like hell it is. I'd say it's far more common to have people who go to church simply because it's A) Familiar, B) Saves them from ostracizing, and C) It helps them ignore the fact that they spend the whole week doing "bad" things.

Science will always find a way to explain things. But who set the rules? Who caused this all to happen this way? The statistics of the universe working out so that life could exist, or that the current universe could exist the way it does are astronomical.

Statistics can explain that.

The law of large numbers states that if you do something a whole bunch of times, and I mean an incredibly large number of times, that the probabilities will be right. So you have quadrillions of universes forming. Only one of these universes doesn't collapse on itself. Inside that universe, you have an equally large number of random events happening. You then have a really long time. Over this really long time, you have quadrillions of events. Maybe a thousand of them start chains that would lead to the creation of earths. Only one (or five if there really are other "earths" out there) makes it all the way through. Then, on that earth, you have a very large number of events. Lots of math later, you get humans, etc.

It's certainly unprobable, but not unlikely, a distinction which few make.

Acts of kindness that truly stem from religion, indeed, are the most morally deceitful, because they do not originate from some independent and personal wish to be altruistic, but a desire to either a) follow the tenets of one's faith/please god b) give religion a good name c) not go to hell. None of these involves selflessness.

You know, it's okay to quote me. I made this statement way earlier.

Not mad at you or anything, but I want to see at least one of my quotes shown in a positive light.

And how come anyone omnipotent can't be angry? You can know something bad is going to happen and be angry or sad all the same. But, it also says that we were created in God's image. Meaning he shares the same set of moods as we do, love, hate, sadness, etc...

Because those are "bad" emotions. And God is supposed to be the epitome of "good."

Of course, there can be righteous anger and such. Let's suppose that he gets mad. Well, when people get mad, they lash out. But wait, we're still here. Why is that? Well, of course you say that "He's perfect, so he can control Himself."

But would something perfect have gotten angry in the first place?

The same could be said about your "blatant series of assumptions" that God isn't omnipotent or omniscient or all loving. As far as I'm concerned, If God wasn't all Loving, there wouldn't be a purgatory, nor would there be a means for us to have our sins absolved, and Jesus wouldn't have happened. If God wasn't Omnipotent there wouldn't be a virgin Mary, parting of the sea, the plagues, passover, again Jesus. If God wasn't Omniscient, then there would be no prophets or scriptures fortelling of the comming of Christ.

You prove to me that all of those and the detail that the Church preaches about them aren't all just a blatent series of assumptions, and I'll acknowledge that this kind of statement has any kind of merit.

Now two birds with one stone.

So, it's okay for God to allow and inflict suffering because God is God?
Aren't these comflicting belifes though? I mean, if you belive in a creator, it stands to reason that his standards are actually natural or inherient to some goal?

Any kind of standards or rules that "God" makes are ultimately entirely arbitrary and random.

He says "killing's wrong." Well, why is it wrong. Well, because He says so. If His decision about what's right IS what's right, then what's right is entirely arbitrary.

Perhaps, but I think that there is something a bit more people need to understand. You see, Faith is a form of understanding. In these modern times, many and such would have you falsely take it for fact that faith is not a form of reason, but for thousands of years it has been, and it always will be, even if you can't learn math from it, its actually better than a robotic logic that will only lead to the next theorem. Although, one could argue that they are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps they are only as good as each other. The real point is that one's reason that God is God is their reason, your reason is your Reason. Understand?

But it isn't a form of reason!

The entire basis of faith is treating something as true without any kind of evidence!

This entire concept of "everything was created by some great benevolent being beyond our reality who loves us unquestionably and the reason we can't understand His contradictions is because we aren't the same kind of being," is COMPLETELY unreasonable! It has no foundation in any kind of fact! Simply saying "I don't know how the world began," or "We have a pretty good, but uncomplete guess at how the world began," is infinitely more grounded in fact!

It's downright insane!

And that's why it's faith!

Religion hurts people, to be sure, but it helps a whole lot of people as well. My church, for instance, built a school for orphans in Haiti and currently funds the facility in materials, food, and training for teachers. My church also runs a drop in center on weekends so homeless people and troubled teens have a roof over their heads, food to eat, and games to play.

Where I take issue with that is that a lot of those facilities are ones that say, "Sure, I'll help you. But while you're here, let's teach you about God!" There are far too many centres whose aid invariably comes with them pushing their religion on you. How is it any different than luring children into your van with candy so you can teach them "how to accept their sexuality."

Yes, I just compared religion with pedophilia. I'm very sorry about that, but it was sadly the best comparison I could think of.

I'm slowly beginning to think that my five groups of people should be in bold, and taken with other informations and put in a section called "Stuff we've estalibshed, and other ground rules."

Finally, I think we can all use the words of a Doctor Gregory House to understand this a bit more.

You know I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes, they want to live in the holes. And they go nuts when somebody else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes, people!

EDIT- Oh, come on. In the time it took me to write that, another page was made!

P-Sleazy

01-07-2007, 10:05 PM

To Mesden:
Except Moses told the Pharoah what would happen if he didn't let the Jews go.

And if you call listening to that little voice in your head, what some may call a conscience, then yes, God does toy with us. Otherwise, I fail to see how God meddles.

Again, about the heaven and hell thing and who goes.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that The Bible says you get to go to hell if you don't accept God and Jesus.
The bible also says that God is an understanding God.

If you're introduced to God and Jesus and you take an interest in it, start to beleive in them and acknowledge them and suddenly reject them, then yes, your statement might be true that you go straight to hell. The bible says alot of things, and many things that can directly contradict eachother. You just have to learn how to work out a way that both statements can work out. This too is one of the things that was explained to me. And its how I accept it.

Theres also a human factor to faith. Reading a bible alone won't enlighten you on all matters of any one faith. You have to talk to someone whom you trust and more knowledgeable on said subject(faith) in question. A forum can only do so much.

ZAKtheGeek

01-07-2007, 10:07 PM

Oh snap, it's House vs. God. I was gonna quote that. Here, let me do it right:
"You know I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes, they want to live in the holes. And they go nuts when somebody else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes, people!"

I've got more from that episode, if anyone wants. <_<

Darth SS

01-07-2007, 10:10 PM

Thank you for that, it has been duly editted.

Except Moses told the Pharoah what would happen if he didn't let the Jews go.

And if you call listening to that little voice in your head, what some may call a conscience, then yes, God does toy with us. Otherwise, I fail to see how God meddles.

Prove it happened.

Also, if the bible's right, doesn't Jesus bringing people back from the dead qualify as meddling?

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 10:11 PM

Yeah, he loves all, that's why he gives everyone a chance to come to him before they die.

And in response to everyone who will inevitably ask "what about those people in third world countries who were just never brought up or otherwise able to hear the scripture?" I give you:

Deuteronomy 5:9
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

And again about the whole damnation thing. It goes on to say that God is slow to anger and quick to forgive.

Krylo

01-07-2007, 10:31 PM

When it comes to religious discussion, the most logical oriented person fails at logic and it inevitably falls into the 'gut feeling' to whether or not you believe. As a molecular biologist, you should know that 'gut feelings' are never good enough. Would you splice the genes of a marmoset with a frog on a 'gut feeling' that it may cure cancer? Or would you actually study it, do research, and find out whether or not there is any evidence that it would? And if it didn't have evidence would you go ahead and do it anyway?

That's what faith is. Shooting in the dark. Acting without knowledge, logic, or evidence.

No offense krylo, but thats a load of malarky. The same thing can be said of alcohol. At this very moment, somebody (many people) are suffering due to the existance of alcohol. Yet its the best disinfectant, a major chemical for use in science, a renewable and potentially cheap source of fuel, and is responsible for that wonderful smell in freshly baked bread.Illegitimate Analogy logical fallacy. Alcohol is nothing like religion.

Alcohol: Is a physical item and not an idealogy. The differences are so vast I can't even begin to point them all out. One's a drug, one is a thought.

I suppose they are similiar in that when ingested they both have severely detrimental effects on the intelligence and thinking capabilities of the consumer. And that they are both poisons that are quite effective in killing off life forms of weaker physical and/or mental capability. And, really, most of their best applications are in reactions which lead to a change of states so radical that neither can be defined as they were before, or, in layman's terms, their destruction. So you kinda have me there.

Religion hurts people, to be sure, but it helps a whole lot of people as well. My church, for instance, built a school for orphans in Haiti and currently funds the facility in materials, food, and training for teachers. My church also runs a drop in center on weekends so homeless people and troubled teens have a roof over their heads, food to eat, and games to play.And while you're all doing that members of the Westboro Baptist Church are tying homosexuals to the back ends of their trucks and dragging them down dirt roads.

As I said, it is as much a source of strife and hate as it is of love and comfort. Nothing you said has disproven that. You have only proven that it can be connected to positive things.

However, I can prove not only connection but direct liability for TERRIBLE things.

For instance: I have a motive to send money to starving orphans in Haiti without religion, as that I'm a human being, and all human beings deserve respect. I need no god to tell me that this is the right course of action.

Further, there is the Red Cross, Child's Play, Planned Parenthood, and thousands of other non-profit volunteer organizations working to alleviate the pressures on the poor and downtrodden who have absolutely no connection to religion.

On the other hand, let us look at the current downtrodden group in the world. The current equal right's struggle. Today's civil rights movement.

Where is the main justification that people get to hurt, maim, kill, and deny the rights of homosexuals? The holy bible.

Let's go back in time now and look at the world BEFORE the advent of Christianity in Rome, when homo and bisexuality were perfectly accepted. Where homosexuality did not incur violence.

Religion is not only CONNECTED to violence against homosexuals. It is LIABLE FOR IT. It is the CAUSE of it.

Much as religion is the CAUSE of inventions such as the pear of pain, which is a device, shaped roughly like a pear, which was inserted into a woman's vagina whereupon a crank was turned. As this crank was turned the 'pear' would open and slowly rip the woman apart on the inside. What was it created for? Heresay examinations and witch trials. Who made it? The church.

Or how about the spider? Which is, really, just a pair of sharpened tongs, but with eight 'legs' used for grasping. This was heated until it was red-hot and used for the same reasons, was created by the same people, and used at the same time... to grab a person's nipple and tear it off.

Great that your religion helped some haitian kids who had fallen through the cracks, but that does not change the fact that your religion has also destroyed lives, is destroying lives, and will continue to destroy lives.

People get changed for the better because of faith in God.No. People get changed because of faith in God. Some for the better, most for the worst. The worst is usually not so great a change as those listed above, but, honestly, it's easier to make points with heavy hitters than things such as social ostracization. Which, is, yes, a very real and terrible problem related to the religious as a whole.

It may seem harmless, but in reality it ruins lives just as sure as a bullet. It simply does its work slower and more painfully. People are psychologically scarred both by their religion, and by being of a different religion. I have talked to many people from religious families who have been driven to tears, told that they are hated, and that they are going to hell simply because of their parent's beliefs. I have seen people struggle to keep up with the unnatural and unattainable ideals of the church and FALL APART AT THE SEAMS.

It's also been done in a study that people of faith tend to cope with stress and problems and maintain happiness better than people without faith. Maybe thats purely psychological, or maybe its because once you've experienced God and you realize things about it you have a certainty and a knowing beyond what others can understand. Its impossible to explain, but when you simply know you're right, life is a lot easier to live.And that right there is the problem.

You KNOW you're right. You are unwilling to accept that you could be wrong, and that might make YOU happier, but it makes life a hell of a lot harder on everyone around you who can't live up to the standards of your religion--either because they hold a different faith or because they are too 'weak of will' to deny their natural urges.

And as for the whole "annoying proselytizing" thing, if you felt for sure that you knew the truth, wouldn't you want everyone else to know as well? I don't know anybody on this forum, but I wouldn't wish hell on any of you. In fact, I think most of you are decent people. So if I knew for sure that I knew the secret to heaven, what kind of horrible person would I be if I didn't want as many people as possible to join me? So yeah, its not about 'I'm right, you're wrong'. It's about 'I care for you and I want you to be happy'. I'm confused as to why people get offended about that... you should consider it a compliment.And that's the problem.

Look at it from the other person's point of view.

THEY know that THEY'RE right. They know that THEY have the secret to heaven, or bliss, or what the fuck ever. To them you are nothing more than a tempter attempting to lead them away from their religion.

As a person who falls halfway between athiest and agnostic, I honestly am not bothered by people attempting to get me to join their faith too much. I mostly just feel bad for them because of the way other people of other faiths treat them.

However, I can also understand why someone of another faith would treat them that way.

Both sides KNOW that THEY have the secret to heaven, so when one attempts to convert the other it is not just an attack on their preconceived worldview (which is, honestly, going to cause enough problems as is), but also someone else trying to tear them away from eternal happiness.

Well, why should God give anyone this gift if they don't even believe he exists?Gift? What?

The problem isn't NOT letting people into heaven.

It's sending people to burn in a lake of fire because they didn't believe he exists, when he gives them no proof.

There are, literally, hundreds of active religions in the world right now, thousands if we want to count all the different denominations of christianity (many of which claim that by following another denomination of christianity you're going to hell anyway).

There's no REASON to believe that God exists over Vishnu, or Buddha, or Zeus, or Thor, or Allah, or The Eternal Tao, or any other deity. The bible is no more accurate in history than any other holy book. It is no more morally correct than any other holy book. It is no less ambiguous than any other holy book. If anything it LESS accurate, LESS morally correct, and MORE ambiguous.

Accurate/Ambiguous: Just for STARTERS, there's how many different translations of the bible? Only one of them can be correct. Oh and how about that crazy hebrew language? Here's a fun fact, there's no word in hebrew for eternal or eternity. The word used to describe either eternity in heaven OR hell, actually means 'a time'. Let's take it a bit further, the hebrew word for hell is Gehenna. Gehenna is a small valley north of mesopotamia, where the jewish people threw their garbage to burn. They also threw the bodies of their criminals there, and, as that human fat is a complex carbon chain, it burns slow and never goes out. Thus you spend a time in the ever burning fires of the valley of gehenna if you were a sinner. This is a LITERAL phrase in the old testament. Not spiritual.

Morally correct:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

Do I really need to go on?

Why SHOULD people believe in God? And why should he punish those who do not when he has given us no proof of his existence?

And after Satan finally gave up, God gave Job twice as much as what Satan took away from him, except for the children--he had 10 children before, and he had 10 children again. (reference)
I'm sorry, but no.

Killing some guy's wives and then giving him twice as much pussy as he had before is NOT an equal trade, nor does he come out on top. There is no equivalent exchange for a human life. There is no replacement for the women and children that Job lost.

If someone came into your house and killed your entire family and then was like, "But no, it's TOTALLY alright, because, like, I got you TWO NEW FAMILIES!" how would you feel?

Especially if the whole thing was some stupid bet?

42PETUNIAS

01-07-2007, 10:35 PM

Well, why should God give anyone this gift if they don't even believe he exists?

Personally, if there does turn out to be a god, I don't really care if He doesn't send me to eternal monotony, it's the fact that he'll damn me just because I don't believe in him that makes me think he doesn't love me. I try to be a good person, I try to do good things, I want to be a doctor when i graduate. Next to all of this, I don't see why an Omniscient being wouldn't see the wisdom in rewarding those who help people, and overlooking the small fact of who's name I helped those people in.

Edit: There's no REASON to believe that God exists over Vishnu, or Buddha, or Zeus, or Thor, or Allah, or The Eternal Tao, or any other deity.

Actually, that could definitly be argued. There is reason to believe that God exists over the I.P.U. It might me bad reasoning, but there still is reason there.

Nikose Tyris

01-07-2007, 10:44 PM

I am a christian.

I chose christianity because I read about it. I researched it. I looked into different choices. I looked into many, many different choices. I looked at fucking XENU. I looked at Evolution. Something about Evolution didn't sit quite right with me. just... what are the odds of sentience?
Well, going entirely on our own planet, I'm going to say... roughly 1 in 290,000,000, if we include every bug type, tree, and animal.

I have no idea the true number of anything on this planet, so if someone has a chronicled number of every type of plant, fish, bug, pterodectyl, it'd be nice.

In the end, I chose Christianity in particular because I liked it the most. It made the most sense. It was a continuation and alignment that fit with older prophecies, and lined up with historical documents.

Does any of this constitute absolute proof? No. Anything can be faked and I could be beleiving in a lie. That's where I constitute faith.

I absolutely refuse to try and rationalize anything that happens in this world today, with one, and only one exception: in the first book of the bible, Genesis, God removed himself from the world. He took himself out and left man to die because he disobeyed. Therefore, the only way he can logically assist us, is if we ask for his intervention.

How many people ask?

And to end this, I'm not saying my religon is the 'most right one.' That's a retarded veiwpoint. What all this said was, this is the viewpoint most right for Me. I aspire to be a christian. no one should claim to be a christian, because that's a lie. To be a christian is to be 'christ-like.' and no one is flawless.

Except perhaps Bob the Mercenary, cause He still gets kick-ass presents from Santa.

So... there's my spout-off on this entire topic. I'm going to log off after typing this, and probably never read it again. Is that because I don't care about the refutes, or that I'm spouting off for the sake of spouting off? Or does it mean that I'm simply stating my faith, stating a mild defense of it, and my personal viewpoint, and don't want to be dragged into a war over it?

I'll leave that for you to decide too.

Edit: Quick Edit because one more thought came to mind.

Not everything claiming to be 'christian' or to represent 'christianity' is, in fact, christian. Many people are sheep, and many people are simply assholes. An asshole could be made pope. An asshole could be made President, or King. If the asshole makes the rule, then invariably, some people will follow.

An asshole can start up a 'baptist' church. an 'asshole' can start up just about anything he damn well pleases.

P-Sleazy

01-07-2007, 10:46 PM

The same could be said about your "blatant series of assumptions" that God isn't omnipotent or omniscient or all loving. As far as I'm concerned, If God wasn't all Loving, there wouldn't be a purgatory, nor would there be a means for us to have our sins absolved, and Jesus wouldn't have happened. If God wasn't Omnipotent there wouldn't be a virgin Mary, parting of the sea, the plagues, passover, again Jesus. If God wasn't Omniscient, then there would be no prophets or scriptures fortelling of the comming of Christ.

You prove to me that all of those and the detail that the Church preaches about them aren't all just a blatent series of assumptions, and I'll acknowledge that this kind of statement has any kind of merit.

Prove it happened.

Also, if the bible's right, doesn't Jesus bringing people back from the dead qualify as meddling?

Jesus bringing people back from the dead brought joy and happiness to the deceased and those around him did it not? As for the rest of the the stuff I listed. I'll list the passage in the Bible, won't quote, too many, too long. I'll put up explanations though. EDIT: Forgot to delete underlined when writing this post, leaving so the rest makes some sense.

As for the proof. Prove that something you cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste exists. Thats how it is with faith. You have no proof. You just have your faith in it.

Darth SS

01-07-2007, 10:53 PM

That's...that's acutally something I adressed with someone else.

But ANYWAYS, quoting the bible doesn't satisfy me. It's been translated and editted far too many times, and there are far too many instances where it could be that someone saw something, didn't understand it, and said "It must have been God!"

And, your description of what bringing people back from the dead did is a fruitless argument.

God stepped in, look at something that was supposed to happen, and in fact had already happened, and changed it. He meddled.

Death is natural. To defy it is unnatural, and if a higher being decides to ignore the laws of nature he is meddling.

Bob The Mercenary

01-07-2007, 10:57 PM

We weren't supposed to die in the first place. So in effect, death isn't natural. And if that were the case, Jesus' death and resurrection would all be classified as meddling.

Also, somewhere (I'm not looking it up because it's too late), but somewhere it was researched and concluded that even after all of the hundreds of times the bible was translated and edited it has always come out around 99% accurate to the previous copy.

[Edit] Going to bed to recharge for pages 14-20.

P-Sleazy

01-07-2007, 10:58 PM

Actually, I was gonna list off all the passages and I had about 3 of them done when I realized that quoting the bible isn't necessarily going to help. And I took them out and replaced them with that because it does the job better.
So, can you prove to me, or yourself for that matter, that a rock exists if you can't see, touch, smell, feel, or taste it? No, you can't because your senses don't sense the rock, and the rock itself could be a fabrication you created and beleive in.

Lady Cygnet

01-07-2007, 11:07 PM

I'm sorry, but no.

Killing some guy's wives and then giving him twice as much pussy as he had before is NOT an equal trade, nor does he come out on top. There is no equivalent exchange for a human life. There is no replacement for the women and children that Job lost.

If someone came into your house and killed your entire family and then was like, "But no, it's TOTALLY alright, because, like, I got you TWO NEW FAMILIES!" how would you feel?

Especially if the whole thing was some stupid bet?

No, krylo. At no point in the Book of Job was Job's wife killed. In fact, Job's wife urged him to "Curse God and die." (Job 2:9) Job's ten children died (seven sons and three daughters), and after all was said and done, he was given ten more children (also seven sons and three daughters).

You are right that there is no replacement for the human life, though. I have lost a child myself, and I can understand the anguish that Job must have suffered after learning of the deaths of his own children. God did not kill Job's children, though, and there was no bet involved in the experiences that Job had as a result of Satan's fraudulent claims about Job's integrity and faith.

If someone came and killed my entire family again, I would be utterly devastated. I would not blame God, though. I would accept that my family was slaughtered because there is evil in the world, just as I accepted the death of my daughter on April 27, 2005. I might even wonder why they were killed and I was spared, but I would accept it. My family and I are all of the same faith, and I would take comfort in knowing that they are in a better place than what we have on earth. There would be no sense in abandoning my faith if my family were to die--after all, my faith would be all that I would have left.

Darth SS

01-07-2007, 11:11 PM

We weren't supposed to die in the first place. So in effect, death isn't natural. And if that were the case, Jesus' death and resurrection would all be classified as meddling.

That statement has two downfalls.

1) For it to be true, God has to be real. Since you can't prove the basis for your argument, you can't prove your argument. I could argue that the flow of electrons that is electricity flows because little creatures called Elebits carry them on their back. That logical fallacy is circular reasoning.

Be careful though, the moment you say "You can't prove God doesn't exist," that's an Ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

2) God is the one who made us able to die. Was that unnatural? Can God do something unnatural? Well, if he does, then he meddled with our life-cycles. And...you prove my point.

