The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Lockeownzj00]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

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.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

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.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

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.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

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.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

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 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.

[quote=TheSpacePope]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 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.

Originally Posted by 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:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

...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.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

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.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

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.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

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."

Originally Posted by POS Industries

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.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

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]

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]

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

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?

Originally Posted by ZTG

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?

Originally Posted by ZTG

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.

Originally Posted by locke

I will re-quote Mr. Harris:

Originally Posted by locke

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.

Originally Posted by Locke

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" 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.

Originally Posted by Bob

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

Actually, I'd argue that they were.

Originally Posted by Spacepope

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!'

Originally Posted by Spacepope

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, this, and this should answer your question.

Originally Posted by POS

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.

Originally Posted by MG

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]

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]

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:

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

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, 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:

Originally Posted by Mr. ‘Elegant Universe’ Guy

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”.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

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:

Originally Posted by Bellsouth Minion

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]

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.

--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]

Originally Posted by The Kneumatic Pnight

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]

Originally Posted by Mesden

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]

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. No pun intended.

Originally Posted by Locke

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]

Originally Posted by B_real_shadows

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