Also, somewhere (I'm not looking it up because it's too late), but somewhere it was researched and concluded that even after all of the hundreds of times the bible was translated and edited it has always come out around 99% accurate to the previous copy.

And somewhere it was shown that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

I have no doubt that the bible is 99% accurate going from paper to paper, word for word. What I do doubt heavilly is A) The connotations in the translations, B) The lack of bias from the person who wrote it, C) The lack of editting of the original, D) The lack of bias from the edittor (see A) E) The veracity, and F) The selection of books. The books were chosen at the council of Carthage by the church, and they were a bunch of books that were decided to be "divinely inspired."

We have no reason to believe that they really were divinely inspired, and that they weren't just the books that told the council what they wanted to hear.

So, can you prove to me, or yourself for that matter, that a rock exists if you can't see, touch, smell, feel, or taste it? No, you can't because your senses don't sense the rock, and the rock itself could be a fabrication you created and beleive in.

Proving the existance of a rock is much different from proving the existance of God. Some people would say you insult God with this comparison.

The rock's existance can be proven by me simply turning around and looking. I can ask someone trustworthy. I can lick the rock, smell it, poke the rock. However, the existance of a rock doesn't change anything.

The existance of God changes everything. And, his existance can't be proven because I can't turn around and see him. If I ask someone trustworthy, it doesn't matter if they say yes or no. With a rock, it's hard to be wrong. It's either a rock, or it's not. No belief needed. With God, they can say "Yes", completely mean it, and be wrong.

P-Sleazy

01-08-2007, 12:15 AM

But my scenario is exactly the same. Because, in this case, just like with God, you can't see, feel, smell, taste, or hear the rock. I did not say where the rock was, in correlation to you. As far as you're concerned your 5 senses don't sense the rock. Can you prove to me that the rock exists? This goes exactly with God. I can't prove him to you, but I beleive he exists, just as you can't prove the rock to me, just as you beleive the rock exists.

Tydeus

01-08-2007, 02:08 AM

A Question to the theists here: Why do we have viruses?

I can understand human evil -- it is an unavoidable product of free will. If we cannot do evil, then we are not truly free.

I can even maybe understand natural disasters -- unavoidable consequences of the physics of this universe. For example, the only way to avoid hurricanes would be to have an inhospitable world (either too cold, too dry, or with no atmosphere), given current laws of physics. Now, I could ask why God would create a universe as psychotic as ours in the first place (I mean, entropy? Seriously? How fucked up is that?), but I'll stay simpler.

I can understand pain in general -- to challenge us, teach us, etc.

But why in the fuck do we have viruses? They serve no purpose other than to destroy. Some of them are incredibly vicious -- you would think a sadistic psychopath had designed their effects. Ebola/Marburg? Really? Do we need a virus that liquifies people's insides? Is that really fucking necessary? Or how about smallpox? That's not a very fun disease. 1918 Flu. Herpes. Hepatitis. AIDS. And so on.

Viruses only serve to harm and destroy. They only make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Otherwise, they're just twisted. Isn't there enough pain in the world without that kind of shit?

Further, what about the really fucked up diseases? Like the parasitic worm that breeds in your skin, and its progeny eat their way through your skin, causing it to wrinkle and hang loosely (making you look pretty horrible), only to burrow into your eyes and slowly blind you? How fucking twisted is that? Did God really decide he just had to create that? Flesh eating bacteria? That's pretty twisted too.

It's one thing to have pain in the world -- it's another to have pain that intense and grotesque. That is not a loving God. It's one thing to learn from pain, it's another to go blind and become hideously deformed for no fucking reason other than that you're poor, you live in the Third World, and your life is already really shitty.

And while we're discussing some of the twisted stuff out there -- Hell. How insane is that? Eternal torture? Fucking eternal!? What could possibly warrant that? That's incredibly twisted and sadistic. Punishment is only useful to teach people something -- otherwise it's just sadism, power-lust, revenge, and general insanity. Hell and a loving God are 100% incompatible. If you can rationalize Hell's existence, then you have less humanity and conscience than me, the resident Forum Sociopath. Nice going.

P.S. -- I moderate a forum on Bungie.net that allows religious discussion, and it's really not all that bad. You guys worry too much. We're all civilized, or at least more than B.net people. :D

POS Industries

01-08-2007, 04:02 AM

A Question to the theists here: Why do we have viruses?

*raises hand* Question: Are we allowed to believe in a god and the concept of evolution? You know, that all life on Earth developed from single-celled microbes all the way to humans and cows and trees and Twiddy because it was the will of some higher consciousness? I mean, because I do. Hell, if I were God, that's totally how I would go about making worlds, you know?

Furthermore, is it cool to believe that maybe what we would consider "God" is neither good nor evil, just a neutral, organized force that keeps the entire scope of existance from falling into total entropy? You know, and maybe that this God doesn't value one form of life over another, so it's totally cool that a virus pretty much destroys everything around it in order to grow and reproduce, in a manner similar to, say, humankind.

I don't really get why, in order to believe in a higher being such as God, you have to subscribe to every single tenet of a specific organized religion. Furthermore, I don't understand why the obvious recourse to so many people here is to blame a spiritual idea for the actions of the manmade organization that, more often than not, manipulates that idea to suit their less-than-altruistic goals.

But I digress. To answer your question, Tydeus, I believe there are viruses in existance because they have as much right to exist as we do. Should medical science find a way to eradicate any or all strains of viruses from the face of the planet, then I guess viruskind is SOL. It's conflict, you see, a motivating force. The constant need to sustain one's own survival and the survival of the species promotes growth and advancement. Why, if we didn't have microscopic organisms trying to kill us from within, we'd have no reason to create technology allowing us to look at not only the virulent kinds of microbes, but the countless other forms of microscopic life out there. We learn more, get smarter, pass on the knowledge, develop it into new and wondrous things.

If it weren't for that sort of challenge, we'd be sitting naked in caves banging rocks together or something.

Nique

01-08-2007, 04:19 AM

Obviously, this forum has gone a long, long time without disscussing this subject, and almost everyone is coming out of the wood-work with an axe to grind. It's like they just slipped a pack of exploding Mentos into the Diet Coke bottle that is our forum.

We need some kind of moderation in this disscussion. Not a ban-hammer, but someone to lead the disscussion. I'm not volunteering for this 'position', but I'm going to try and break these plethora of disscussions down so that we can get newcomers caught up and no one get's lost.

Essentially, I'm instigating a fresh start. That doesn't mean you shouldn't reply to what's been posted before this, but it's an invitation to revisit your arguments, or start posting on certain aspects of this topic if you haven't already without feeling obligated to reply directly to past postings.

Firstly, I think I'm obligated to get some social grace out of the way;

And as to what Nique�s talking about, I believe I know...

I've seen that program. It's a good one.

While I am continually baffled by the insistance of using words like 'fine tuned' and 'directed' and even 'created' by a community laregly attempting to disregard such notions, I do understand why it seems preferable for scientists to leave God out of the picture. Practically, it doesn't lead to advancement to chalk the unknown up to the 'mystery of God'. The scientists that are religiously inclined don't seem to have that problem though...

Fine, fine, I can appreciate that you weren't expecting me to try and investigate deeper. I guess I was pointing out why I personally am not convinced by this reasoning. It's how I do things.

It's cool. It's just that there is so much going on in this thread... I think that the sheer volume of posts is going to deter any would-be flaming or trolling :)... but it may start weeding out any useful/complete disscussion as well ;)

And therefore inadequate to the scientific counterparts, which would be more grounded in reality.

We're agreeing or I'm misunderstanding you.

I appreciate how you're approaching this thread as a discourse. As you said about Bible prophesy before--it will definitely come up, but we'll save it for later rather than muck it up now.

Thanks!

You'll notice a crud de-mucking operation happening right below you! I'm hoping to create a bookmark of sorts with this post :)

I merely meant in the sense that it shows the disparity between religious ideas and how inconsistent they are not even as a general framework, but from person to person. Another reason why they are so ineffectual.

Explain to me what you mean by 'inneffectual'. It seems contrary to your opinion that religion has it's strong iron grip on the lives of anyone who belives any form of it to any end? I mean, yes that's not good, but effectiveness has nothing to do with morality, depending on the goal.

And I do understand what you mean about dissonance. But I'm not sure it's really prudent to any disscussion asking whether or not God exisists.

This may be hard to swallow, but try to think of religious differances like differances between scientific theory. Each venure has subscribers to paticular 'doctrines', each member no doubt beliveing that their doctrine/theory is the correct one, with the underlying assumption that, eventually, time will tell there can only be one truth.

This is not a comparision of science and religion as complete systems of learning, but merely in this limited aspect.

It's been around longer, and it's even more deadly because it's shielded in our public debate.

Because of how it is treated in a public forum is really the only point I can aquiesse (spelling) on. If a concept can be applied in both beneficial and harmful ways, then isn't just a tool? Neutral? This argument fails to take into consideration people who pick a religion based on what they honestly belive makes sense, rather than being indoctrinated and then following blindly.

Example; My religious 'authorities' I respect and will follow without question to certain points, but if I was ever told to start taking up arms against non-belivers, I would probably not be a part of that religious organization anymore. There's a bit about following what I know about God and not men that is crucial to me.

About half of the commandments are just rituals. The rest are good starting points, but nothing that anyone with common sense couldn't divine.

I'm not upset, but I do want to point out that statments like this can lend a unfair bias to the disscussion... Using almost prejudicial langauge to discredit religion through it's writings. I mean, do we want to go point-counter point on the Bible's influence on society, historical context, linguistic context... Or do you want to run a subtle smear campaign against it?

I don't think this is something you're conciously doing - So don't think me to be imputing bad motive onto you. I will try to make sure I don't do anything similar. I just don't think it promotes an honest discourse.

And, yes, of course there is room in the disscussion for the (in)validity of religious teachings in the modern world... But let's not bypass that disscussion with assumptions that make our respective arguments look good.

And now, for something really fun!

~~~~~
Now, we've got several issues going. I'm trying to list these in an organized way, but bare with me. (Again, these are just some basic seperations between the overall disscussion... obviously, some of these are going to overlap. I'm not trying to moderate... Just provide an option that I think lends to a possibly more organized disscussion.

1. The Atheist Disscussion: Is beliving in 'God(s)' irrational? What is the logical basis for belife in God? Should religious faith have applied such logic, or is it merely unknowable in the sense of empirical understanding? If so, should it be that way? Are these world-views to be viewed as equally correct?

2. The Science Behind Theist and Atheist Belifes: Is creation mutually exclusive to the scientific view of origins? What specifics of current facts and theories regarding physics and study of the universe, space-time itself, lend to or discredit either viewpoint?

3. Nature of God: We assume, for the purpose of this argument, that God(s) exsist. Philosophical viewpoints on God's allowance of 'evil' in the world. Does God care? Are his standards arbitrary, or should we assume that they reach some purpose beneficial to either us personally or to 'existance' itself? Is God how he portrays himself, or how religion's portray him in regards to omniscience etc?

4. Differance Between Religious Belifes: Are some belifes 'more' correct? Based on what? Do differances between religions matter, or are all leading to the same place? How accurate are 'Holy Books', or even just the Bible? Is critisism of it valid, or merely popular?

5. Nature of Religion: Is religion as a concept, harmful, neutral, or beneficial? Is it moreso (either) than any other system of organized belife like political organizations? Should religions be able to share their message with people publicly? What effects, good and bad, can religion have on society? Is religion a motivator for altruism, or does it bely a lack of sincerity?
~~~~~

Now, one or more of those items brought YOU to this thread. Some people are more interested in being apologists for religion or agnostisism and will lean more on subjects 4 and 5. Others are looking to re-visit belife in a higher power as a valid, logical, conclusion, or to discredit it entirely, respectivly, and will no doubt focus on subjects 1 and 2. Hopefully this 'compression' helps you organize your thoughts.

So far, this thread has been a great excercise. I ask all posting members to continue to keep to such elevated levels of civility and to literally ignore anything counter-productive to that.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-08-2007, 08:05 AM

Where I take issue with that is that a lot of those facilities are ones that say, "Sure, I'll help you. But while you're here, let's teach you about God!" There are far too many centres whose aid invariably comes with them pushing their religion on you. How is it any different than luring children into your van with candy so you can teach them "how to accept their sexuality."

Yes, I just compared religion with pedophilia. I'm very sorry about that, but it was sadly the best comparison I could think of.

First of all, we don't tell them about God unless they ask. They know its a church. If all they want is food and shelter, all they get is food and shelter, and they'll go away with a bit of kindness in there lives.

Second of all, you just compared giving homeless people food and shelter with molesting children. I can't even imagine how you rationalize that in your head.

As a molecular biologist, you should know that 'gut feelings' are never good enough. Would you splice the genes of a marmoset with a frog on a 'gut feeling' that it may cure cancer? Or would you actually study it, do research, and find out whether or not there is any evidence that it would? And if it didn't have evidence would you go ahead and do it anyway?

I didn't say gut feelings should be enough. I said logic fails, so therefore gut feelings are all you have. Logic does nothing but lead to no solid conclusion on either side, and can lead towards the conclusion that 'God does exist' as well as 'God doesn't exist' all depending on your starting point.

Illegitimate Analogy logical fallacy. Alcohol is nothing like religion.

I beg to differ. Alcohol is a lot like religion. Simply saying my statement is a logical fallacy without showing the err in my logic doesn't make it a fallacy. It makes you not have a response. You said it causes pain so therefore bad. I say nearly everything can cause pain, so therefore you can't say its bad.

However, I could also use water in my analogy... which is a source of life as well as a destroyer of life. So oh well.

And just to point out my earlier statement was right, you're entire reply was very emotionally heavy. How can one practice complete logic with emotions clouding their judgment?

However, I can prove not only connection but direct liability for TERRIBLE things.

I can also say that people who do horrible things in the name of religion are a minority. I can also say that many of those people would do horrible things even if they didn't ascribe to a particular religion due to who they are as a person. Many people who aren't religious are also do many of the same horrible things. Here's another logical fallacy on your part... 3rd party exclusion. Religion might be an excuse, but you can't prove that its the reason. If those same people grew up to be non religious, they'd probably do the same bad things they were doing anyway, they just wouldn't have a pathetic justification for it. If religion was the defining factor, all religious people would be psychotic instead of just a minor few. But hey, lets ignore all the violence against homosexuals and racism and crap that exists from non-religious people... clearly religion must be the cause of it all.... even though its in no way a common feature to all violence... your evidence supporting that conjecture is weak at best.

It may seem harmless, but in reality it ruins lives just as sure as a bullet. It simply does its work slower and more painfully. People are psychologically scarred both by their religion, and by being of a different religion. I have talked to many people from religious families who have been driven to tears, told that they are hated, and that they are going to hell simply because of their parent's beliefs. I have seen people struggle to keep up with the unnatural and unattainable ideals of the church and FALL APART AT THE SEAMS.

And its sad when that happens. But again its not the standard, and these things happen without religion being present as well. By your thoughts, my life should be miserable. However, I'm quite happy how and with who I am.

You KNOW you're right. You are unwilling to accept that you could be wrong, and that might make YOU happier, but it makes life a hell of a lot harder on everyone around you who can't live up to the standards of your religion--either because they hold a different faith or because they are too 'weak of will' to deny their natural urges.

And what makes that any different than you? You could simply walk away and be satisfied with that you're right and I'm wrong, but you won't. And I'm assuming you're talking the general 'you' there, because you clearly don't know me enough to make claims about who I am. When people think they're right, they think they're right. My belief in my being right doesn't change me treating everyone else like a equal human being, because they are. If anything, it makes me do it more so because I'm not insecure with who or what I am.

Accurate/Ambiguous: Just for STARTERS, there's how many different translations of the bible? Only one of them can be correct. Oh and how about that crazy hebrew language? Here's a fun fact, there's no word in hebrew for eternal or eternity. The word used to describe either eternity in heaven OR hell, actually means 'a time'. Let's take it a bit further, the hebrew word for hell is Gehenna. Gehenna is a small valley north of mesopotamia, where the jewish people threw their garbage to burn. They also threw the bodies of their criminals there, and, as that human fat is a complex carbon chain, it burns slow and never goes out. Thus you spend a time in the ever burning fires of the valley of gehenna if you were a sinner. This is a LITERAL phrase in the old testament. Not spiritual.

Morally correct:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

The amusing part is you just did my own rebuttal for me. Yes, many parts of the Bible are ambiguous or lost in translation. So then how can you quote me parts of the Bible, all Old Testament (which is Jewish really, Chrisitianity is more on the New Testament. Love your neighbor and all that stuff) to justify questionable morality? Christian morals are based on the second half, which you apparently didn't read. And a lot of those "lost in translation" parts are treated as such by the ones who bother study these things.

You hard nose on religion a lot... but nothing done by the less desirable religious individuals is anything more than done by anybody else. I COULD judge all Americans based on the more prominent ones in the media, but that wouldn't be very fair to the rest of you, would it? Same deal.

Mesden

01-08-2007, 08:36 AM

(which is Jewish really, Chrisitianity is more on the New Testament. Love your neighbor and all that stuff)

Now that, that's just crap.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you follow, when Christianity is following The Bible, not just the new testament.

Otherwise Christianity has no ten commandments.

If you're going to follow the bible, fine. Don't just pick the parts you like, since this is all the word of God.

Hell, the Bible itself is one of the biggest reasons I can't believe this 'god' is all loving in any sense.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-08-2007, 09:39 AM

Now that, that's just crap.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you follow, when Christianity is following The Bible, not just the new testament.

Otherwise Christianity has no ten commandments.

If you're going to follow the bible, fine. Don't just pick the parts you like, since this is all the word of God.

Hell, the Bible itself is one of the biggest reasons I can't believe this 'god' is all loving in any sense.

Except for the fact that Christianity is following Christ, and the teachings of Christ are the New Testament. The Old Testament wasn't written by Christians, it was written by Jewish people. Jesus himself said that this was the new covenant. The old covenant, new covenant. When someone writes a will, and then writes a second will, the second will is considered to be the correct one. Same thing here. Many of the rules from the Old Testament apply, but only as were reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Mesden

01-08-2007, 09:44 AM

Except for the fact that Christianity is following Christ, and the teachings of Christ are the New Testament. The Old Testament wasn't written by Christians, it was written by Jewish people. Jesus himself said that this was the new covenant. The old covenant, new covenant. When someone writes a will, and then writes a second will, the second will is considered to be the correct one. Same thing here. Many of the rules from the Old Testament apply, but only as were reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Because god's word the first time was a mistake? Or what? Excuse me, but I really don't think it works like that, when you're the ultimate source of wisdom, knowledge, and righteousness, that you need to amend your horrible ethical commands.

Gascmark de Leone

01-08-2007, 09:54 AM

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth
and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried.
And the third day He rose again
according to the Scriptures
and ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
And He will come again with glory to judge
both the living and the dead,
whose kingdom will have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshiped and glorified,
who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins,
and I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That about summarizes what I believe about God and religion.

Oh, and as for the Ten Commandments and Christianity. I know it's a big thing in a lot of churches these days to say that we don't have to worry about them, because Jesus died for us. I refer to these churches as "Jump for Jesus!" churches. My opinion is this: if we didn't have the commandments to show our sins, we wouldn't need a savior.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-08-2007, 09:59 AM

Because god's word the first time was a mistake? Or what? Excuse me, but I really don't think it works like that, when you're the ultimate source of wisdom, knowledge, and righteousness, that you need to amend your horrible ethical commands.

You know what? I don't understand everything. I can't explain everything. I wish I could. I do see your point, and I accept that as a problem with Christianity. But a few hiccups in something doesn't invalidate that something, especially when human influence tends to make hiccups in most things.

So for this, I'll use an argument similar to what I've heard from many atheists. We don't know what the world was like back then when the Old Testament was written, only from what we read. But we do know that the world was very harsh, and that many nations (much like today, ironically) would have liked to see Israel destroyed. Sometimes harsh rules are in place in order to protect people from harsher consequences. Those rules put in place way back in 3000 B.C. enabled Judaism (God's chosen people) to survive more trials and near destructions, so I can't dismiss them as being invalid for that era. Also, for a more theological argument, at that point in time there had been no retribution for sin (Christ dying on the cross), therefore the system was different, and harsher.

However, the world has changed. Don't you think God would be capable of being flexible enough to recognized the dynamic world he created wouldn't always be able to fall under the same set of rules? Christ died. Retribution was accomplished. That changed the rules, whether you like it or not. It doesn't mean the Old Testament wasn't valid for the time it was written, but so much has changed since then much of it is not applicable for today. God gave humanity a standard to live by. It failed and grew in a different direction. Therefore, God loved us enough to give us another way to live within the direction we chose. Why is that so hard to accept?

Chrisitianity is not complicated. Humans suck. Every single one of us screw up sometimes. Yet we're worth a lot... we're invaluable. Therefore, to give us a way not to screw ourselves over, God died for us, so that we could go to heaven. And what do you do to get to heaven? Accept it. How complicated is that? Then people ask "Well if I don't accept it, why should I go to hell?". I ask, "Why wouldn't you just accept it? Why is it so hard?". And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad. Well guess what? It's not God or religion... its people that cause bad things, and there's only people to blame.

Krylo said religion was an ideology that caused wars, therefore it was a bad ideology. Democracy, freedom, independance, equality, antiterrorism, animal rights, and environmentalism has also caused wars and violence for the sake of an ideology, yet most of us would consider them good ideologies. The fact that people abuse it and use it for selfish purposes doesn't make it bad... it makes us human.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Personally I think it was a mistake for it to be opened, since everybody on this forum tends to be one extreme or the other (and to be honest I like most of you and I'd rather not have a big huge division over one thing). Happy debating, but I doubt you'll come up with anything that nobody else has said dozens of times over the centuries.

Mesden

01-08-2007, 10:20 AM

You know what? I don't understand everything. I can't explain everything. I wish I could. I do see your point, and I accept that as a problem with Christianity. But a few hiccups in something doesn't invalidate that something, especially when human influence tends to make hiccups in most things.

A few hiccups? When those few hiccups are the exact opposite reason that I came out of a religious self-crisis as an agnostic, then I believe it's more than just some 'hiccups' and more along the lines of serious problems regarding the idol.

So for this, I'll use an argument similar to what I've heard from many atheists. We don't know what the world was like back then when the Old Testament was written, only from what we read. But we do know that the world was very harsh, and that many nations (much like today, ironically) would have liked to see Israel destroyed. Sometimes harsh rules are in place in order to protect people from harsher consequences. Those rules put in place way back in 3000 B.C. enabled Judaism (God's chosen people) to survive more trials and near destructions, so I can't dismiss them as being invalid for that era. Also, for a more theological argument, at that point in time there had been no retribution for sin (Christ dying on the cross), therefore the system was different, and harsher.

However, the world has changed. Don't you think God would be capable of being flexible enough to recognized the dynamic world he created wouldn't always be able to fall under the same set of rules? Christ died. Retribution was accomplished. That changed the rules, whether you like it or not. It doesn't mean the Old Testament wasn't valid for the time it was written, but so much has changed since then much of it is not applicable for today. God gave humanity a standard to live by. It failed and grew in a different direction. Therefore, God loved us enough to give us another way to live within the direction we chose. Why is that so hard to accept?

Chrisitianity is not complicated. Humans suck. Every single one of us screw up sometimes. Yet we're worth a lot... we're invaluable. Therefore, to give us a way not to screw ourselves over, God died for us, so that we could go to heaven. And what do you do to get to heaven? Accept it. How complicated is that? Then people ask "Well if I don't accept it, why should I go to hell?". I ask, "Why wouldn't you just accept it? Why is it so hard?". And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad. Well guess what? It's not God or religion... its people that cause bad things, and there's only people to blame.

Why is it hard to accept?

That's not the point -- why should we accept it? If it sounds so wrong to us, so abhorrently discontent and mismatching, why should we place our energy into something that just isn't right to us?

It's not so hard -- no, choosing entirely how my life shall be lived based on this, this whole organization is hard when I see it my way.

Krylo said religion was an ideology that caused wars, therefore it was a bad ideology. Democracy, freedom, independance, equality, antiterrorism, animal rights, and environmentalism has also caused wars and violence for the sake of an ideology, yet most of us would consider them good ideologies. The fact that people abuse it and use it for selfish purposes doesn't make it bad... it makes us human.

Like anything, it can be good and it can be bad. Religion is how the person interprets it, but the analogy you pulled can be used right back against you, I'd just have list some organization that most people consider bad, but have done good things.

You can't really distinguish when it's the institution's fault and when it's the person's fault. I am quite certain that in the days of the Old Testament, girls were sold into slavery and children were stoned to death for disobedience. That was a problem with the Religion.

It's just not that simple, like you said it was. It can't be, unless you just opt to not think about it. Personally -- I put a lot of thought into a massive pivot of my life.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Personally I think it was a mistake for it to be opened, since everybody on this forum tends to be one extreme or the other (and to be honest I like most of you and I'd rather not have a big huge division over one thing). Happy debating, but I doubt you'll come up with anything that nobody else has said dozens of times over the centuries.

That's fine, but you were arguing with me. I'm fairly certain the Deistic Agnostic is as far from extreme as possible.

42PETUNIAS

01-08-2007, 11:22 AM

And what do you do to get to heaven? Accept it. How complicated is that? Then people ask "Well if I don't accept it, why should I go to hell?". I ask, "Why wouldn't you just accept it? Why is it so hard?". And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad.

See, for you, a person growing up in a (probably) Christian family, in a (again, probably) Christian community, thats an easy choice to make, and the two real sides are christianity vs agnosticism/atheism. But thats not how it works in reality. In the real world, there are tons and tons of religons, each wanting people to follow them. Furthermore, not everyone gets a choice between each and every religon. If christianity is right, then most of hell isn't evil people who refused to accept christ, or who god refused to forgive. It's simply people on other parts of the world, who never had the option of converting and accepting christ. Is that easy for most of the world? Imagine growing up in a very strongly Islamic family, your father is a religious leader and everything. Suddenly, a preist comes up to you out of the blue one day, and tells you that all you need to do to get eternal bliss, is accept Jesus as your saviour. According to you its an easy choice. Put yourself in that position and ask yourself, is it?

P-Sleazy

01-08-2007, 12:29 PM

Mesden

01-08-2007, 01:20 PM

I've said it once before, and I'll say it again. God is an understanding God. He's not going to send someone to hell for that. You have to fully realize and beleive that Jesus is your lord and savior and then knowing this, reject him before you get condemned to hell.

So God treats people unequally? Why didn't he spread his word through, oh, you know, the rest of the world instead of blind siding them into this situation? He can choose prophets, enlighten and have his faith spread in one isolated piece of the world?

God works in mysterious ways, sure. Mysterious=/=All loving, as far as I can tell.

P-Sleazy

01-08-2007, 02:33 PM

Mesden

01-08-2007, 02:41 PM

I never said that only a certain few go to heaven because they heard of Jesus and accepted him as their savior. You have to reject Jesus, AFTER making the realization that he's your savior to be condemned to hell. If you never make the realization or are never introduced to Jesus, before rejecting him, you aren't going to hell. Finally, in the end, it all comes down the lifestyle you've lead on earth.

No, you dodged what I said.

Why would God make Jesus and his entire specimen of humanity accessed to only a small portion of the world?

Why have only European/Middle Eastern Prophets of any kind? Why would a loving god withdraw this love of Jesus and knowledge of everything we know from MOST people? It's senseless, and hardly caring.

It's favoritism, I mean, everywhere I read in the bible, he's been picking favorites since long before Jesus.

Your God just doesn't seem to fly with me. If his mysterious ways are this painfully and ridiculously cryptic, then apparently he's trying to get people to turn away.

P-Sleazy

01-08-2007, 02:48 PM

Azisien

01-08-2007, 02:52 PM

Also don't forget, you can just as easily take 'word of god' and change it to 'cult' and use that as your answer.

Mesden

01-08-2007, 03:01 PM

Because, in those times that was the center of the earth. All knowledge travelling from east to west, or west to east inevitably passes through here. It lead to christianity being a globalized religion rather quickly wouldn't you say?

The world powers were also centered around this area then in Europe, who better to spread the word of god than a world power?

Um, what? Why not make the prophets in those areas too? He made SO FREAKIN MANY that it just seems like it's impossible for him to take it out of the 'center' of the world?

And THEN have it take several thousand years? What? This makes *no sense*. It's still favoritism, plain and simple.

Marinan

01-08-2007, 03:07 PM

Who cares if its favoritsm? Think about it. If people discover Jesus without needing to, then they now know. Its something that gives more responsibility.

Bob The Mercenary

01-08-2007, 03:29 PM

Finally, in the end, it all comes down the lifestyle you've lead on earth.

Sorry, for the first time this thread I'm gonna have to disagree with you, B_real. It says several times in the bible that whether you go to heaven or not is independant of the lifestyle you lead as long as you repent for whatever bad you've done. You can be the nicest person in the world, give the most charity, help the most people...but in the end it comes down to if you accept Jesus or not.

Why would God make Jesus and his entire specimen of humanity accessed to only a small portion of the world?

In the old testament days, everyone who existed knew who God was. And they knew that a savior would be sent eventually. So at one time, the entirety of humanity did have access to the info. But, a lot fell away, which leads back to my earlier bible quote. Which literally translated means that if your forefathers rejected God, you were going to Hell unless you repented. The same follows today. The reason so many people on Earth have no access to the Bible or what it teaches is because their ancestors fell away a long time ago and their family line never got back on the right track.

Mesden

01-08-2007, 03:36 PM

In the old testament days, everyone who existed knew who God was. And they knew that a savior would be sent eventually. So at one time, the entirety of humanity did have access to the info. But, a lot fell away, which leads back to my earlier bible quote. Which literally translated means that if your forefathers rejected God, you were going to Hell unless you repented. The same follows today. The reason so many people on Earth have no access to the Bible or what it teaches is because their ancestors fell away a long time ago and their family line never got back on the right track.

You mean people that have been there since before the times of Egypt...?

I mean, I don't see how that comes in, when these people that have been neglected of any of God's inspiration since before God's Inspiration came about.

And forever after.

And God not doing that past the pure biblical days of the Saints.

Tydeus

01-08-2007, 03:39 PM

I just wanted to restate:

"And while we're discussing some of the twisted stuff out there -- Hell. How insane is that? Eternal torture? Fucking eternal!? What could possibly warrant that? That's incredibly twisted and sadistic. Punishment is only useful to teach people something -- otherwise it's just sadism, power-lust, revenge, and general insanity. Hell and a loving God are 100% incompatible. If you can rationalize Hell's existence, then you have less humanity and conscience than me, the resident Forum Sociopath. Nice going."

No one thus far has addressed the complete insanity of the idea of hell. Utterly sadistic and without love or compassion, eternal torture is beyond all excuse. I don't think anyone can rationally argue otherwise. But, try if you can, I guess.

42PETUNIAS

01-08-2007, 03:42 PM

In the old testament days, everyone who existed knew who God was. And they knew that a savior would be sent eventually. So at one time, the entirety of humanity did have access to the info. But, a lot fell away, which leads back to my earlier bible quote. Which literally translated means that if your forefathers rejected God, you were going to Hell unless you repented. The same follows today. The reason so many people on Earth have no access to the Bible or what it teaches is because their ancestors fell away a long time ago and their family line never got back on the right track.

The "Whole world independantly fell away from god" only works if you believe that everyone but noah and his family died in the flood, if that didn't happen, than god only showed himself to very few. Also, the whole idea of being damned eternally because your great-great-great grandfather was a bad person is pretty sketchy. Further, even if everyone had a chance to accept god, Jesus still didn't make his teachings availible to the entire world.

Azisien

01-08-2007, 03:45 PM

The concept of hell also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, being described by finite beings. How can I be punished eternally? It would have to be rather light punishment, else my consciousness would break apart rather quickly. Of course, ordinary notions of having a body to, you know, punish and torture don't really apply either.

And we feel nothing, nothing, beyond our bodies.

Bob The Mercenary

01-08-2007, 03:52 PM

And we feel nothing, nothing, beyond our bodies.

How do you know? It's like everyone's been asking me. "Have you ever been the Heaven or Hell?"

I have a really good resource for info on Hell and answers to some of your questions that I just couldn't find the answer to.

http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Why_Does_Hell_Exist.htm

I liked one quote in particular: "If we have a problem with endless suffering, it means that we have not yet fully comprehended the wickedness of human rebellion, and we have failed to grasp how evil it is to go contrary to the will of God."

Again, I hate going into quoting websites, but I think it's very accurate in it's analysis of bible passages.

Archbio

01-08-2007, 04:02 PM

In the old testament days, everyone who existed knew who God was. And they knew that a savior would be sent eventually. So at one time, the entirety of humanity did have access to the info.

I'd like to know how much do you think that can be justified by actual historical research.

I really think you're making a mistake if you think that with History you can get away with as much "it's whatever I say it is" than with good, evil and love. It doesn't just make discussion moot.

P-Sleazy

01-08-2007, 04:31 PM

Sorry, for the first time this thread I'm gonna have to disagree with you, B_real. It says several times in the bible that whether you go to heaven or not is independant of the lifestyle you lead as long as you repent for whatever bad you've done. You can be the nicest person in the world, give the most charity, help the most people...but in the end it comes down to if you accept Jesus or not

The lifestyle I was talking about would be refering to (and include if not so much refer) this kind of thing.;)

Quick save by B_real...OOOOOH Yea....

Thanks for helping clarify Bob!

ZAKtheGeek

01-08-2007, 05:37 PM

One question I noticed is something along the lines of, "Why is it so hard to just believe?" Let's toss Pascal's Wager in here too. I only know myself this well, so this might not apply to everyone, but I can't just believe. I can say that I believe all I want, and think it too, but in truth, right this moment, I would not believe in God (or whatever deity/faith you want). Like all people, I am rational, and I can't just "accept" something unless it makes rational sense to me. I can't just say, "Okay, now I believe in God. All those things that made no sense before? Fuck that, I'll just ignore it. I'm going to heaven!"

Well, I mean, I could say it, but I'd be lying.

42PETUNIAS

01-08-2007, 05:46 PM

The lifestyle I was talking about would be refering to (and include if not so much refer) this kind of thing.;)

Quick save by B_real...OOOOOH Yea....

Thanks for helping clarify Bob!

Im pretty sure you're misinterpreting what he said. You had said that as long as you are a good person, and don't outright reject Jesus, then you will go to heaven. Bob said that was wrong, and that you can do all the good things you like, if you don't accept Jesus, you don't go to heaven.

So no, he wasn't clarifying, he was saying you were very very wrong.

Well, I mean, I could say it, but I'd be lying.

Im pretty sure just going through the motions isn't enough. You have to accept Jesus with all your heart to get into Christian heaven.

ZAKtheGeek

01-08-2007, 05:58 PM

Right, well, I didn't mean to imply that saying it would have any effect. Just that I technically could say it.

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 07:30 PM

This does appear to be the IN place right now. Why I return? Because I'm bored and have some spare time at work...

Still catching up while typing my response. First, I'll even give the opposing side a hand with the whole "God toys with us ants and doesn't really love us" side of the debate.

B_real_shadows's rebuttal:
To Mesden:
Except Moses told the Pharaoh what would happen if he didn't let the Jews go.

Man, you can't say that, Pharaoh was not given a choice, for his heart was intentionally hardened. It was kind of a thing where God wanted to prove to Pharaoh that he existed. Not really the best example if you want to debate Mesden's point.

Bob's Comment:
Deuteronomy 5:9
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.
For those who believe in the religions based on the Old Testament alone, that is true. There was a sacrifice sent for us to save us from all of the Old Testament rules, of course, if you believe in any New Testament religion.

Krylo's knifty (Yet rather graphic) post regarding 'Religion as being the cause of all life's woes' mini-thread:

You know, I got nothin'. I can't explain why members of a religion people currently follow might do evil things to each other, especially when it is written against in their respective books. Maybe I'll ask those nice people from a different religion why they blow themselves up or kill people who won�t convert? Just like why I can't explain people like the Branch Dividians, Al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, (not going to follow that guys rule and list it here, even if it has been brought up once in this very thread), or even other ideologies who may seem to practice such strange customs. I can't find a way inside their heads, because everything I read in The Book says that Judgment for such transgressions should be left to someone who is much more suited for the job. And no, this does not also mean "sending them there" early to be judged. Think more Amish guy from the Weird Al video.

*Note, I apologize for any religion/ideology I have left out, as I can't print every single one that has done really bad things. I have not the time, nor post-size limit to do so. Also, I'm not saying I AM the Amish guy in the Weird Al video, just giving an example...(and now for the 10trillion posts about 'How can you compare a true follower of a religion to a guy in a funny music video?' and 'How dare you forget my dark cult of people who forcibly remove the heretic�s eye-lashes and stick them up their nose?')*

*Note again: Yes this does go against the whole love they neighbor thing. I'm not a good person.*

Bad things are done in the name of religion. Do I defend them? No. Does that make all religion bad? I think not.

And now the discussion moves to another fun-filled subject, H e double hockey sticks.

Nobody likes the idea of people going to hell. This kind of explains the whole missionary thing. Many Christians feel the need to try to save others from that fate.

Oh, and Bob's response to loving thing was nice. Saved me from writing entirely too much to say the same thing.

Okay, I saved the best for last. My favorite part of this whole thread (only recently discovered my favorite part...) the continuation of my Discussion with Locke! I know one of these times I'm going to say something that will really make him fume, as he has said many things which caused an immediate emotional outburst from me. Believe me (heh); I have had to fight to hold it all in...

First, the light hearted things...

You don't seem to understand the argument I keep making: you are raping Occam like it's your job.

So want to make a comment about that, but it would simply make me sadder.

Regarding your 5 points, yes, it is a leap of faith. Many people had to take such leaps to make any of their points, I mean, try proving the world was round to the church in the good ol' days? We couldn't actually see for ourselves until we left the ground and actually saw for ourselves. And yes, they did have other ways to prove it, but some people want to SEE it.

Which leads me to another one of your points I must address before we go too much further:

I implore you to stop putting scientific theories in the same plane as religious ones.

I see too much similarity between the two sides. I have heard religious people scream with certainty that we will "Burn in Hell", heard people say you must convert or die, and I have heard (and seen) people who get so angry when science is questioned that they fume! Really, if we can't set emotions aside, we're going to end up not talking anymore. Whats the difference of someone saying you can't argue something because it's "Divine Law" and someone arguing something because "boatloads of super smart people say so"? Sometimes we all take ourselves entirely too seriously.

And really, if we take all of this too seriously, then the Terrorists have won.
*Come on, tongue in cheek here people*

We're all posting questions and answers, trying to openly discuss this rather heavy subject. I'm sure its going to lead to more anger before it ends (from either side). But who are we kidding if we think any of this will:
A) Shake the belief of someone who is truly devout;
B) Sway someone who may have fallen from their specific ideology.

I see this as a way for either side to see how they think, and perhaps how they think, and perhaps to help steel the resolve of people's faith in thier personal ideology.

So what you're telling me is that despite truckloads of evidence to the contrary, you'll continue to "believe" because you feel like it?

Really, it's everyone's choice on how and what to believe. If I don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2, the only one who really suffers is me, because I will be getting fired while screaming that my boss owes me $4.75 instead of the $2 he really did. It�s a whole freedom thing. It's one of those things that was given to us. (Like the freedom to not believe, if we see fit.)

Religious logic seeps into everything, clouding our worldview. Thus it becomes acceptable to openly purport beliefs which are blatantly unjustified, all because of a "feeling." If scientists based everything on "feelings," we would be approximately nowhere right about now.

Humans are the strangest creatures, are they not? But (now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) are you saying that unless it's based PURELY on science, unless a bunch of people in white coats say it's LAW, that we SHOULDN'T think a certain way? I believe it's our imagination that allows humans to continue to improve on themselves, and if that means allowing them to believe they were created by a being of divine pasta, so should it be.

I know it's a sad analogy to post, but the movie Equilibrium showed a world without emotion. What�s weird? I think it looked kinda cool. (This coming from the 'Feeling' advocate.)

(Which is weird, because I am almost always on the other side of a 'Feeling' debate...)

Regarding the person you refer to as "Sam 'The Man' Harris", why do you cling to him so? It seems many of your posts offer some quote from him. He must be quite inspiring to read; perhaps I'll look him up. Any recommended reading material?

And now:

I addressed scientific disagreement in quotes below. Eventually, the theory which presents the most accurate case which is most grounded in the facts will prevail. Not so with religion.

Yes, this is understood. Most religions are not like science. They have different ways of running their respected ideologies. Except:

My point was that neither of you has any evidence for the validity of your claim. Both of you would say that your religion backs you up, and historically, the priest who condemns people left and right has more of a precedent. It just goes to show how pointless it is to try to interpret religious law.

Religions offer different interpretations, science offers different theories. Both are based on their appropriate foundation. (Science's laws regarding "Reality" and Religion's laws regarding how one should live.) I guess it's pointless to those who don't care, like for those of us who may or may not care how the Universe is supposed to end. We will all be long dead and reduced to inorganic matter well before it occurs. I'm not saying I don't care, because all of this stuff fascinates me.

Another lunch period (and then some) burned... what am I going to do when this thread is ended and called to judgment before its creator or when it simply becomes a random collection of 1s and 0s that bear no likeness to its original form?

ZAKtheGeek

01-08-2007, 07:39 PM

Whats the difference of someone saying you can't argue something because it's "Divine Law" and someone arguing something because "boatloads of super smart people say so"? Sometimes we all take ourselves entirely too seriously.
There's a big difference. Pretty much all modern mainstream religion is based on texts that were written at least a couple centuries ago and called holy. Scientific theories, which "smart people" create, are often based on actual real-world evidence which you can thoroughly study and sometimes even try to verify for yourself. Plus, the conclusions of the latter are arrived at logically, whereas the former relies almost exclusively on empty claims. There's really a world of difference.

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 08:07 PM

Zak, there are also smart people these days from the religious side who offer clarifications to religious texts, who try to interprate some of the really abstract contents. There are even more books with added life lessons and affermations that help those in thier respective religion. And there are some mainstream religions that have no 'Holy Book', just an ideaology. Sure, there are base beliefs and laws that are never violated, but I'm sure many scientists start research relying on thier own predetermined set of rules.

...and empty claims? A point of view for sure, for many have 'seen' the works of their respective diety. Same as the whole Logic thing, as I've encountered enough people in my travels that have no understanding of logic. Sure, it's taught in the Indoctrination Centers, but if you don't use it regularly, you lose it. Kinda like anything. I'm not advocating against logic. I even use logic myself more often then I probibly should. But Logic does not work in every facet of life.

42PETUNIAS

01-08-2007, 08:16 PM

Logic does not work in every facet of life.

Other than spiritual matters, I don't see what you mean. Can you name some of these facets, rather than declaring a rather difficult to believe statement.

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 08:35 PM

Oh, I'm sure theres some. Usually they involve human interaction. Like what would be an appropriate gift for one's stepmother, or what is the best answer to certain questions. Mostly anytime you involve a human.

But then again, I've had times when, Logically, a machine was supposed to work a certain way. It was built correctly, it followed spec, but for some reason, you would always have to restart the computer after each run. They think it's a coding problem, but they arn't sure, because they checked it and found no mistakes.

I don't think it's that difficult to believe. There are definatly more difficult things to believe.

ZAKtheGeek

01-08-2007, 09:20 PM

Zak, there are also smart people these days from the religious side who offer clarifications to religious texts, who try to interprate some of the really abstract contents.
The smart people are hardly the point. It's the proof and the reasoning. Basically, the very components of "making sense" and "being convincing?"

...and empty claims? A point of view for sure, for many have 'seen' the works of their respective diety.
Okay. And those visions only apply to those that have actually seen them. So yes, it's a point of view, but the point of view of the population of the entire planet, minus one, for any particular piece of "proof."

Same as the whole Logic thing, as I've encountered enough people in my travels that have no understanding of logic.
Everyone has a basic intuitive understanding of how logic works. It didn't take a genius to lay down the basic laws, because it's really just an objective model of how people think and reason. That's why it's so baffling when people decide to make illogical decisions only in certain areas of their lives, particularly when, according to the claims of most religions, those areas are arguably the most important.

I even use logic myself more often then I probibly should.
You're killing me here!

But Logic does not work in every facet of life.
The only inherently illogical things I can think of are people, and even then, it's not a lack of logic, but such a complexity that most simple models end up failing.

Here's a completely different idea though: be specific, and connect this thought of illogical facets to religion. Where does religion help where logic can't? Science has been slaying great mysteries of life through reason for millennia, continuously darting into religion's (now former) realm, usually met with resistance. You can even make vague ethical codes based on logic, although they'd be quite vague (which is for the best, I think) and you'd have to begin by stating a goal, which in itself would likely be arbitrary as opposed to logically derived from anything. Again, the only place logic won't really help you is relating with people, but that hasn't a thing to do with deities, an afterlife, or any other common outlandish religious claims.

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 09:38 PM

You're killing me here!

I try.

Again, the only place logic won't really help you is relating with people, but that hasn't a thing to do with deities, an afterlife, or any other common outlandish religious claims.

Outlandish? Weird, you know once the thought that we would travel to the moon was 'outlandish'. Even now, traveling faster then light is 'outlandish'. Even time travel and nano machines were once considered 'outlandish'. Even now, humans are figuring out ways to 'live forever' and can anyone say 20 years ago that was even made sense?

You can even make vague ethical codes based on logic, although they'd be quite vague (which is for the best, I think) and you'd have to begin by stating a goal, which in itself would likely be arbitrary as opposed to logically derived from anything.

People have used 'logic' to find reason for all kinds of ethical codes. How about this, what isn't logical about survival of the fittest? The strongest and smartest recreate, while the weak are discarded. Wouldn't that create a stronger group of people? Or what isn't logical about those who create more and invent more get more stuff? Perhaps they may make better things with the more stuff.

Even using logic, people have advocated that 'free will' does not exist. Where is personal responsibility, if we are all just moist robots?

I stated before perhaps we'll find an answer that is quite simple and logical. Until then, everyone can have fun with thier theories, even following the Purple Unicorn (blessed be her hovves).

(which is false, cause everyone knows unicorns are white! Oh noes! War time!)

ZAKtheGeek

01-08-2007, 10:25 PM

Okay, look. First of all. The unicorn is pink. Got it?

Outlandish? Weird, you know once the thought that we would travel to the moon was 'outlandish'. Even now, traveling faster then light is 'outlandish'. Even time travel and nano machines were once considered 'outlandish'. Even now, humans are figuring out ways to 'live forever' and can anyone say 20 years ago that was even made sense?
Those things are/were outlandish because there was no reason to think they were possible. Which is exactly what I'm getting at: what reason have you to believe the claims of any religion?

People have used 'logic' to find reason for all kinds of ethical codes. How about this, what isn't logical about survival of the fittest? The strongest and smartest recreate, while the weak are discarded. Wouldn't that create a stronger group of people? Or what isn't logical about those who create more and invent more get more stuff? Perhaps they may make better things with the more stuff.
Number of counterpoints. First of all, those eugenics deplete the gene pool, so it would actually weaken the species in the event of a catastrophe. Second, try getting those "inferiors" to comply, and try even defining inferiority without having a biased definer. You're basically guaranteed to embroil the world in war. Third, and least, even weak/dumb/skill-less people have uses.

Even using logic, people have advocated that 'free will' does not exist. Where is personal responsibility, if we are all just moist robots?
I myself am an advocate of this. Though I can't prove it. That's my faith, though I don't hold it to be infallible. Basically, I think that all events are strictly governed and can be explained by mathematically definable laws of physics. Therefore, it could in theory be possible to actually predict what a person will think and decide, but extremely difficult and impractical, given the very complicated nature of the human brain. By the time you figure it out, basically, they'll have already done the damn thing two hours ago.

I stated before perhaps we'll find an answer that is quite simple and logical. Until then, everyone can have fun with thier theories, even following the Purple Unicorn (blessed be her hovves).
That's fine, really. Until you get "guess" theories (and theorists) that disagree with "scientific and backed by evidence" theories. And also until people start taking their theories more seriously than they should, like they're absolute truths when they're mere guesses. The acceptance of the fact that you could be wrong is very important.

Bob The Mercenary

01-08-2007, 10:33 PM

The acceptance of the fact that you could be wrong is very important.

And there's the rub. With Christianity, you can't afford to accept the fact that you could be wrong. To my understanding, you have to have a 100% trust or you go to Hell. That's why so many Christians won't budge from their faith. And sorry to keep referring back to Christianity, but it's the religion I know most about.

Darth SS

01-08-2007, 10:37 PM

Actually, there's only one thing I feel the need to reply to...

But my scenario is exactly the same. Because, in this case, just like with God, you can't see, feel, smell, taste, or hear the rock. I did not say where the rock was, in correlation to you. As far as you're concerned your 5 senses don't sense the rock. Can you prove to me that the rock exists? This goes exactly with God. I can't prove him to you, but I beleive he exists, just as you can't prove the rock to me, just as you beleive the rock exists.

You're dodging my response and your own question.

No matter how you phrase it, here is the fundamental difference:

I can find the rock, and objectively prove it exists, through multiple means. It is within the realm of possibilities.

You will have a good 'ol time trying to find God, and then taste, touch, smell, see, or hear him. Personally, I think taste would the definitive one.

Lockeownzj00

01-08-2007, 11:02 PM

Jesus (no irony intended). You blink, and you miss everything.

This is kinda poorly organized, but I did my best to kind of delineate shit in the timeframe I had.

On Religion and Charity

I'd like to say a few things. Krylo touched on this nicely for a bit, but besides the ability to be, err, charitable as an entirely secular pursuit, I think we must realize the harm religious "charity" has done in the past, as well. For example: Mother Theresa actually killing "patients" by having them heal in "houses of God," where they were not tended to, but simply told to pray. They died.

Christianity is also almost entirely responsible for the continuing spread of AIDS in Africa. The preaching of the evils of contraception have laid waste to the African landscape in this sense. And I dare you to disagree on anything but a gut feeling you have.

If all they want is food and shelter, all they get is food and shelter, and they'll go away with a bit of kindness in there lives.

There isn't a complete lack of influence. The dangerous part of religious charity is exactly the same as what just happened in Mogadishu: The Islamic Courts Union moved in, and suddenly there was peace. For a brief period of time, there was order and fluidity to the daily functions of society--with a touch of Islam, of course. But the point is that what brought this was organization, not Islam, yet many, many Somali youths have become enchanted with the idea of an Islamic holy war, and they use the "positive" effects of the ICUs occupation (before they were pushed out) as evidence.

What I'm saying is, even if all the poor people of (x) do is shuffle in and out of the church getting food, what's disingenuous is that the church knows that they're creating these good associations with faith and for this reason it is at least partially selfish. If you really wanted to have "no" influence, you'd hide the fact that you had any denomination.

Second of all, you just compared giving homeless people food and shelter with molesting children. I can't even imagine how you rationalize that in your head.

Please don't invalidate analogies when it suits you. Read about Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's Law). The idea is to not make comparisons to Nazis and Hitler hackneyed, because there are actual situations where the analogy is appropriate. While there may have been better examples, Darth's analogy was logical, and your reply entirely emotional.

Differences Between Religious Beliefs (The Bible/The Koran)

The bible says alot of things, and many things that can directly contradict eachother. You just have to learn how to work out a way that both statements can work out. This too is one of the things that was explained to me. And its how I accept it.

Are you serious? Are religious people so far gone that they actually accept "it doesn't make sense, so make it make sense by making shit up" as a legitimate defense of their holy book?

How can there ever be a real dialogue on this with nonsense like that being spouted?

Krylo also touched on the translations of the Bible. I'd like to point out that the passage in the Koran which claims that through martyrdom one will be greeted by seventy virgins might actually be a mistranslation of the word "white pea," which is quite similar to virgin--white peas were coveted as regal delights in the ancient world.

Explain to me what you mean by 'inneffectual'. It seems contrary to your opinion that religion has it's strong iron grip on the lives of anyone who belives any form of it to any end? I mean, yes that's not good, but effectiveness has nothing to do with morality, depending on the goal.

I don't mean effectiveness necessarily based on morality, though it is clearly useless in that regard.

My point is that because even within religion there is no agreement, there is no possible way to take any of it seriously. Each person you talk to assures you that they are not "like them." From evangelical Christians to once-a-year-church-goers to Wiccans, every single one absolutely assures you that the rest have got the wrong idea and they're just misinterpreting God, or the Bible, or faith, or what have you.

My point is it shows how stupidly selfish religious concepts and ideas are, and how contradictory they are even from person to person of the same faith. They will never get us anywhere, and even if they served as some comfort in the past, they will no longer do anyhting for us as a civilization.

This may be hard to swallow, but try to think of religious differances like differances between scientific theory.

Except scientists usually come to consensus. Scientists usually concede, and scientists understand the idea of proof and logic, and so these disagreements are always settled at some point in time. Religious disagreements are entirely emotional and irreconcilable (sp?).

And when getting into heaven is so ridiculously easy, people still blame God/religion for everything bad. Well guess what? It's not God or religion... its people that cause bad things, and there's only people to blame.

Again you make the mistake that believing in God or heaven is something "easy" to accept. It is only easy to accept when you phrase it in so many words. I spoke of this many posts back. I feel like I've been typing empty words, or something:

You don't seem to understand the argument I keep making: you are raping Occam like it's your job. It's a simple enough statement to make, but you're making far too many assumptions in your statement. I could just as easily say "isn't that a good argument for becoming a bowl of jello after I die?" and it would be equally unfounded. It's not a good argument for the after-life at all; you've made many leaps in logic.

1: When we die, despite our brain being shut down, somehow, our consciousness is retained in something.
2: This something is an essence which no one has ever seen, no one can point out on a cross-section of the human body, no one has ever studied in any real sense in any way, but everyone is sure exists.
3: Not only do you remain sentient in some sense after death, but you are transported to another world.
4: You may be transported to different worlds depending on your terrestrial behavior, which is all--
5: --judged by a supreme, invisible being, which no one has ever seen, no one can point out in the sky or on a map, no one has ever proven to converse with, but everyone is sure exists.

This absolute perversion of the idea of "belief" transforms it from a rational act to an entirely different verb. Not faith, because that has been used and abused by the religious to apologize for this form of thinking. Let's go Orwell on its ass and call this verb:to unthink.

Rather than believing things based on observable and confirmable information, the religious choose to unthink, and actually tout their beliefs more the less proof there is. They have successful unthought the idea of belief, in the public arena, into something "easy" and facile, when in reality, it is an act that requires much more cogitation than they would have you believe.

Mr. Harris in da hizouse!

Jesus Christ--who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens--can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?

Tell a devout Christian...that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.

You know, I got nothin'. I can't explain why members of a religion people currently follow might do evil things to each other, especially when it is written against in their respective books.

Whoo boy. Remember 80 bazallion years ago when I threatened to type up those 5 pages of direct quotes from the Koran which explicitly endorse violence and what we would commonly agree as "evil" acts?

Yeah. I'll totally do it if need be.

On Evolution

Something about Evolution didn't sit quite right with me.

There are portions of this debate which I can keep my head, and others which I can't. When I read this statement, quite frankly, I burst out laughing.

I don't understand how people think they know better than the most hard, studied, tested, and fleshed out theory science has right now. "Something didn't sit right with me?" So despite literally mountains of proof and clear evidence for evolution, it "didn't sit right with you," and you chose an invisible pupeteer instead? What kind of laborious techniques are you using to deduce your claims?

Question: Are we allowed to believe in a god and the concept of evolution?

That is a modern canard. The people who created your religion didn't believe in evolution. The people who created your religion thought thousands of untrue things about the world, from its shape to the basic functions of the human body. Are you telling me that these people seriously had the perspective to allow their religion, which clearly makes sweeping absolute statements about the way the world is, to have the flexibility to co-exist along with all new scientific theories which slowly chip away at any legs religion has ever had to stand on? Please read this:

Which beliefs one takes to be foundational will dictate what seems reasonable at any given moment. When the members of the "Heaven's gate" cult failed to spot the spacecrft they knew must be trailing the comet Hale-Bopp, they returned the $4,000 telescope they had bought for this purpose, believing it to be defective.

In the old testament days, everyone who existed knew who God was.

Wait...is this indierctly implying the age of the Earth? Because, if you're taking it as literal word that would mean you think the Earth is 6000-ish years old?

Nature of Religion

This argument fails to take into consideration people who pick a religion based on what they honestly belive makes sense, rather than being indoctrinated and then following blindly.

I haven't really even mentioned or been thinking about systematic indoctrination this entire time. My point is that precisely because religion is constantly apologized for in the public forum, otherwise sensible people are allowed to consider God a reasonable prospect. Because it is socially acceptable, they don't think twice about it. And for every Christian who assures me they've only arrived at their faith through the most diligent and time-consuming scrutiny, there are 10,000 who are doing it just because they think they should, or just because they don't really think about it on any level that isn't superficial.

Religion might be an excuse, but you can't prove that its the reason.

It is sociologically preposterous to propose that religion has simply been "used" to terrible ends over and over again. The terrorists who crashed their planes into the world tradecenter did not have "political" motives. Their actions had political effects, and indeed, they may have revelled in these, but their sole motivation for committing this act was unwavering, perfect faith and nothing else. Unless you can start listing the "socio-economic and political factors" which people make allusions to but never clarify, then your opposition to this argument is once again not founded in truth but in what you wish to be truth.

But hey, lets ignore all the violence against homosexuals and racism and crap that exists from non-religious people...

Krylo's point was that the origin of homosexual loathing and prejudice in Judeo-Christian society can be traced back to the Bible, which is not an inaccurate statement. Societies all over the world have more or less functioned with rampant bisexual-ism before Judeo-Christian values (re: Ancient Greece). The dominance of Western Culture as derived from the Bible and religion is responsible for this homophobia.

And its sad when that happens. But again its not the standard, and these things happen without religion being present as well.

The point Krylo's making goes something like this. Here, Harris responds to common reader replies to his book:

1. Yes, religion occasionally casuses violence, but the greatest crimes of the twentieth century were perpetrated by atheists. Godlessness--as witnessed by the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il--is the most dangerous condition of all.

This is one of the most common criticisms I encounter. It is also the most depressing...while some of the most despicable political movements in human history have been explicitly irreligious, they were not especially rational. The public pronouncement of these regimes have been mere litanies of delusion--about race, economics, national identity, the march of history, or the moral dangers of intellectualism. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; to the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, my argument against religious fiath is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as dogma. The problem I raise in the book is none other than the problem of dogma itself--of which every religion has more than its fair share. I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

As I argue throughout the book, certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing. In fact, respect for evidence and rational argument is what makes peaceful cooperation possible. As human beings, we live in a perpetual choice between converstion and violence; what, apart form a fundamental willingness to be reasonable, can guarantee that we will keep talking to one another?

These crimes have never been done in the name of secularism. However, on the flip-side, all of these crimes have and are being done in the name of religion. As I said at the very beginning of this thread: it doesn't matter if it's direct or indirect, religion is still the source; these people can still accomplish these things because they have legions of people to believe them, and even if they are "using" religion, it is still the only thing that could be used to such an astounding degree and effect, and thus it is still to blame.

But a few hiccups in something doesn't invalidate that something, especially when human influence tends to make hiccups in most things.

How long will you maintain this? Every time you concede on a point, will you say "a few hiccups?" In these various debates, I'm sure no one will agree that there been a clear "winner" on either side, necessarily. But we again must judge which arguments have the most weight, and so far, the religious have arguments have had their legs again and again knocked out from underneath them, only to be met with "...but that still won't change my opinion," or, "even so, I still..."

Which means from the very beginning you've brainwashed yourself: the concept of "faith" is so engrained in your mind that you are unable to even conceive of even the most blatant errors in this human-made sociological phenomenon. You will always apologise for every error--you will "return the telescope," as it were--and thus aren't really in any kind of position to be thinking critically about this. Because, yes, I maintain that thinking religiously is not thinking critically.

Ultimately, I see you have left the thread, and this is the greatest shame of all. I understand your frustration and the worst that could happen is that you would think we are painting you as a bad person. But you must understand our perspective; if my best friend were an alchemist, I would still love him, but there would come a day where he would have to face the facts. The fact that you simply threw up your arms and walked away is just disappointing, for me. It is the failure of communication, it seems.

Regarding your 5 points, yes, it is a leap of faith. Many people had to take such leaps to make any of their points, I mean, try proving the world was round to the church in the good ol' days? We couldn't actually see for ourselves until we left the ground and actually saw for ourselves.

So you're admitting, too, that historically, religion has an absolutely terrible, track record with these things. In modern terms, it would be a big, fat F. I just want to make that clear.

(continued)

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 11:09 PM

Oh, it's SO on! I have so many books that prove the Great Unicorn (Blessed be her Hovves) is white! May I start with Core Book 3 of Dungeons and Dragons?

Those things are/were outlandish because there was no reason to think they were possible. Which is exactly what I'm getting at: what reason have you to believe the claims of any religion?

Why would one think it's possible? Well, one could read about it in books. There are a number of rather intelligent people who think it's correct. And then, perhaps one would believe that the entire theology is makes alot of sense, and they feel it to be the 'Right' way. Just look at the others who have posted thier reasons. Of course, since you believe we are Moist Robots, we are just physiologically pre-disposed to this belief, and we really have no way to go against it without drugs.

Number of counterpoints. First of all, those eugenics deplete the gene pool, so it would actually weaken the species in the event of a catastrophe.

Well, luckily we brought all the smart people with us, so we can fix those problems.

Second, try getting those "inferiors" to comply, and try even defining inferiority without having a biased definer. You're basically guaranteed to embroil the world in war.

Have you seen society lately? Their so afraid of appearing intolerant and mean that they will tolerate anything that doesn't effect them directly. Like Dafur. It'll take time. Luckily, we also have the smart and strong people, and they logically will be good at taking care of the lessers.

Third, and least, even weak/dumb/skill-less people have uses.
Emphasis mine. Isn't that illogical? And I'm sure the smart and strong could use them for something, perhaps organ donors.

*Note: I am SO not an advocate of this. I bring this up trying to explain that side of the argument.*

That's fine, really. Until you get "That's fine, really. Until you get "guess" theories (and theorists) that disagree with "scientific and backed by evidence" theories. And also until people start taking their theories more seriously than they should, like they're absolute truths when they're mere guesses. The acceptance of the fact that you could be wrong is very important.

We'll here is where we have a difference of people and belief. Some religions will kill for thier belief. Lately, it looks like some of them have matured enough to know when to kill and when to smile and nod, knowing that they can believe without forcing it on others. Which is why I think Logically (Oh noes!) that you can't FORCE someone to believe something and have it count as a true belief. (Hence why I don't even come close to agreeing on 'gunpoint conversions'.) That question and belief must be real, and arrived at by the individual for it to really 'count'.

Ah well, I digress from the true argument. The White Unicorn has spoken to me, and I shall now return to work! Farewell Infidels!

Bob The Mercenary

01-08-2007, 11:15 PM

Christianity is also almost entirely responsible for the continuing spread of AIDS in Africa. The preaching of the evils of contraception have laid waste to the African landscape in this sense. And I dare you to disagree on anything but a gut feeling you have.

Promiscuous sex is a sin, which basically makes using protection a sin in it's own right. It's people's own decisions to either not get tested for AIDS, or do get tested and not tell their partner which leads to the spread. I've personally never heard it preached that using protection is a sin, but I can see how sex for pleasure could be.

Are you serious? Are religious people so far gone that they actually accept "it doesn't make sense, so make it make sense by making shit up" as a legitimate defense of their holy book?

How can there ever be a real dialogue on this with nonsense like that being spouted?

We don't make shit up, we read into the context and not take bible passages at face value. There are several instances where parts of the bible seem to contradict each other or not make sense. It's the same way if you read only the middle paragraph of a newspaper story. You don't know the full story or the context, so how can any of it make any sense to you?

[Edit] Wait...is this indierctly implying the age of the Earth? Because, if you're taking it as literal word that would mean you think the Earth is 6000-ish years old?

Yeah. And I'd love to debate you on it.

Darth SS

01-08-2007, 11:23 PM

Promiscuous sex is a sin, which basically makes using protection a sin in it's own right. It's people's own decisions to either not get tested for AIDS, or do get tested and not tell their partner which leads to the spread. I've personally never heard it preached that using protection is a sin, but I can see how sex for pleasure could be.

Actually, the party line straight from the Vatican itself is that using anything that interferes with the natural events of baby-making is a sin. I.E. Contraception in any form except the "rhythm method" is wrong. Or, if you prefer effective contraception is wrong.

This of course opens up something that Krylo mentioned eariler, I.E. the villainization and enslavement of the human sex drive, but that's a whole new sub-topic for this thread.

Bob The Mercenary

01-08-2007, 11:25 PM

Actually, the party line straight from the Vatican itself is that using anything that interferes with the natural events of baby-making is a sin. I.E. Contraception in any form except the "rhythm method" is wrong. Or, if you prefer effective contraception is wrong.

That the same Vatican that thinks it can change anything in the Bible it wants at any time it feels like it? And also add and subtract sacraments? That Vatican?

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 11:30 PM

Holy cow, the Vatican does NOT speak for ALL of Christianity, it speaks for Catholacism. Want to see the differences in Christianity? Go to a traditional Catholic Mass, (even if they flipped on the whole Latin Mass thing) and then go to an Assembly of God or Baptist Church. The Differences will Astonish you.

Fifthfiend

01-08-2007, 11:31 PM

This of course opens up something that Krylo mentioned eariler, I.E. the villainization and enslavement of the human sex drive, but that's a whole new sub-topic for this thread.

Possibly the topic for our next Big Big Thread?

Darth SS

01-08-2007, 11:33 PM

Yes, I know.

I happen to go to a school that's largely Lutheran.

I cite the Vatican because, as much as this may piss people off, the differences are usually in details. Whenever the Vatican makes a grand statement like "Contraception is a sin," the rest of Christian denominations tend to either A) Adopt the exact same policy, or B) Adopt effectively the same policy, minus or plus a few details.

Lockeownzj00

01-08-2007, 11:35 PM

GAH. My mistake for posting too early...the post was too long according to NPF. LOKI, the rest of my post is here, with more replies.

"boatloads of super smart people say so"?

So, we shouldn't trust experts. Again, the most rational and choice that makes the least assumption is automatically Scientist > Priest. Every single time.

How can you so blithely belittle intelligence, like that? Yes! Super smart people do say so. And we have a reason to believe them!

Consider the following sources of information:

1. The anchorman on the evening news says that a large fire is burning in the state of Colorado. One hundred thousand acres have burned, and the fire is still completely uncontained.

2. Biologists say that DNA is the molecular basis for sexual reporduction. Each of us resembles our parents because we inherit a complement of their DNA. Each of us has arms and legs because our DNA coded for the proteins that produced them during our early development.

3. The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected bodily after death. He is the son of God, who created the universe in six days. If you believe this, you will go to heaven after death; if you don't, you will go to hell, where you will suffer for eternity.

What is the difference between these forms of testiomny? Why isn't every "expert opinion" equally worthy of our respect? Given our analysis thus far, it should not be difficult to grant authority to 1 and 2 while disregarding 3.

Proposition 1: Why do we find the news story about the fire in Colorado persuasive? It could be a hoax. But what about those televised images of hillsides engorged by flame and of planes dropping fire retardant? Maybe there is a fire, but it is in a different state. Perhaps it's really Texas that is burning. Is it reasonable to entertaint such possibilities? No. Why not? Here is where the phrase "common sense" begins to earn its keep. Given our beliefs about the human mind, the success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings, and the degree to which we all rely no the news, it is scarcely conceivable that a respected television network and a highly paid anchroman are perpetrating a hoax, or that thousands of firefighters, newsmen, and terrified homeowners have mistaken Texas for Colorado. Implict in such commonsense judgments lurks an understanding of the causal connections between various processes in the world, the likelihood of different outcomes, and the vested interests, or lack thereof, of those whose testimony we are considering. What would a progessional news anchor stand to gain from lying about a fire in Colorado? We need not go into the details here; if the anchor on the evening news says that there is a fire in Colorado and then shows us images of burning trees, we can be reasonably sure that there really is a fire in Colorado.

Proposition 2: What about the "truths" of science? Are they true? Much has been written about the inherent provisionality of scientific theories. Karl Popper has told us that we never prove a theory right, we merely fail to prove it wrong. Thomas Kuhn has told us that scientific theories undergo wholesale revision with each generation and therefore do not converge on the truth. There's no telling which of our theories will be proved wrong tomorrow, so how much confidence can we have in them? Many unwary consumers of these ideas have concluded that science is just another area of human discourse and, as such, is no more anchored to the facts of this world than literature or religion are. All truths are up for grabs.

But all spheres of discourse are not on the same footing, for the simple reason that not all spheres of discourse seek the same footing (or any footing whatsoever). Science is science because it represents our most committed effort to verify that our statements abotu the world are true (or at least not false). We do this by observation and experiment within the context of a theory. To say that a given scientific theory is may be wrong is not to say that it may be wrong in its every particular, or that any other theory stands an equal chance of being right. What are the chances that DNA is not the basis for genetic inheritance? Well, if it isn't, Mother Nature sure has a lot of explaining to do. She must explain the results of fifty years of experimentation, which have demonstrated reliable correclations between genotype and phenotype (including the reproducible effects of specific genetic mutations). Any account of inheritance that is going to supersede the present assumptions of molecular biology will have to account for the ocean of data that now conforms tehse assumptions. What are the chances that we will one day discover DNA has absolutely nothing to do with inheritance? They are effictively zero.

Proposition 3: Can we rely on the authority of the pope? Millions of Catholics do, of course. He is, in fact, infallible in matters of faith and morality. Can we really say that Catholics are wrong to believe that the pope knows whereof he speaks? We surely can.

We know that [n]no[/b] evidence would be sufficient to authenticate many of the pope's core beliefs. How could anyone born in the tentieth century come to know that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? What process of ratiocination, mystical or otherwise, will deliver the necessary facts about a Galilean woman's sexual history (facts that run entirely counter to well-known facts of human biology)? There is no such process. Even a time machine could not help us, unless we were willing to keep watch over Mary twenty-four hours a day for the months surrounding the probably time of Jesus' conception.

Visionary experiences, in and of themselves, cna never be sufficient to answer questions of historical fact. Let's say the pope had a dream about Jesus, and Jesus came to him looking fresh from Da Vinci's brush. The pope would not even be in a position to say that the Jesus of his dream looked like the real Jesus. The pope's infallibilty, no matter how many dreams and visions he may have had, does not even extend to making a judgement about whether the historical Jesus wore a beard, let alone whether he was really the Son of God, born of a virgin, or able to raise the dead. These are just not the kinds of propositions that spiritual experience can authenticate.

Of course, we could imagine a scenario in which we would give credence to the pope's visions, or to our own. If Jesus came saying things like "The Vatican Library has exactly thirty-seven thousand two hundred and twenty-six books" and he turned out to be right, we would then begin to feel that we were, at the very least, in dialogue with someone who had something to say about the way the world is. Given a sufficient number of verifiable statements, plucked from the ethers of papal vision, we could begin speaking seriously about any further claims Jesus might make. The points it that his authority would be derived in the only way that such authority ever is--by making claims about the world that can be corroborated by further observation. As far as proposition 3 is concerned, it is quite obvious that the pope has nothing to go on but the Bible itself. This document is not a sufficient justification for his beliefs, given the standards of evidence that prevailed at the time of its composition.

Really, it's everyone's choice on how and what to believe. If I don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2, the only one who really suffers is me, because I will be getting fired while screaming that my boss owes me $4.75 instead of the $2 he really did. It’s a whole freedom thing. It's one of those things that was given to us. (Like the freedom to not believe, if we see fit.)

This is where you are again mistaken and have repeatedly ignored my previous posts. These beliefs aren't so harmless as 1 + 1 = 2 (though if everyone followed your logic, the economies of the world would be in ruin). The exact literal second stem-cell research began being bogged down by religious morals, you became wrong. The exact second the planes hit the WTC, you became wrong. In your arguments, you continually try to paint religion as a harmless indulgence, but what it's about is massive, group unthinking, and this is NOT up to you. Beliefs are reflections about THE WAY THE WORLD IS. If billions of people think the world is a way which is so inconsistent and skewed that it brings about tragedies like 9/11 or the halting of stem-cell research, what you are saying is clearly false.

Humans are the strangest creatures, are they not? But (now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) are you saying that unless it's based PURELY on science, unless a bunch of people in white coats say it's LAW, that we SHOULDN'T think a certain way?

No. You have misread me. Science in these cases is used as a solid example, but the point is scientific thought. Thought which resembles science: logical, deductive. This is the only way that ever produces results in anything, ever. In relationships, in school, in video games, in philosophy, there is not "other" kind of logic. This is how humans verifiably reason their way through situations The invention of "faith" is created by logic itself! Believing in this concept of faith is an act of attempted (albeit failed) reason.

The point is beliefs are not innocuous.

On Misc.

But my scenario is exactly the same. Because, in this case, just like with God, you can't see, feel, smell, taste, or hear the rock. I did not say where the rock was, in correlation to you. As far as you're concerned your 5 senses don't sense the rock. Can you prove to me that the rock exists? This goes exactly with God. I can't prove him to you, but I beleive he exists, just as you can't prove the rock to me, just as you beleive the rock exists.

What does this even mean? Your entire argument is based off of the statement: "there is a rock."

You're basically arguing that Europe doesn't exist. I, once again, dare you to prove Europe exists. It is the exact same argument as what you are using. It is patently ridiculous and a waste of time.

Regarding the person you refer to as "Sam 'The Man' Harris", why do you cling to him so? It seems many of your posts offer some quote from him. He must be quite inspiring to read; perhaps I'll look him up. Any recommended reading material?

I am quoting Sam Harris over and over again because he wrote a 300 page book on this very subject called "The End of Faith which is the most systematic and well-thought out treatise against religion and magical thought I have ever read. He also wrote "Letter to a Christian Nation," a much shorter incarnation of the same arguments directed at American Christians.

ON REDUNDANCY

Bad things are done in the name of religion. Do I defend them? No. Does that make all religion bad? I think not.

This point has been made by the theists ad nauseam. It has been phrased basically as is, over and over again. And likewise, we have responded with very lengthy, coherent replies, only to be met with the same tautology.

This isn't to say I'm surprised. This is a massive topic. It just seems that the argument goes full circle, people forget that this issue was addressed, and bring it up again (perhaps because the previous debate wasn't currently fleshed out). I honestly think the counter-point to this has been articulated 8 jillion times and quite effectively. So, I donno. EXASPERATION!

I've lost so much sleep cos of this thread. And not necessarily in a bad way. It's fun. I just have. I wonder if it's worth even writing so much--posts get drowned out seconds after they're written, and editing them seems to go unnoticed.

HEH!

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 11:40 PM

Like priests not being allowed to marry? Or how about the whole confessional thing? They can be RADICALLY different.

For anther example of differences in the Christian Church, we could look at the Mormons. I'm not sure, but I think the only real thing Christians have in common is the book, and perhaps the one belief all of Christianty hinges on. Lots of the other rules are denomination specific.

Bob The Mercenary

01-08-2007, 11:50 PM

I've lost so much sleep cos of this thread. And not necessarily in a bad way. It's fun. I just have. I wonder if it's worth even writing so much--posts get drowned out seconds after they're written, and editing them seems to go unnoticed.

HEH!

I notice! ^_^

It does feel almost like a forum game. Only, I feel like I'm losing points as fast as I'm gaining. And the oversleep from this has actually made me late for work.

On that note, /sleep.

Loki, The Fallen

01-08-2007, 11:53 PM

Locke, I can't prove Europe exists right now. I've never been there. I can't even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone else on this forum (Except Demetrius, as he is currently sitting in the desk I used to occupy) exists. I have yet to meet them. I have not set foot in thier house. All I see are post which could quite possibly be written by a random computer program.

I mean, with the advent of image editing technology, software programs, and other means of shaping someone's 'truth', I would have a hard time even proving who the president was. Could not all of this be some sort of crazy game the people in the black helicopters play on us, letting us think we know the 'truth'? Of course, this is all the conspiricy theorist way of seeing things.

I myself am probibly going to prove Japan exists soon, but perhaps it's just an illusion. Ah well, it'll be a fun illusion at least.

Redundancy, I'm sure we'll see more of it too. We're at 19 pages, I don't think everyone who visits this thread will re-read every post, so we will see more of this. And as has been argued by other people, things are done in many peoples/theories name. I'll try to let other people take that, as I have enough arguments on my plate right now.

Getting close to quitting time for me, the night shift will take over.
Down with your Infidel Pink Unicorn!

-Edited only because I was really on page 19, not 18-

Archbio

01-09-2007, 12:19 AM

Loki, The Fallen

01-09-2007, 12:36 AM

Loki,

To imply that since nothing (besides "I think therefore something exists") has an absolute level of certainty allows one to say that everything has an equal level of certainty is a non sequitur.

I really don't think it is. The existance of something is questioned, because one cannot experiance it. I'm simpy trying to make the point that many things cannot be proven easily, or quickly, to everyone, because not everyone can experiance it, and the fact that data is quite easily corruptable makes it even more difficult. Like wikipedia, anyone can edit things and make reality appear as they wish, unless one is THERE and experiancing it.

And I think it's healthy, keeps peoples brains working, helps them question the ideas they hold dear, and maybe steel the resolve of those who may waver from thier ideals. Keeps people 'on thier toes' if you will.

Ack, I'm doing it again! Must... drag...self...from...forum...
The White Unicorn (Blessed be her Hovves) be with you!

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 12:45 AM

*Kicks Loki outta his chair* "The night shift has arrived!!"

I'm basing this off of Jesus giving the keys to the gates of heaven to St. Peter. And I speculate that St. Peter may have a say in who is let in, being the "gatekeeper" to heaven per say.

Ok, this would be one of those pet peeves of mine concerning organized religion, specifically Catholics... READ THE BIBLE!!! Where the heck do you get that crap from? Peter is asked to continue in the Great Commission, he isn't given any divine priviledge or made the mouth piece of GOD.

For the second sentance...Uh no. Your admittance to heaven is based on one thing (going by the Bible as the Word of GOD here) and one thing only, the acceptance of Jesus.

Also where the heck do you get off adding purgatory, a place where your half ass bullshit in life can be paid off by your relatives by check or charge to the catholic church. The catholic church is no longer a religous entity, but a political/ money machine, man has corrupted that horribly.

FREE WILL/ OMNISCIENCE/ THE INFINITE--->

GOD in no way limits Himself by giving you the freedom to choose your path, He has put you in the sand box, He knows what you will do and how it will affect you and others and why you will do what you will do. Does He stop you? Did He stop Job from making his choice? Yes, He called a faithful family home, put a faithful man through trials and allowed the devil's influence, but He knew what would happen, He loved Job the entire time.

What is a lifetime against infinity? Picture time as something that no longer exists, in this state you are, you exist, there is nothing to mark any temporal passage, indeed there is no need. What is a lifetime of pain when a lifemtime has no way of relating to infinity.

HE's GOD for Crying Out Loud!

Where do you get off placing a limit on GOD's power? In the bible it says that every man will be allowed the choice in his life. A child that is killed to our knowledge may be allowed to live to the end of their days in that last moment (see infinty) and be given the choice to follow GOD.

Mesden, I have no idea of the grief you have faced for your friends, and the dissillusionment you have felt with the church. That is the works of man you are dealing with though, I have all faith in the fact that a perfect knowledge and understanding was given to your friends before their time was through, they will have had their choice. GOD does care and love us all, He created us to have free will so we our choices would have value. He wants us all to choose life eternal with Him, but that would have no value without our free will.

Archbio

01-09-2007, 01:10 AM

I really don't think it is. The existance of something is questioned, because one cannot experiance it. I'm simpy trying to make the point that many things cannot be proven easily, or quickly, to everyone, because not everyone can experiance it, and the fact that data is quite easily corruptable makes it even more difficult.

The existence of something is not questionned merely because of a lack of personal experience. It's the lack of everything else that's problematic. The proof of these supernatural powers is reduced to depend on personal experience, which is also lacking.

Which is one of the many reasons why it's different from the existence of distant lands. Locke has experience of lands, cities and living things. Europe is composed of lands, cities and living things. Removing Europe from existence would raise many pressing questions in Locke's mind about reality. Removing a supernatural power from existence doesn't.

And so on.

These things aren't comparable at all. This is a non sequitur.

Also where the heck do you get off adding purgatory, a place where your half ass bullshit in life can be paid off by your relatives by check or charge to the catholic church.

I think Indulgences has been forbidden by the Catholic Church, and that a while ago. Have you been hanging out with Martin Luther?

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 02:13 AM

I think Indulgences has been forbidden by the Catholic Church, and that a while ago. Have you been hanging out with Martin Luther?

RFOL, was talking about the origin of the idea, its kept around so the Catholic church doesn't have to admit they are wrong.

I believe (heh) what Loki was attempting to point out was the perception of reality can have a major impact on you but makes no difference to reality itself.

That then allows for discussion on the nature of reality, Schrodinger's Cat and other philosophies but that isn't so much on topic.

More to pick on--->

Things are defined by their opposites, or what they are not, take light and dark, one is dependant on the other. So then we know that finite things exist, for there to be a finite there must be that which defines it, the in-finite. So also in the same way there is the universe, and something beyond it.

Tydeus

01-09-2007, 02:38 AM

I have a really good resource for info on Hell and answers to some of your questions that I just couldn't find the answer to.

http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Why_Does_Hell_Exist.htm

I liked one quote in particular: "If we have a problem with endless suffering, it means that we have not yet fully comprehended the wickedness of human rebellion, and we have failed to grasp how evil it is to go contrary to the will of God."

I don't think you get what I'm driving at. Punishment, in any form, ever, is entirely unjustified unless it produces some beneficial result. The end justifies the means. To Machiavelli, that end (it was a singular, I may remind you all) was stability of the state. We may have other ends, but we justify those as good ends worth striving for. Punishment is only justified by the end it produces. If it produces no end, it lacks justification. It's only redeeming hope at that point is the possibility that it could have produced a good end. The death penalty, for instance, is held aloft (by some) on the principle of deterrance. It may not always deter, but it could deter. I'm not sure this really justifies taking a possibly innocent life, but, well, that's another thread.

The point I'm trying to make is that punishment without a just end is unjustified. We have a word for it -- revenge. In fact, revenge is spoken of in the Bible, in revelations. It is wholeheartedly admitted. Revenge. And what is revenge for? To please ourselves, by hurting others. This is known as sadism. It is generally considered to be an unhealthy, immoral, destructive presence within the consciousness of a human being. It erodes their decent qualities and capability for good.

Why should revenge be considered different with God? Fact is, the Christian Hell is no deterrent to most people. Mainly beacuse they believe in other religions, or none at all. Many have never even heard a verse from the Christian scriptures. And it is an unreasonable thing to expect it to be a deterrent to anyone. After all, no single person has ever had the slightest, tiniest, most infentismal morsel of evidence of its existence. We only are informed of it by hearsay. And that is no deterrent. That is entrapment, if such a horrific, mad, and unbearably evil place were to ever exist.

God is justified in making himself feel better by causing us pain why? Or why does Hell exist then? What purpose can it serve but revenge? Even if it were a deterrent, eternal torture is far beyond anything necessary to deter people. Certainly a century, even a millenium of torture would suffice, would it not? It would still be barbaric and disgusting and lacking all love, compassion, or humanity, and it would be a poor deterrent indeed, never showing itself, but it would suffice to such purposes. Eternity is a concept that one never wants to have arrayed against oneself. That is a pain beyond all comprehension.

And if God never shows himself, if other gods vie for my faith, then why should I be considered evil to go against him? I did not ask for life. I was forced into it. That's not to say that I wish to die, nor that I don't appreciate it, but it was utterly involuntary. As such, I think there is not a single thing owed to any God, you know, if he were actually real. A gift is a gift is a gift. You cannot demand it back, unless it was asked for. And even then, you are on tenuous ground. But a gift given, one which may indeed be more a curse than a blessing (had I died in the Holocaust, or of some terrible degenerative disease, or had I been tortured and raped and burned, I might think this way), that cannot be called in as a debt. Money given without the asking or acceptance of the recepient is not a loan. It is a gift. And so it is with all things.

We did not ask for this. Some of us, undoubtedly, wish we had never been cast into such a mad, dark, hellish world as ours can be. And we owe nothing to any entity that may have cast us there, so callously, so arrogantly, so piously.

It is like a trader taking a slave from Africa, and bringing him to a plantation in some Southern state, and then demanding that the slave act with utter obedience, work with efficiency, and love his owner. The slave owes no such things to the master, because he did not ask for this to happen to him. He may be a house slave in Kentucky, with an indulgent family, living a life more secure than any he would have encountered in Africa, but he still owes them nothing. They have given freely gifts and burdens, most, if not all of which were given without asking the recepient. He owes nothing.

And so are we unbound, undebted to any god.

Could we ever fault such a man if he did not do what was asked of him? Could we call him evil? Let us conjure up the most extreme scenario for examination -- the man, had he not been taken slave, would have lived a hard, short, Hobbesian life of toil and hate and brutality and soon, death. As a slave, he has been given a moderate work load doing household chores, is treated well, and is generally taken care of. Is he not perfectly within his rights to run away? To defy his masters? Is he, in fact, not correct for doing so? For defying the arrogance, the inhumanity of the life which was forced upon him? For defying manipulation, callous, hard, and inhuman coldness?

I've felt such coldness in my soul. I have been less than human. I still tread the line daily. I did not ask to be that way, to be seperate, to put myself above. I felt cast into that role. In some ways, I still feel it, though not as strongly as I have at other times. I cling so deperately to any human relationship that can arouse feeling within me, and melt some of that great glacier within me. I can put on or take off my humanity like you might a coat. In ways, it is freeing to rid oneself of the burden. It grants power. But at what cost? Only in my coldest nights of bitter, isolated despair have I wished for things that even begin to approach the horizon, over which may be seen a star, and in it Hell. I have wished for horrible, horrible things. I have reveled in the malicious bile that was drowning my humanity. It is vindicating, certainly. And so horribly, horribly cold.

I have personal experience with hell, friend. I have contemplated it in excruciating, maddening detail. It is not some fleeting passion I felt, but a calculated, well thought-out bitterness, nurtured and fed and grown to monstrous proportions. And still, I have but wished but the smallest iota of Hell on other sapient beings. And I am ashamed of that, very deeply. I am forever injured and scarred by it. I will always, always have that wish deep down. I must struggle with it daily, I must do my best to warm my frozen soul. Any being that could, without reservation, endorse that which even I dare not tread near -- that being would be one of utter emptiness. Resignation, passivity, death personified. Malicious beyond the comprehension of any mortal being to ever be thrown into the heady maelstrom of sapient life!

I could never tolerate such a being, and I would do anything in my power to destroy it, even if it cost me everything. Even if it damned me to the most vicious idea ever devised, in the coldest minds to ever churn with bile and wrath and hate. I would resist. Such a being deserves no existence, deserves no pleasure, no vindication, let alone servants! Worshippers!

This post, overwrought and grandiose as it may be, is written so for a purpose, friend. To exhort in you your humanity, which you feel so much more easily than I do, I would venture. To exhort you to cherish that wonderful, immeasurably comforting gift, and to place in you a burning outrage that could never be quenched against anything that could endorse Hell. Anything that cold. In the face of the cessation of all things, I would hope to arouse a burning passion which would stir this world, this species to action against it, would resist such an idea with all their conscious might. Hell, friend, robs you of your humanity. By believing in it, friend, you worship the devil.

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 02:51 AM

I don't think you get what I'm driving at. Punishment, in any form, ever, is entirely unjustified unless it produces some beneficial result.

Agreed, mostly. Punishment is a consequence, a result of an action, first and foremost. The justification is inherent in the fact that the punishment is merited by the act.

Certainly a century, even a millenium of torture would suffice, would it not? It would still be barbaric and disgusting and lacking all love, compassion, or humanity, and it would be a poor deterrent indeed, never showing itself, but it would suffice to such purposes. Eternity is a concept that one never wants to have arrayed against oneself. That is a pain beyond all comprehension.

One issue I have with this statement is that you are not thinking in terms of what it is to be infinte. After you die that is the plane upon which you exist. Also I'm fairly sure the true pain of hell is that you are completely removed from GOD's presence... well that and the whole fiery pit thing.

Tydeus

01-09-2007, 03:21 AM

Agreed, mostly. Punishment is a consequence, a result of an action, first and foremost. The justification is inherent in the fact that the punishment is merited by the act.

No, no, no. This is what I have argued is precisely wrong. Punishment merely because someone has done wrong is not justified. Punishment is only justified if it will produce some beneficial effect as a result. If punishment is meted out to some improper act, and yet no beneficial result is produced, it was not merited, even though an improper act was indeed comitted.

One issue I have with this statement is that you are not thinking in terms of what it is to be infinte. After you die that is the plane upon which you exist. Also I'm fairly sure the true pain of hell is that you are completely removed from GOD's presence... well that and the whole fiery pit thing.

If we are anything like what we are in this world, in some eternal plane, then it would be unbearable. Only by slipping into unconsciousness or by losing our minds -- that is to say, to lose our sapience -- could it become tolerable. Eternity would seem to be just as long and intolerable for any being, no matter what frame of reference they are used to, for it is infinite. Even if a billion years is but the blink of an eye to some eternal being, eternity means that it will be punished for all those billions of billions of billions of years, never ceasing. Frame of reference is obliterated in the face of the absolute that is eternity.

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 03:28 AM

Frame of reference is obliterated in the face of the absolute that is eternity

Exactly my point, a billion years and the blink of an eye are the same.

Back to punishment and consquences.

I am right now unable to wrap my head around preventative punishment. Why should I care about committing an act if there are no direct consequences? If I want sex now and there is a chick and I rape her what will I learn from a punishment? Your being punished is a result or consequence of your actions, merited by those actions.

Tydeus

01-09-2007, 03:35 AM

Back to punishment and consquences.

I am right now unable to wrap my head around preventative punishment. Why should I care about committing an act if there are no direct consequences? If I want sex now and there is a chick and I rape her what will I learn from a punishment? Your being punished is a result or consequence of your actions, merited by those actions.

Not quite. See, punishment is not merited by the act itself, but as a deterrent to the act among the many, or as a way to instill a deeper fear of actually experiecing the punishment in the punished. Just as a dog becomes handshy, so would punishment seek to imprint on someone a connection of certain behaviors to pain and misfortune.

Though some individual may not personally learn from punishment for his evil deeds, society is by-and-large deterred from replicating them, and so a justifiable end is produced and upheld -- the very concept of an ordered society. However, torture, for example, serves no purpose (as a punishment, ignoring anything regarding interrogation). If imprisonment is enough to produce in society a general aversion to a certain misdeed, then torture is excessive, is vengeful, is unjustified. Similarly, if locking up marijuana users and sellers does no good to society (and arguably, it actually hurts our society), then the punishment is not justified. Whether or not the act itself is wrong or harmful is irrelevant. It's a cost/benefit analysis. For this reason I believe all drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. Though they may be vices, in some cases quite severe, if punishment only produces further negative effects, it is useless, and merely vengeance, or some callousness to the punished, and either way is unjustified.

Mesden

01-09-2007, 04:01 AM

Mesden, I have no idea of the grief you have faced for your friends, and the dissillusionment you have felt with the church. That is the works of man you are dealing with though, I have all faith in the fact that a perfect knowledge and understanding was given to your friends before their time was through, they will have had their choice. GOD does care and love us all, He created us to have free will so we our choices would have value. He wants us all to choose life eternal with Him, but that would have no value without our free will.

Disillusionment? I asked several ministers quite blatantly what would become of my friends -- they were both atheists and took their lives together. I made sure to get the most blatant, truthful answer they could give me, because I didn't want a stretched truth about people I cared so much for.

I was told they would go to hell. Everytime, because they never accepted Jesus and God.

I didn't say I went through a self-religious crisis to say it -- I absolutely mean that it was a crisis upon me.

I don't know where this difference in the theology of hell comes from between you and the priests I've talked to and forced this answer from, but even people in this thread have said that you accept Jesus here or go to hell.

If you die and then get to choose -- you see an afterlife and are presented the question, then fine, I could possibly take solace in that -- maybe, but that's not definitive. Christianity is hardly definitive, as can be shown with the pseudo-retreat phase they've been in since times of questioning.

But, if it is what you say it is, then I have nothing to worry about, I can continue my life this way and when I am actually shown that there is something there and that there is some semblance and reason to all the strife and seemingly uncaring things that are God's word, when I am shown that, yes, it's all real and true, then I can accept it.

But that's not definitive, I've been told every other time that you have to 'accept' Jesus here or fry, more or less.

And, as per Bob's reasoning, that is disgusting.

It is disgusting to assume that my friends, which I thoroughly assure you were wonderful people, will go to hell because they were wrong, even though they had reason behind it.

And that, even worse from that, a terrible, rotten waste of a human being -- just an absolutely evil person can go to Heaven for making the right choice once?

This is not an all-loving God, no matter how you present this reasoning to me.

This is a God that sends good people to hell and lets bad people in Heaven.

This God is not what Christianty says he is, by Christianty's own decrees.

This post may be overly emotional, sentimental, whatever you wish to call it, but it is my reasoning, it is my thoughts on the matter, and whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, your emotions are part of you and help form your schema, and have every right to be part of how you come to a decision.

Nique

01-09-2007, 04:04 AM

I'm just curious, what is the general feeling towards an extremely religious person who;

1. Actively shares his faith with others
2. Does not belive in Hell, or an Immortal soul
3. Does not belive in modern miracles (faith healing, etc)

I'm having a hard time with this thread... I can raise an argument with almost everyone becuase so many different things are being discussed all at once. There are a lot of specific belifes I can't abide by becuase they either don't find enough support in the Bible, or have no other verifiable proof (i.e. immortal 'soul'). And then of course I still belive in the judeo-chirtian God becuase I belive the Bible constitutes a reliable source of information, so I'm at odds with most theists and atheists alike. :(

I was told they would go to hell. Everytime, because they never accepted Jesus and God.

It's admirable that you asked for an honest answer, but this is why I've never found the concept of hellfire to work. Let's break down a very basic religious tenent and make it as close to a math equation as we can - God's four cardinal attirubtes, Love, Justice, Wisdom, Power. Now, those can be a little abstract, so don't over think the meanings too much. Keep it simple.

-Would a God who is powerful torment someone forever? He might. He is certainly capable of inflicting pain indefinatly... but that doesn't provide a reason to do so, only the means by which he might.
-Would a God who is loving torment people eternally? Well, probably not... unless it was the only means of keeping a harmful influence away from 'good' people, maybe, but a 'powerful' God doesn't face this kind of choice, he's got other options.
-But what about Wisdom? Is their a goal or purpose in tormenting someone forever? I mean, once they're dead, what more harm could they do? Eternal torment amounts to spite, then, becuase it serves no purpose.
-And Justice? This is the good one. Let's say someone sins - not just a little, but everyday, intentionally knowing they are insulting God. This person lives a good 80+ years, and then bites the bullet. Does the comparitivly limted time this person spent disobeying god, and maybe harming many others along the way, balence out with an eternity of torture? I mean, we can't put specific numerical values on 'sin' or methods of torture, but I think we can be reasonably sure that eternal hell is an example of injustice. It's simply overkill.

But, you know, I've been told I will go to hell becuase I don't belive in it, so I'm not sure how you win in that scenario.

Let's see... Beyond the issues of doctrine being disscussed, we still have the 'empirical' argument going... I think, what I would like to discuss is the Bible's credibility outside of the 'God's exsistance' issue. Some points had been brought up regarding translation error, and accuracy and such... There is a wealth of information on biblical accruacy if you're looking for it.

I mean, to hear some arguments, it's like this issue doesn't even matter becuase, apparently, we're all just going on 'gut-feeling'? I don't think that's appropriate in a setting where religious belife in being debated on grounds of logic and reasoning.

Yes, there is a certain amount of 'feeling' involved, becuase it is a part of who we are as humans... but can we get out of this philosophical cycle of 'Logic matters!' vs. 'No it doesn't!'? There are other avenues to explore.

Edit! Appropriate comic!

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-945.png

Link (http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=914)!

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 05:08 AM

Revelation 20:14, Malachi 4:1, Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50, Revelation 9:2.

You purport to follow the Bible, yet you ignore these things (pertaining to hell)?

I would say Nique that you have a set of personal beliefs, not a religion. It is good that you are active in your beliefs even if I don ot agree with them.

Mesden

01-09-2007, 05:32 AM

Revelation 20:14, Malachi 4:1, Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50, Revelation 9:2.

You purport to follow the Bible, yet you ignore these things (pertaining to hell)?

Not at all -- I used to follow the Bible, a long while ago.

I can not state exact passages that go exactly with what I say, and I can't have the time to read through the massive book for them, but if someone else (Say Bob, who supported the truthfulness of what I was speaking about) can, that'd be wonderful.

And really, even if evil people still go to hell, even if that, that's only half of what I said.

And not even the important half.

Tydeus

01-09-2007, 06:10 AM

To debate using logic, as Nique suggested -- my post, impassioned and florid though it was (as is my natural proclivity), I thought it well reasoned. I used all manner of rhetorical devices to illustrate just exactly why the idea of Hell is, without a doubt, incompatible with love, compassion, humanity, or most any feeling but anger, for that matter.

But, since it's a good topic-starter, let's move forward in this vein. I agree that the Bible has immense historical value, but I stop when we get to the supernatural stuff. That, to me, is the effort of man.

And why? Well, the Judeo-Christian conception of God is physically impossible. Basic laws of physics prohibit such a God from existing. All knowing? Last time I checked, we had a little thing called "uncertainty principle." Omniscient? Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, and thus this "being" would not be able to even communicate with itself, would not be whole, really, if it is also omnipresent. Which of course is also ridiculous, because we'd obviously detect the mass and/or energy of such a pervasive, supposedly sapient entity. Further, the immortal soul. Again, what is this made of? Matter? Energy? No? Then it doesn't exist. Simple, really.

God as creator of the universe? Please. How could a God have created the universe, and yet exist within it? This is absurd. I suppose it theoretically possible that a God did create our universe, either budding it off of its own universe, or through some completely incomprehensible faculty of the physics of its own universe. But such a being could not then come into our universe. At best, a Creator exists in some multiverse, or other such theoretical generative place/entity/whatever, knowing nothing of our world, our trials and tribulations.

You can't just ignore physics. You cannot have something that simply does not obey physics, that exists "outside of time" (as I have heard so many Christians say). That is not how our universe works. We have uniform physical laws, the same throughout our vast vacuum, and they do not allow for flexibility. One cannot be "outside time." One cannot be consisting of something other than matter or energy. One cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light. One cannot be omniscient. It is impossible. If God may disobey basic, well-founded physical laws, then why do we not all have magical powers? For, essentially, magic is what such a creature would be. Defying physical tenets inherent to the very fabric and construction of our universe. Such things cannot be.

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 06:11 AM

Sorry Mes, was talking to Nique and his belief in the Bible, yet lack of belief in the content.

Mes, I have faith in the love of GOD, he looks out for us all and offers us every chance to make the right choice. In the end (speaking of their last moments/eternity) your friends made a choice, I amm confident that they were given a complete understanding before they had to choose. Hopefully they made the right choice. Similarly the knowledge that that one choice can redeem you despite what you do with the rest of your life gives me great hope. I screw up constantly.

Mesden

01-09-2007, 06:24 AM

Sorry Mes, was talking to Nique and his belief in the Bible, yet lack of belief in the content.

Well, it was in regard to hell, which I was in the topic of, so there's that...

Mes, I have faith in the love of GOD, he looks out for us all and offers us every chance to make the right choice.

I remember somewhere earlier in this thread you mentioned the 'feeling' of God that you couldn't describe. Something about the sheer realization of God's existance being some motive of your life and a driving force for your Faith.

Maybe that's a difference between how you and I are thinking. See, even after years of religious living, I not once had some overwhelming feeling of "God". I could pray, hope, ask, beg, plead, cry and scream about it, but I've never felt anything special or some alien presence upon my being.

But yet, other people who were/weren't in a crisis as well were given this enlightenment? This reassuring feeling?

It might sound selfish, but why didn't I get anything when I needed it? To test me? Was he testing you when this feeling encroached upon your life, or did he just get the whim to help you and not me?

This God, the one everyone talks about and follows, hasn't impacted my life save for debating on whether he exists, and if he does, whether he cares or not. Maybe I just wasn't a good enough follower, but asking anyone who's known me for a good time, I'm pretty sure they'd tell you otherwise.

As far as I've heard, felt, and understood, I've seen nothing at all that shows that this God cares -- for me or my friends or anyone I hold dear.

That alone, forgetting all the other several reasons, is enough for me to 'lose my faith'.

In the end (speaking of their last moments/eternity) your friends made a choice, I amm confident that they were given a complete understanding before they had to choose. Hopefully they made the right choice. Similarly the knowledge that that one choice can redeem you despite what you do with the rest of your life gives me great hope. I screw up constantly.

Here's hoping, but I've been thoroughly assured otherwise.

Azisien

01-09-2007, 07:06 AM

Yeah. And I'd love to debate you on it.

All right, let's see what you have to say in regards to the Earth only being approximately 6000 years old.

I'm just curious, what is the general feeling towards an extremely religious person who;

1. Actively shares his faith with others
2. Does not belive in Hell, or an Immortal soul
3. Does not belive in modern miracles (faith healing, etc)

Decidedly more tolerable than religious psychopaths?

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-09-2007, 09:04 AM

And it's time for another installment of...

More Random Science Information that Barely Pretains to the Topic at Hand

All knowing? Last time I checked, we had a little thing called "uncertainty principle."
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical limit to the precision of measuring a physical system. If one were to have, say, an infinite understanding of the system, say, during the Singularity (when we don't understand how the current laws of physics apply), one could necessarily make accurate predictions infinitely far into the future.

Omniscient? Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, and thus this "being" would not be able to even communicate with itself, would not be whole, really, if it is also omnipresent.
Tachyons travel faster than light.

Gravitons could theoretically be accelerated to above the speed of light as well, though they aren't there naturally.

And, while not information, there's a number of things relating to 'Quantum Computers' that I, admittedly, don't really understand, but theoretically -- while they couldn't exchange information at faster than light speeds -- they might be able to use parts on the other 'side' of the universe as if they were all one piece.

And there are a number of other theoretical ways to skirt the speed of light. The only real issue is causality, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that causality preserves itself, rather than other forces acting to preserve causality. Hell, at a quantum level, causality is... for lack of a better word, sketchy.

I suppose it theoretically possible that a God did create our universe, either budding it off of its own universe, or through some completely incomprehensible faculty of the physics of its own universe. But such a being could not then come into our universe.
Creating a universe is not so hard as one would think. There are numerous theories as to how we could create a universe -- many include the possibility of getting ourselves there as well.

There are some who theorize that we have already created universes, albeit accidentally, in particle accelerators and the like.

This being, of course, the ironic conclusion of our discovery that we are abjectly unimportant. Our world, our solar system, our galaxy are not the center, are not unique. Even our universe is almost certainly not unique. So much so that even we could create one.

It's an amusing reversal, no?

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 09:33 AM

Azisien this may be unmoderated but come on, nobody is name calling and we are at least getting some give and take here, so let's keep this civil.

I am a Christian and I will gladly listen to what you have to say, actually listen, because what you have to say tells a lot about who you are and what you believe. If you make good points I will applaud them, in return I expect the same from you, getting upset because people don't agree with you leads to strokes and social issues.

In the meanwhile why do you think the earth is older? I am of the opinion that the first several days of creation could have been any amount of finite time because time as we know it wasn't introduced until after the third day:
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Just my take, many fundamentalists argue against this in favor of the 24 hour day of creation. My way GOD could have been the first cause that started the chain of cause/effect that has brought everything into being.

Loki, The Fallen

01-09-2007, 09:33 AM

From Tydeus's keyboard:
Punishment merely because someone has done wrong is not justified. Punishment is only justified if it will produce some beneficial effect as a result.
See, punishment is not merited by the act itself, but as a deterrent to the act among the many, or as a way to instill a deeper fear of actually experiecing the punishment in the punished.

And here the punishment is. For the act of treason, for the disobediance of God, there is one punishment, Eternity in Hell. Wouldn't the threat of 'a real long time in a place that is really uncomfortable' motivate people to follow that rule?

Of course, even that didn't work too well, so He decided to give people another hand.

Time to pull myself out of this sleep phase, and get ready for work, and catch up on what the night-shift has left me.

May the fleas of a thousand Rottweilers infest the nose-hairs of those who follow the infidel Pink Unicorn!

-Edited: Removed an extra 'the' that sneaked in...-

Azisien

01-09-2007, 10:07 AM

Azisien this may be unmoderated but come on, nobody is name calling and we are at least getting some give and take here, so let's keep this civil.

Not directly, no, though I am being condemned, in your eyes at least, to eternal damnation because I do not follow your beliefs. So excuse me, and note I didn't even name any names, if I consider quite a few people twisted, sadistic, and downright terrible, for believing in such a thing.

In the meanwhile why do you think the earth is older? I am of the opinion that the first several days of creation could have been any amount of finite time because time as we know it wasn't introduced until after the third day:

I personally believe the Earth is older because I, searching for words other than 'believe' here, trust radio-isotope dating techniques. I trust them because of the literal mountains of evidence, both primary (regarding actual study of radioactivity and half-lives and so on) and secondary (physics and chemistry in general). The evidence is so conclusive we're far and beyond trying to "prove" that these phenomenon are functional, we're off and away into theories that rely on them (such as the solar nebula theory that describes, with moderate deliberation still, how our solar system formed). I even have hands-on evidence for myself, because not only am I trained in physics and science in general to understand all of this "smart people stuff," I've ran my own experiments with radioisotopes to determine the age of various objects.

And stemming from all that, I just have to conclude that the Earth has been around for longer than 6000 years, and even beyond radioisotope dating, the evidence against such a claim is so astronomical my head hurts when I try to sum it all up. Instead I place some comfort in knowing with a pretty good amount of certainty that the Earth is between 4.3 and 4.5 billion years old, the Moon is the same age, and meteorites thought to be a part of the original formation of the solar system are exclusively between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years old.

Bob The Mercenary

01-09-2007, 10:39 AM

Alright, commenting on a few things. First of all, I wasn't aware of your loss, Mes. And if you had asked me the same question you asked those priests, the right answer would've been "that's not my call to make". That's no human's call to make to tell you or anyone else where they're going. As has been said, God's supposedly a righteous judge, and would take all facts into account. My mom had a (I don't want to say similar, but significant) experience with a catholic priest. She missed a service one day and she was basically told she was going to Hell. Which is when she converted to Lutheran. The point being, we aren't here to be the judge or jury of people's souls. Again, I'm sorry about your friends, I can't begin to imagine something like that.

On the age of the Earth. I can't provide you with any actual scientific evidence to prove that the world is only a couple thousand years old. In theory, God didn't create a "baby world". He made a mature Earth, shown in his creation of Adam and Eve as adults. So, even with carbon dating, everything could seem millions of years old. Also, the Bible doesn't really leave the seven day creation to much debate. "And there was evening and there was morning, the second day" and so on.

Sorry I can't stay to write more, work calls.

I_Like_Swordchucks

01-09-2007, 10:53 AM

Not directly, no, though I am being condemned, in your eyes at least, to eternal damnation because I do not follow your beliefs. So excuse me, and note I didn't even name any names, if I consider quite a few people twisted, sadistic, and downright terrible, for believing in such a thing.

No offense meant here, but if Christianity offends you thats your own problem. If you don't believe in it then you've got nothing to worry about, and what we think doesn't matter because none of us WANT anybody to go to hell, and in fact none of us should say you will go to hell because thats not our call and the Bible itself specifically says that the state of a person's soul is between him and God.

The funny thing is, Christianity is constantly cited as the 'intolerable' people, yet every single Christian on this forum has no trouble tolerating anything. I think many non-Christians are less than willing to tolerate our beliefs though without resorting to referring to us as "religious psychopaths".

There's a clear difference between Truth and Morally Right. Whether or not you believe that Christianity is Truth, it is a lot extreme to say the Christianity is morally wrong. We have a right, just as well as you do, to believe whatever we want to believe. Our rights end where yours begin. We don't have the right to persecute anybody, but neither does anybody else have a right to persecute us. Yet Christianity stands as one of the few things that 'enlightened, tolerant' people refuse to tolerate. I don't know why. I have no issue with anybody being an atheist if they want to be. I think they're wrong (which apparently makes me intolerant), but they think I'm wrong as well and both of us have a right to be wrong so who cares?

But things like comparing a church providing food and shelter to homeless people with a man molesting children (and Locke, its a bit stubborn to say I have no reason to consider that a far out analogy. Because it is) is a bit much. I actually got criticized for CONCEDING a point in this. Organized religion has flaws. Many of our beliefs are incomplete. We don't know everything. How does admitting not knowing everything become a debatable issue?

The thing is, if theists are wrong, and there is no God, then morality becomes nothing more than a social construct and religion is not wrong because right and wrong do not actually exist beyond our perceptions. So therefore, I can believe whatever I want and have no fear of retribution beyond death. If theists are right and there is a God, then morality comes from God, and believing in the existence of God is still not wrong because it would be True.

You can think whatever you want. While its a bit far to say I don't care what you think, I can't and won't shove my beliefs down your throat. Again, its between you and God. But when you try to do the same to us, what makes you any better than what you think we are? If nothing else, it makes you worse because its being hypocritical as well.

And as far as the age of the Earth, I don't really care. As a scientist, I would have to say the Earth is very old, but then again the Bible doesn't say all the days of creation came in a row, or how long Adam was in Eden before he was booted out, or many other things. Adding up people's ages backwards seems to be a misuse of the way the Bible was intended to be used.

Azisien

01-09-2007, 11:05 AM

No offense meant here, but if Christianity offends you thats your own problem.

No offense meant here, but if being called a religious psychopath offends you, thats your own problem. Well, that was turned around rather easily.

But, I didn't call you that, now did I. Actually, my comment was hopelessly vague because I don't want to name names. I have a good deal of respect for many of the Christians that have posted here, and for many Christians I know in real life (I went to a Catholic high school, and I've retained many friends from high school who are indeed religious). My comment may apply to religious, okay let's be politically correct here, fundamentalists out in the greater world.

And to put it out there, no, Christianity is not the only religion out there with problems of intolerance. I'd even hazard a guess and say almost every organized religion has that problem, but then I have friends who follow some sects of abrahamic religions that seem rather...nice?

On the age of the Earth. I can't provide you with any actual scientific evidence to prove that the world is only a couple thousand years old. In theory, God didn't create a "baby world". He made a mature Earth, shown in his creation of Adam and Eve as adults. So, even with carbon dating, everything could seem millions of years old. Also, the Bible doesn't really leave the seven day creation to much debate. "And there was evening and there was morning, the second day" and so on.

I didn't expect you to provide any scientific evidence because there is none, unfortunately (wait, maybe that isn't unfortunate :p). In theory, there is no religious theory. That term should be left within the realm of science. Your claim is carbon dating "seeming" a certain way is completely unfounded, and I will assume it's an empty one that collapses your argument until you can explain yourself more. Also note, I wasn't just talking about carbon dating, which is why I used "radioisotope" instead. Actually, carbon dating isn't very accurate at all after a fairly short time-scale because their radioisotopes have rapid half-lives.

Fifthfiend

01-09-2007, 11:14 AM

Was anyone wondering why nobody in their right mind wants the job of moderating the religious discussion?

Not directly, no, though I am being condemned, in your eyes at least, to eternal damnation because I do not follow your beliefs.

I think that pretty much covers it, right there.

Krylo

01-09-2007, 12:08 PM

There are some who theorize that we have already created universes, albeit accidentally, in particle accelerators and the like.And in one of these universes wherein time flows faster than it does here, people (if, indeed, they can be called that) are, right now, tapping away furiously at their keyboards debating the existence of their creator, and how loving he or she may be. People are strapping bombs to themselves claiming it to be the word of God. People are killing each other in holy wars, and commiting irrevocable acts of violence on each other all on the word of 'God'.

Yet we, their creators, aren't even conscience of their existence.

Extremely amusing reversal.

I think that pretty much covers it, right there.But not only am I moderator, I'm also a GOD... or at least I will be once I get my hands on a particle accelerator and some of those theories.

Fifthfiend

01-09-2007, 12:10 PM

But not only am I moderator, I'm also a GOD... or at least I will be once I get my hands on a particle accelerator and some of those theories.

To my imagining an honest-to-goodness God would be even less interested in trying to moderate a religious discussion.

POS Industries

01-09-2007, 02:43 PM

To my imagining an honest-to-goodness God would be even less interested in trying to moderate a religious discussion.

And that pretty much sums up my entire belief structure as it applies to the metaphysical.

Sure, I'm willing to accept the existance of a God, but that in no way changes the fact that the world runs the way it does and it's best to just go on living the way you feel is best. Never liked the idea of life on Earth being nothing more than an audition for some nice little condo overlooking the beach of the afterlife. Worry about this life, where you are now, where you're going in the next few years, what your and other people's kids and grandkids have to deal with on this planet. You want to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, that's your business, but there's still shit to be done here, which as I recall was what Jesus was going on about in the first place before they nailed him to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone started being nice to each other for a change.

That, and I'm pretty sold on reincarnation, so it'd be great if people focused less on heaven and/or hell, and more on Earth because I'm fairly sure I'm gonna be here for quite a bit longer.

Tydeus

01-09-2007, 03:20 PM

And it's time for another installment of...

More Random Science Information that Barely Pretains to the Topic at Hand

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a mathematical limit to the precision of measuring a physical system. If one were to have, say, an infinite understanding of the system, say, during the Singularity (when we don't understand how the current laws of physics apply), one could necessarily make accurate predictions infinitely far into the future.

But how would one start with said infinite understanding (I think perhaps "absolute" understanding might be a better term)? Measuring a particle's velocity means that you can't as accurately measure its position. It doesn't matter if you're trying to do that at the moment of the universe's conception, or now, or any time inbetween. The principle does not change. Indeed, it would be exceedingly difficult to measure any particle's position at the beginning of the universe, when the velocities would have been fantastically large.

Tachyons travel faster than light.

....If they existed. You realize that they don't exist, right? They're theoretical particles, and there has never been any evidence of them. "Tachyon" is just the name we ascribe to any theoretical FTL (faster than light) particle. It's a name for an idea, not a particle/wave. So, no, they don't go faster than light.

Gravitons could theoretically be accelerated to above the speed of light as well, though they aren't there naturally.

How, exactly? Last time I heard, Einsteinian gravity was still the standard model...

In fact, gravity waves (which have been observed) travel at exactly the speed of light. Gravitons, like tachyons, are also theoretical. We don't even know that such particles/waves exist in the first place. It would make sense for the gravitational force to have a carrier particle as the other three do, but it has not been determined.

Forgive me for being skeptical that it would not be widely publicized if the last ~80 years of the study of gravity were overturned...

And, while not information, there's a number of things relating to 'Quantum Computers' that I, admittedly, don't really understand, but theoretically -- while they couldn't exchange information at faster than light speeds -- they might be able to use parts on the other 'side' of the universe as if they were all one piece.

Quantum entanglement, you mean? In this as well, FTL is still impossible. The time it takes for the information to travel between entangled particles is based on the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, as far as we currently know. Information, energy, whatever.

And there are a number of other theoretical ways to skirt the speed of light. The only real issue is causality, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that causality preserves itself, rather than other forces acting to preserve causality. Hell, at a quantum level, causality is... for lack of a better word, sketchy.

No, there really is no way to skirt light speed. It's an unfortunate reality of the universe as we know it today. We may be proven wrong someday, by future discoveries, but for now all your claims regarding FTL are baseless.

Creating a universe is not so hard as one would think. There are numerous theories as to how we could create a universe -- many include the possibility of getting ourselves there as well.

And how, pray tell, would we transmit ourselves from one universe to another, when there is a very high likelihood that their laws of physics, their inherent properties are vastly different? You can't just state these outrageous claims and then provide no explanation. My claims rest on all our established knowledge of fundamental principles of the physical universe. Yours rest on what, sensationalist predicitions and wonderings in Popular Mechanics? 'Cause that's what it sounds like.

There are some who theorize that we have already created universes, albeit accidentally, in particle accelerators and the like.

I don't know if this is true, but either way, it doesn't matter. Do we have any plausible, hell, possible way to even detect such universes, let alone transmit ourselves into them, and become all-powerful beings of omniscience?

This being, of course, the ironic conclusion of our discovery that we are abjectly unimportant. Our world, our solar system, our galaxy are not the center, are not unique. Even our universe is almost certainly not unique. So much so that even we could create one.

It's an amusing reversal, no?

It is indeed.

Sithdarth

01-09-2007, 05:25 PM

Couple of things:

Hawking's Radiation requires that particles travel faster than light and thereby backwards in time to escape a blackhole. That's at least one group of particles that one could call Tachyons. Well they only really travel faster than light for the time it takes to clear the event horizon.

There's also this theory with a good bit of acceptance about spacetime and torsional forces. See if you start tugging spacetime around in circles, say by way of spinning blackhole, strange things can happen. (Oh and we know at least this much happens.) The theory goes that if spacetime was chugging along at .5c and you came along and traveled in the same direction as it through it at .6c you'd be moving at 1.1c. Well appear to those of us not lucky enough to have our spacetime moving at .5c. They've actually got experiments designed, and being built, to test this. (They use some sort of intense laser light matrix to cause similar spacetime warping and particles moving at high velocity.)

Oh and while I'm at it nothing in the universe says you can't travel faster than the speed of light. Einstein just proved you can't accelerate to the speed of light. That's were you're infinite masses and stuff comes in. Hell in fact according to Einstein light shouldn't even travel at the speed of light. In that a photon's mass should increase to infinity through kinetic energy as it accelerates from a stop to the speed of light at the moment of its creation. The fact that it doesn't suggests strongly there is a way around our little speed limit. That and certain exotic materials can make light travel faster than through a vacuum.

Quantum entanglement, you mean? In this as well, FTL is still impossible. The time it takes for the information to travel between entangled particles is based on the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, as far as we currently know. Information, energy, whatever.

That's the funny thing about Quantum entanglement. You could make two entangled quantum processor. Each processor would be able to use the bits of the other one to assist in computation no matter the distance. Now the person with processor A has no way of telling what information person with processor B fed in. However, processor B can still send that information, in a way that can never be decoded with out conventional lightspeed transmission, to processor A for processing. Processor A can then send it back to processor B and the person operating processor B can take full advantage of it. (No information other than the result from the information sent from processor B can be piggybacked for the ride. That'd make the data on the other end totally unrecoverable for the person at processor B.) You see in this way technically no information was sent anywhere. Strange as it may seem.

Physics is a wild and wacky world and best left to Physicist lest your brains explode out yer ears.

Oh and as for omnipresence, a higher dimensional being could exist in/observe every inch of our dimension and yet be smaller than us. Again its one of those crazy physics thing you can't understand without so much math you'd need to cut down a forest for the paper.

Junkyard God

01-09-2007, 05:34 PM

New to this thread, but... wow. Religion turned into a discussion on black holes and quantum mechanics?

<sits back to watch mor knowledgeable people yammer>

When this gets back to religion, lemme know!

Fifthfiend

01-09-2007, 05:41 PM

...Everybody say hi to Wandering Wombat.

Now everybody wave goodbye to Wandering Wombat.

The Kneumatic Pnight

01-09-2007, 06:21 PM

But how would one start with said infinite understanding (I think perhaps "absolute" understanding might be a better term)? Measuring a particle's velocity means that you can't as accurately measure its position. It doesn't matter if you're trying to do that at the moment of the universe's conception, or now, or any time inbetween. The principle does not change. Indeed, it would be exceedingly difficult to measure any particle's position at the beginning of the universe, when the velocities would have been fantastically large.
Consider it, then, an intellectual curiosity and nothing more. My point was merely that you were applying the uncertainty principle to knowing, when it only applies to measuring.

Perhaps a better example would be a perfect vacuum and an emitter that emits one photon at a specific vector and specific velocity. Until it is desturbed by something, we would know the exact location and velocity, regardless of wave-particle duality.

Whether or not such a set up could concievably be constructed does not interest me.

....If they existed. You realize that they don't exist, right? They're theoretical particles, and there has never been any evidence of them.
Forgive me, I should have included the word 'would'. I believe that was my intention, but I cannot be certain.

Pretaining to the actual sentence, you would be right, up until you said they don't exist. Rather, "We don't know if they exist."

Admittedly, this may not be the best thread to get into theoretical particle physics, but that has always been something of my main interest. And there are a number of bizarrely named mathematical models and almost-repsected theories that postulate their existance.

And forgive me, but, models relied on neutrinos before we could experimentally prove them, becasue they smoothed out mathematical problems. Tachyons do the same thing.

Even special relativity has no real problem with tachyons, though it does so alongside certain demonstrations of why a tachyon wouldn't have to violate causality, so admittedly, not the most condusive point -- but, again, we have no reason to believe causality is absolute.

So, to sum up: theoretical, but well-backed theoretical.

"Tachyon" is just the name we ascribe to any theoretical FTL (faster than light) particle.
Not true. Well, okay, I don't know if 'Superbradyon' has been accepted by more than just a few of us (I also prefer 'Dyson Swarm').

It's a name for an idea, not a particle/wave. So, no, they don't go faster than light.
Whether or not they exist has already been addressed, I would just like to point out that the idea of a particle that travels faster than light does involve particles traveling faster than light.

Just sayin'.

How, exactly? Last time I heard, Einsteinian gravity was still the standard model...
Well, in a sense. However, here's the big gravity 'connundrum' if you will...

The problem is, that gravity seems to drop off too quickly compared to the Einsteinian model when relating to very large distances. The theoretical solutions for this are as follows:

1. The General Relativity model is completely perfect, and there is a form of energy that mysteriously repells itself and expands spacetime -- and also that we have never seen and cannot detect, but mysteriously makes up more of the universe than anything else ever.

2. The model is wrong and gravity becomes weaker at larger distances than the General Relativity model predicts. (A possible explaination is the String Theory model of a Graviton, depending on how difficult it is for them to escape the 'brane). This would, of course, invalidate the most accurate, experimentally proven model of gravity, but if we just use Newton's equations, we'll probably end up close enough, anyway.

3. Nothing is causing it. Spacetime merely expands for no explainable reason.

In fact, gravity waves (which have been observed) travel at exactly the speed of light.
Ah, yes, the infamous Kopeikin and Fomalont observations. Consensus among relativists is that their observations were -- for lack of a word that fits my meaning -- wrong. What I mean is that most think the tests were fundamentally flawed.

If I have misinterpereted, please direct me to these observations, because an accurate observation of this area of general relativity that I've not seen would be fantastic.

Gravitons, like tachyons, are also theoretical. We don't even know that such particles/waves exist in the first place. It would make sense for the gravitational force to have a carrier particle as the other three do, but it has not been determined.
I see I had not made it as clear as I could -- nay, should have -- that I was speaking in theoreticals, these aren't things pulled out of some physicist's ass. They're the method by which gravetic interaction on a quantum level makes any kind of sense. (Hehe, making sense on a quantum level).

Quantum entanglement, you mean? In this as well, FTL is still impossible. The time it takes for the information to travel between entangled particles is based on the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, as far as we currently know. Information, energy, whatever.

Sithdarth handled this better than I possibly could. It's basically the EPR(B) paradox. Which was, ironically, a criticism of Quantum Mechanics.

Although, strictly speaking, from the looks of things Quantum Mechanics will be the one doing the lasting.

Oh, and on this note...
See if you start tugging spacetime around in circles, say by way of spinning blackhole, strange things can happen.
Just to get the point across that this isn't some bizarre thought experiment, we have experimentally proven that the rotation of the Earth torques spacetime. The real question is how much, and so we designing a sattelite to measure it.

Yet we, their creators, aren't even conscience of their existence.
Yes, EXACTLY! Hell, even if we could figure out (I mean, it's possible, though I think only String Theory gravity poses any current hope of meaningfully detecting these things if we don't know about them) and even if we could get here (and yes, I will admit this is a stretch) it wouldn't matter. 'Cause then we'd just end up people in a universe. Whoop-de-doo.

The point was, creating a universe is not some bizarrely ineffable physics of some alternate universe.

At the risk of being repetative...
all-powerful beings of omniscience?
Assumption.

The 'barely pretaining to the topic' exclaimer is right there. (Though I suppose technically, it relates to arguments being made in the thread, which would be the 'barely' part).

Hell, though, I mean, I think about 35% of this post is composed of jokes.

I'm just glad to be a part of a religious discussion who takes everything under-seriously and cannot get on the religion topic.

As a stark contrast to a bunch of other people.

It's performance art!

Edit: Some stuff removed because it barely made sense. I'll get back to it when I can word it... 'non-sucky'.

Loki, The Fallen

01-09-2007, 06:33 PM

I'd like to thank God, without which none of this would be possible.

Oh, and praise be to the White Unicorn.

Now, perhaps I can start a sub-topic. I have heard, seen, been made aware of a group of 'Christians' who claim a hatred toward the Jews. (You know the type, the kind who 'liked Passion of the Christ' because it 'made Jews look all mean and stuff'). Perhaps someone from that camp could explain that to me, as it's one of those things I can't get my head to understand. I mean, I've read alot from the Source, and could not see where people get that line of thought from.

There, I got to ask a question! Let's watch the answers as they unfold, shall we?

-Edited because I missed my Closing Parentheses-

42PETUNIAS

01-09-2007, 07:18 PM

All the stuff about travelling faster than light.

I don't see how this is really all that relevant. I mean, religon is essentially a thing of faith, using science to prove it wrong isn't really effective, i mean, if he did in fact create everything, then he must be above the general laws of science, and secondly, it's not really going to get you anywhere.

Also, this thread is already going way too fast. I spent the entire school day (Everyone at our school has a laptop) reading what had been written while I was asleep. It really doesn't need any more than that.

I think this thread should take a step aside from arguing about the logical failings of religon, and perhaps everyone should state their own personal religious experiences, their religon, and why they belong to it. Despite the fact that this forum doesn't seem to be too diverse (Everyone seems to be either Christian, or agnostic/atheistic), this would probably serve as better conversation than arguing over books thousands of years old.

Personally, I was born and baptised catholic. My family wasn't very religious, (We only went to church about twice a year, and even then my father didn't come, because he's Anglican). I never really liked church, the one we attended was always pretty boring, and I didn't know all that much background information, so I didn't understand much. I always considered myself catholic however, until late in 8th grade. I really thought about what I believed, I read the old testament of the bible, started the new testament (although I didn't finish it.) I decided that I didn't believe in a God. Since then I've always thought of myself somewhere between atheism and agnosticism. If there is a god, or divine force (Which is an idea I like much more than the image of a human-like being sitting up there in the clouds) I think it either simply created the universe, or life on earth, or, providing there is a specific god, I really like the Bahai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai) just because it seems really cool to me, that, and the fact that they had a huge-ass temple a few miles away from my old house in Chicago.

Anyway, I'd really like to hear what religons different people are, and why.

Edit: I also believe that if there is a god, he wants us to be good people, and that he has the wisdom to look past what religon we were brought up in or joined. I don't mean to be inflammatory, but the Christian idea that God cares about people accepting Jesus, not their good deeds, just seems like the people writing went "Hey, I know how we can get more donations..."

Loki, The Fallen

01-09-2007, 08:07 PM

42PETUNIAS' first comment:
Also, this thread is already going way too fast. I spent the entire school day (Everyone at our school has a laptop) reading what had been written while I was asleep. It really doesn't need any more than that.

It's a pretty heated discussion so far. There are reasons for some of the subtopics, so I don't think we should advocate stopping them. They are simply speaking of thier beliefs.

And if you think today was bad, you should have come back after 24 hours from Sunday Night, I had around 10 pages to sift through.

On Topic, also from 42PETUNIAS:
I don't mean to be inflammatory, but the Christian idea that God cares about people accepting Jesus, not their good deeds, just seems like the people writing went "Hey, I know how we can get more donations..."

From what I've read, there is no need to fear being considered inflammatory, considering the matters being discussed. You're asking questions, and stating beliefs. It's your belief.

I will disagree about the whole "Hey, I know how we can get more donations" part, as there is no requirement in that religion to give money. Of course, some denominations may differ. But I can see how one can look at it, as simply a group of men finding a way to market a product by changing the flavor. I don't believe it myself.

ZAKtheGeek

01-09-2007, 08:14 PM

42PETUNIAS

01-09-2007, 08:28 PM

Just throwing something in here. It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things. The only way hell pans out is as some sort of sadistic experiment, then. Give beings urges and punish them if they don't resist. It's kind of like putting mice in rooms full of baited mousetraps.

Or maybe there is no hell, and the only reason that one is talked of is so that people are scared into doing good things and accepting Jesus. Who says God wouldn't deliver empty threats?

there is no requirement in that religion to give money.

Still, if people knew that they didn't have to go to church to get into heaven, being a good person was the only requirement, then many fewer people would probably attend, giving the churches less money. It's as simple as that.

ZAKtheGeek

01-09-2007, 09:05 PM

Who says God wouldn't deliver empty threats?
An empty threat is still a deterrent. If there simply is no punishment, I can think of no way to rationalize an omnipotent being threatening its lowly inventions into obedience.

And now that I've thought about it a tiny bit more, it makes this concept of God that much more horrible. Don't appeal to people by proof or even ask for faith... Just terrorize them into doing what you want. I'm not going to write my next sentence because it would invoke a version of Godwin's law.

Loki, The Fallen

01-09-2007, 09:10 PM

42PETUNIAS:
Still, if people knew that they didn't have to go to church to get into heaven, being a good person was the only requirement, then many fewer people would probably attend, giving the churches less money. It's as simple as that.

...Or perhaps even simpler, such as just believing the fact that He sent someone to save you from the results of your actions? People don't always give to religions because it's the way out of Hell; they give usually because they support the mission. Well, unless you were Catholic during the indulgence thing, but other people covered that.

But it sounds like you are setting the bar. What do you think is a good person?

Zak's belief:
It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things

We were given free will. Just because He knows what our choice will be does not invalidate that choice. Others have covered this before me in this thread.

He gives us the choice, and tells us the consequences of the choice. I see three myself:
A) Imagine if you could live a guilt free life, doing whatever you wanted without fear of what will happen in the end? You could lie, cheat, steal, do all the things the Commandments warn against, and in the end, suffer nothing, because you don't believe there is a Hell.

B) Then there are those in the middle, who know of the consequences, yet still act contrary to His will. Perhaps that is the worst possible path to choose, as you will live a life full of regret for all the things you do wrong. But perhaps their Sin is the worst of these three, for they know the way and choose to act against it. Well, it's their choice in the end.

C) Then there are those who see the consequences, and choose the tough path of putting up with ridicule, pain, and suffering, and perhaps untimely death, all for the possibility that they will experience 'Heaven'.

It's a hard choice for some. But the joy is He gives everyone the choice.

-Edit-

He gave Christians proof; I guess it's too bad His schedule didn't work out to show us during these "Modern Times".

Lockeownzj00

01-09-2007, 09:17 PM

Maybe that's a difference between how you and I are thinking. See, even after years of religious living, I not once had some overwhelming feeling of "God". I could pray, hope, ask, beg, plead, cry and scream about it, but I've never felt anything special or some alien presence upon my being.

A very interesting point; there was a recent book which argued that there is a specific cerebral structure for those who are predisposed to believe. I've heard many times from more apathetic (though still through-and-through) atheists that they simply "can't" believe. They sit down in the church, they listen, they squeeze their eyes closed and clasp their hands, but they just can't bring themselves to feel or believe it.

On the age of the Earth. I can't provide you with any actual scientific evidence to prove that the world is only a couple thousand years old. In theory, God didn't create a "baby world". He made a mature Earth, shown in his creation of Adam and Eve as adults. So, even with carbon dating, everything could seem millions of years old. Also, the Bible doesn't really leave the seven day creation to much debate. "And there was evening and there was morning, the second day" and so on.

That's nothing but a retcon. It's all about likelihood. Likelihood, likelihood, likelihood, likelihood.

Scientific knowledge represents everything man has to show for himself; it is the culmination of everything we could possibly say we know in any concrete way about the world. It's a slap in the face to all that to refer to the Bible over that. If we're talking about "reliability," even if you can fathom these minute ways in which the Bible has been "kinda sorta indirectly proven to be kinda sorta true-ish maybe," science is so reliable as to be worthy of the authority that we give it over matters of truth. What makes you think your fantastical theory of "false carbon dating" makes sense? What makes you think you know better than this laborious process of human knowledge?

Imagine you were a child or an alien: either would have the neutrality we seek. You are comparing science and religion--quantifying it (of course, I'm sure I'll be met with the idea that 'one can't quantify the benefits of religion,' even though for pages and pages quantitative arguments have been used). You figure, whichever has more to show for itself is clearly the more advantageous of the two. Let's make a list of what significant marks these two things have made on mankind (it is almost unfair to make this list, because everything that mankind has ever done that amounts to anything was achieved through reason and deductive thought. but here goes anyway):

Science and scientific thought:
-The wheel
-Computers (you, sitting in that chair right now)
-Medicine
-Space exploration
-Flight
-Refrigerated food
-Plumbing
-Architecture
-Electricity
-All of our understanding of the physical world that surrounds us: ecology, marine biology; essentially anything that we could hope to know about our global environment.
-Mathematics
-Psychology
-Sociology
-The telephone/television/radio (communication technologies)
-Fire (essentially, food: our ability to manipulate fire and establish a system through which we receive nutrition)
-Toothpaste

Religion/Faith:
-Religious wars
-Religious persecution
-Terrorism
-Christmas
-Jewish comedians

And the last two are cop-outs. You can't really say charity of any kind, because that's not distinctly religious and exists/has existed secularly.

You can't deny what it has brought. It is the only thing that has ever gotten us anywhere in any conceivable way at all. I don't see how anyone can blithely swipe it aside because they totally wish there was a 'plan.'

To my imagining an honest-to-goodness God would be even less interested in trying to moderate a religious discussion.

Hey, it's your fault I'm here anyway mon.

ZAKtheGeek

01-09-2007, 09:20 PM

Look, I could get into a free will argument here (I've already started one, actually, but it's buried), but that's not what I'm talking about. A deterrent implies God wants us to do something. If it wants us to do something, why not simply make us so that we would always do it? Or failing that (which should never actually happen with an all-knowing being), simply force everyone to do it? The thing to understand is that an omnipotent being does nothing out of necessity. Its will is reality.

Furthermore...
He gives us the choice, and tells us the consequences of the choice. I see three myself:
A) Imagine if you could live a guilt free life, doing whatever you wanted without fear of what will happen in the end? You could lie, cheat, steal, do all the things the Commandments warn against, and in the end, suffer nothing, because you don't believe there is a Hell.

B) Then there are those in the middle, who know of the consequences, yet still act contrary to His will. Perhaps that is the worst possible path to choose, as you will live a life full of regret for all the things you do wrong. But perhaps their Sin is the worst of these three, for they know the way and choose to act against it. Well, it's their choice in the end.

C) Then there are those who see the consequences, and choose the tough path of putting up with ridicule, pain, and suffering, and perhaps untimely death, all for the possibility that they will experience 'Heaven'.

It's a hard choice for some. But the joy is He gives everyone the choice.
It's more of a temptation than a choice. Like I said, it's very sadistic to dangle a carrot in front of a horse, knowing there's a sharp blade inside of it. I don't know what sort of "loving god" would let people suffer unimaginably for obeying basic instinctual urges that very god instilled in them.

He gave Christians proof; I guess it's too bad His schedule didn't work out to show us during these "Modern Times".
I don't know what percentage of this is in jest. I'll assume 100, since the first part creates a circular arrangement where the only ones that could have any reason to believe are those that already do, and the second is absolutely preposterous given a timeless, omnipotent being.

Loki, The Fallen

01-09-2007, 09:42 PM

Locke. What has your Doctrine brought humanity? Your Doctrine has brought the following to the world (and more):

The Gun, which can be used to kill.
The Wheel, which can be used to kill.

Okay, we can all see where that will go. But hey, you kept going, so shall I

Flight, which makes all those virus and bacteria so much easier to transfer from one side of a world to another.

Electricity, which can not only be used as an instrument of torture, but can also be used to kill, and because we now have a �need� for it, we must go acquire fuel for it, which leads us to

Nuclear Energy, which gave us the wonderful invention called the Atomic Warhead, which could annihilate billions of people.

Don�t forget fire, which can destroy pretty well.

I could make a longer list, but why bother? Heck, even one of the contributors of the study of Nuclear Energy wishes he could put that Genie back into that lamp, but I�m just remember Albert here, perhaps the others saw the downsides. Where was the wisdom in discovering that? We have opened Pandora�s Box and we can not shut it regarding those, short of outlawing all technology and returning to 2nd century lifestyles.

I don�t believe in controlling these things, for I see their benefits, some being intangible, like the security those with nuclear weapons have, or the tangible, which we see in the preservation of the things we like to consume. You pile on to Religion and Faith as only providing war. Humans have proven time and again that they will go to war, they will kill, they will kidnap, they will torture, they will maim, and they will steal for any number of reasons, from believing that things are the source of evil, to believing that the person wanted them too, or others.

But here�s the best part, from every post I have read by you it appears you wish to control this thought; that you wish to have humans only believe in your belief. What is with that?

42PETUNIAS

01-09-2007, 09:45 PM

He gave Christians proof; I guess it's too bad His schedule didn't work out to show us during these "Modern Times"

What?! God has a schedule now? And this same schedule has a 2000 year gap? He's omnipotent, the only reason there is no proof for us, is that he either does not exist, or that he does not want humans to have proof. I mean, his schedule didn't work out?... Let's be serious. Additionally, prove to me that the ancient christians had proof. The bible os the only source that suggests that jesus was resurrected and showed himself to his followers. You can't declare that there was proof, simply because an old, repeatedly translated, book says so. Religon simply isn't a matter of proof anyway, it's a matter of faith. Whether or not he gave proof is irrelevant, cause its contrary to the idea of a religon.

Religion/Faith:
-Religious wars
-Religious persecution
-Terrorism

You can't say all the great things that science has brought us, and then say everything bad that Religon has. First of all, science has definitly brought things bad with the good. Nuclear weapons, attrition, and a whole lot more stuff (I don't feel like making a list right now) just for starters. Rosseau would have your ass for glorifying science and progress without listing any painful effects. Secondly, religon has definitly done good things. They may not outweigh the bad effects, but they are still there. religon does make many people happy, it gives people a purpose in life, and while it might not create feelings of charity, it helps, and serves as an organizational tool for many charities. Leaving that much stuff out and portraying it as a complete list of the things each has brought us is misleading.

Nique

01-09-2007, 10:04 PM

Locke and Loki are both wrong.

It's entirely concivable, and likely, that religion has been involved as motivator in many technilogical developments in the past. Printing presses, anyone? So locke, you can't really attribute 'advancement' to scientific interests alone. Some people also do it for the money? ;)

And Loki, locke expressly has no 'doctrine'. I'm not much happier than he is about people constantly calling athiesm a religion. I can understand how atheists can be religious about their non-belife, but this point has been beaten to death.

Look, I could get into a free will argument here (I've already started one, actually, but it's buried), but that's not what I'm talking about. A deterrent implies God wants us to do something. If it wants us to do something, why not simply make us so that we would always do it? Or failing that (which should never actually happen with an all-knowing being), simply force everyone to do it? The thing to understand is that an omnipotent being does nothing out of necessity. Its will is reality.

I'm not sure you understand what you're saying; So, if God DID exsist, you would want him to severely constrict our ability to think and act independantly so we wouldn't hurt each other? I mean, is that an exchange we're willing to make? Painful lives with the joy of free will in exchange for painless lives that are meaningless?

But here’s the best part, from every post I have read by you it appears you wish to control this thought; that you wish to have humans only believe in your belief. What is with that?

I presume it is for the same reason I wish that everyone was a member of my religion (didn't someone say I didn't have a religion a couple pages back? I thought I wasn't being very subtle at all when I was linking the Jehovah's Witness website, but whatever...). If everyone shared belife in the ultimate truth about exsistance, what big problems could we possibly have?

EDIT: Ninja'd by the Hitchhiker Fan! Curses!

Bob The Mercenary

01-09-2007, 10:04 PM

Never liked the idea of life on Earth being nothing more than an audition for some nice little condo overlooking the beach of the afterlife. Worry about this life, where you are now, where you're going in the next few years, what your and other people's kids and grandkids have to deal with on this planet.

There's another rub. Christians feel that, since life could end at any second for any reason, they should get the truth out to as many people as possible.

Just throwing something in here. It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things. The only way hell pans out is as some sort of sadistic experiment, then. Give beings urges and punish them if they don't resist. It's kind of like putting mice in rooms full of baited mousetraps.

How does it not make any sense to use a deterrent in a world full of temptation. We all seem to be forgetting Satan in all this. The reason God didn't make us machines and do just as he wills all the time was because he wanted us to make the choice to follow him on our own, thus "free will". But, Satan continually tries to derail that through tempting us all day every day. Satan gives the urges, not God. And if you look at the bible, he's given us plenty of warnings.

Heaven's given to us as a gift. It's a person's choice to fall away.

Or maybe there is no hell, and the only reason that one is talked of is so that people are scared into doing good things and accepting Jesus. Who says God wouldn't deliver empty threats?

He said he never makes empty promises. How would promising to send someone to Hell who doesn't believe not apply?

Still, if people knew that they didn't have to go to church to get into heaven, being a good person was the only requirement, then many fewer people would probably attend, giving the churches less money. It's as simple as that.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but if the only requirement was faith, why would people give more money than if being a good person on the outside was part of the deal? It doesn't say anywhere that giving money is required/recommended. You give because you want to give in thanks.

An empty threat is still a deterrent. If there simply is no punishment, I can think of no way to rationalize an omnipotent being threatening its lowly inventions into obedience.

And now that I've thought about it a tiny bit more, it makes this concept of God that much more horrible. Don't appeal to people by proof or even ask for faith... Just terrorize them into doing what you want. I'm not going to write my next sentence because it would invoke a version of Godwin's law.

He's not threatening, he's just telling the facts. "I gave you this for free. I gave you the rules. You don't want to follow them that's your decision." People keep forgetting that bad things are caused by sin. And sin is a result of temptation. And temptation is a result of Satan. And Satan wants your ass in hell. God's just giving you fair warning.

What?! God has a schedule now? And this same schedule has a 2000 year gap? He's omnipotent, the only reason there is no proof for us, is that he either does not exist, or that he does not want humans to have proof. I mean, his schedule didn't work out?... Let's be serious.

I have to admit that was worded rather poorly on his part.

Additionally, prove to me that the ancient christians had proof. The bible os the only source that suggests that jesus was resurrected and showed himself to his followers. You can't declare that there was proof, simply because an old, repeatedly translated, book says so. Religon simply isn't a matter of proof anyway, it's a matter of faith.

Exactly! So why is everyone asking for it?

When Jesus was in front of the sanhedrin, did he have proof then? If you were living 2000 years ago would you have believed him when he said he's the son of god? I'm interested, what kind of 2000 year old proof would you like?

[Edit] Also, Hell isn't some lava playground where red men poke you with sticks. It's the absence of God. Think of it this way, this world has God, and it still blows.

POS Industries

01-09-2007, 10:20 PM

There's another rub. Christians feel that, since life could end at any second for any reason, they should get the truth out to as many people as possible.

Yes, but how is that helping? "Go to Heaven after I die? That's nice. Anyway, you say you follow a carpenter, right? Well, I'm busy building this house for a family who lost everything in a fire and couldn't afford homeowner's insurance. Mind giving me a hand?"

Because, you know, I'm pretty sure that's more what Jesus had in mind.

Archbio

01-09-2007, 10:22 PM

Bob,

People keep forgetting that bad things are caused by sin. And sin is a result of temptation. And temptation is a result of Satan.

According to most christian traditions (except mainly the gnostics), Satan is also created by god. Many go so far as to say that god knew that Satan was going to rebel. That makes sense in relation to the claims of omniscience and predestination.

This is only more reason why this is a cop-out.

Nique,

I'm not sure you understand what you're saying; So, if God DID exsist, you would want him to severely constrict our ability to think and act independantly so we wouldn't hurt each other? I mean, is that an exchange we're willing to make? Painful lives with the joy of free will in exchange for painless lives that are meaningless?

I think they don't object to free will so much as they object to the idea of Hell.

But I do find that there's a lot of problems with the idea of a god creating free will, then arranging for two possible fates: do what it says or suffer an eternity of torture.

Especially considering that god then went around basically making its very existence very dubious.

Bob The Mercenary

01-09-2007, 10:26 PM

Archbio

01-09-2007, 10:32 PM

Bob,

yes God created Satan because he created everything. And yes he knew he was going to rebel. Does that mean he wanted him to? He knows all bad things that are going to happen. He doesn't want them to happen, but because of free will, they happen.

God doesn't sound all that impressive, then.

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 10:36 PM

Yes, but how is that helping? "Go to Heaven after I die? That's nice. Anyway, you say you follow a carpenter, right? Well, I'm busy building this house for a family who lost everything in a fire and couldn't afford homeowner's insurance. Mind giving me a hand?"

Because, you know, I'm pretty sure that's more what Jesus had in mind.

Yup, it was what he had in mind, hence tithing, christian relief organizations, youth groups and church volunteering. I have spent several summers helping rebuild/repair homes for people who couldn't afford it asking nothing in return.

It's more of a temptation than a choice. Like I said, it's very sadistic to dangle a carrot in front of a horse, knowing there's a sharp blade inside of it. I don't know what sort of "loving GOD" would let people suffer unimaginably for obeying basic instinctual urges that very GOD instilled in them.

Where is the razorblade? GOD gives you the choice man, in the garden of eden man was given the other half of his choice and has paid for it since then.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Darn straight he instilled them in us, as a consequence of our actions! It was not a deterent, the deterent was when he said:
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

The way it works in cause and effect, the consequences are applied after your actions. This is not the message of Christ however, His message is one of tolerance, love and forgiveness. I don't want anyone to go to hell, neither does GOD, that was why he gave us the choice to come to Him through Jesus.

Just throwing something in here. It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things. The only way hell pans out is as some sort of sadistic experiment, then. Give beings urges and punish them if they don't resist. It's kind of like putting mice in rooms full of baited mousetraps.

Have you ever seen the movie Time Bandits? It will kind of help you out and its funny. Another thing to do would be to do some research on the precepts of christianity, not just work on what you have heard through word of mouth, jaded teachers and the news.

Loki, The Fallen

01-09-2007, 10:37 PM

And Loki, locke expressly has no 'doctrine'. I'm not much happier than he is about people constantly calling athiesm a religion. I can understand how atheists can be religious about their non-belife, but this point has been beaten to death.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Of course, this is just a dictionary. And not all dictionaries have carried the same meanings. I'm also not sure if I have called it a religion yet, I think I called it a Doctrine

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrine

Quite close I know. But that has been one of my arguments with Locke for a while, ever since he wanted me to stop placing religion and science on the same level.

I have to admit that was worded rather poorly on his part.

Worded poorly? He set the stage, He sent His Son when he wanted to. What kind of message would it send if you asked for proof and God jumped? Would you not continue to doubt? It has been said on the thread before the even Scientist who would have a living 'God' arrive would still wish to study him for untold amounts of time, and still find a way to make their Doctrine fit the newly discovered reality by finding 'new laws'.

Bob The Mercenary

01-09-2007, 10:38 PM

Bob,

God doesn't sound all that impressive, then.

Then your standards are RIDICULOUSLY high.

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 10:42 PM

According to most christian traditions (except mainly the gnostics), Satan is also created by god. Many go so far as to say that god knew that Satan was going to rebel. That makes sense in relation to the claims of omniscience and predestination.

This is only more reason why this is a cop-out.

Not a cop out man, its part of the institution of free will. How do you make a choise when there isn't a disparity? GOD's plan is perfect, he created man to be with Him, and to praise Him. If you make a batch file on your computer that says "You are great" over and over again who cares? Your girlfriend or significant other tells you how much they love you and want to be with you, that is something. They have a choice in the matter and they choose you.

Archbio

01-09-2007, 10:50 PM

Bob,

Then your standards are RIDICULOUSLY high.

No, they're not. When I hear omnipotent, I don't expect the explanation to reveal powerlessness.

And that's what this. Reading your explanation, this god had two choices: not create anything and creating a universe that dooms a good deal of his creatures to an eternity of torture (something he doesn't want). Free will is the excuse given why god couldn't arrange for this to be impossible, and why god couldn't repair the situation.

In this narrative, free will loses its meaning, and god doesn't seem to have any more of it than Satan.

You're certainly overestimating the explaining power of free will. God doesn't want to control our actions? That's all well and good, but he certainly can control the consequences of our actions when these are unintended by us or it. If god is truly omnipotent, that is.

In any case, the whole deal with hell not being in god's control but very much aligned with its will is patent nonsense.

Bob The Mercenary

01-09-2007, 10:54 PM

God DID repair the problem. He sent Jesus. Now it's up to people to accept that.

Demetrius

01-09-2007, 10:58 PM

In any case, the whole deal with hell not being in god's control but very much aligned with its will is patent nonsense.

Not following what you mean here.

So are you just ignoring the whole explaination of free will because you want to?

In this narrative, free will loses its meaning, and god doesn't seem to have any more of it than Satan.

You're certainly overestimating the explaining power of free will. God doesn't want to control our actions? That's all well and good, but he certainly can control the consequences of our actions when these are unintended by us or it. If God is truly omnipotent, that is.

Because that's what it looks like you are doing. Control negates free will. If a mouse in a maze has a left or a right it can take it has a choice, but if I close off one of them there is no longer a choice. Yeah he could do that, but he doesn't (see my explaination in the last post). Also it is not my religion that condemns a person to hell, it is that person that condemns themselves. GOD says straight out that you have these two choices and each one results in a definate consequence.

Archbio

01-09-2007, 11:00 PM

Bob,

God DID repair the problem. He sent Jesus. Now it's up to people to accept that.

Lots of creatures: still doomed to torture. Universe and its rules: still hijacked by entities supposedly hostile to god. Even thought that entity and the laws of the universe are all done by god.

If only the god of the bible wasn't so amused by making the universe in such a way that it could be interpreted as blatantly contradicting the account of the bible, and by hiding out of sight for several centuries.

How could he know it wouldn't be all people wouldn't blindly believe what one specific ancient text among many others says? That's right, he's god.

Oh and the hoops god has to go through to go around his own universe and save us from its own will? Hilarious.

Demetrius,

Not following what you mean here.

Satan rebels against god. Then, Satan makes people go to hell (according to the person I was replying to) when they don't follow god's will. Satan insures that following god's will has an upside. Hell and Satan become instruments of god's will, against god's will. Incoherence reigns.

I've given my answer to the Free Will nonsense already.

Also it is not my religion that condemns a person to hell, it is that person that condemns themselves.

God created satan, hell and the mechanism by which they operate. On the otherside, there are very good reasons to doubt the existence of this god or hell. God is responsible for damnation, indirectly in general, and directly for many people.

Lockeownzj00

01-09-2007, 11:01 PM

I don’t believe in controlling these things...

How? That's the only way to prevent their 'bad' usages.

We must stop thinking about thoughts and ideas as harmless wisps in the wind. They are real and they exist, and they have tangible effects on our society in every way. You can't and shouldn't be able to go around with unjustified ideas unchecked. It is dangerous, because ideas are memetic. And bad ideas spread just as much as good ones.

But here’s the best part, from every post I have read by you it appears you wish to control this thought; that you wish to have humans only believe in your belief. What is with that?

Yes, I do. Just like I believe no one should be racist. I don't think any intelligent person would be angered by a world sans racism. Do I think it's realistic? Not necessarily. But moral relativism is a waste of time and it only impedes progress. Yes things would be better off if everyone agreed on this. This is the point I have been making the entire time. You've distilled the entire debate into a single sentence that only states factually my position. "Religion is a waste of time, it would be better if no one were religious."

I don't believe the world to be this endless tipping of scales which must be balanced out. Everybody isn't right. Certain ideas hold more water. Certain beliefs systems more accurately represent reality. It's the 21st century. There is no excuse for this anymore. All I can say is wait a few years and you'll see the decline yourself. It has to happen. It will.

You can't say all the great things that science has brought us, and then say everything bad that Religon has.

I'm not being unfair. I dare you to come up with a mark on humankind made by religion that hasn't been negative.

Many have pointed out the negative uses of technology. But even these negative uses prove nothing: as Harris said in a quote I related earlier, these misuses aren't examples of being "too reasonable." There's no such thing as being too logical and rational in this case. In fact, these misuses are in the same realm of illogic as religion, so that's no point against science.

Secondly, religon has definitly done good things. They may not outweigh the bad effects, but they are still there. religon does make many people happy, it gives people a purpose in life, and while it might not create feelings of charity, it helps, and serves as an organizational tool for many charities. Leaving that much stuff out and portraying it as a complete list of the things each has brought us is misleading.

Once again I point out that you have nothing solid to fall back on. The only thing you can credit to realigion is "making people feel good," which I've spoken about ad nauseam. Placebo can make you feel good too, but that only goes so far.

A "purpose" in life? What does that even mean? Doctors Without Borders isn't a purpose? Becoming an athlete isn't a purpose? The only "purpose" religion gives you is that of being mentally oscitant. Your justifications are ever still vague and formless, and that just can't pass when it comes down to it.

It's entirely concivable, and likely, that religion has been involved as motivator in many technilogical developments in the past. Printing presses, anyone? So locke, you can't really attribute 'advancement' to scientific interests alone. Some people also do it for the money?

My point, Nique, wasn't the motivator. Even if religion was the motivation, the point is that only reason produces results. I'd like to dispell once again any notion that religion somehow is more advantageous for this mythical form of "reason" it uses called faith. My point in that list was showing that all of us sitting in our chairs right now typing on our computers could only be possible because of rational thought. If inventors thought religiously--if they built everything on "faith--" we would still be "peeling bananas," so to speak. There just is no such thing as a practical application of faith, either in philosophy or any other realm of life.