PDA

View Full Version : God's Warriors



JoeJustJoe
08-24-2007, 12:48 PM
Did anyone else watch this 3 part special on CNN. Anyone else totally disturbed by the religious zealots (Christain, Jewish, and Muslim) they found. I was. Get off of the religion now kids before it becomes a habit you can't break.

[Edited on 8-24-0707 by JoeJustJoe]

dreamer27
08-24-2007, 12:49 PM
Amen! No pun intended ;)

Stormx
08-24-2007, 12:53 PM
Didn't watch it. That kind of thing just sickens me.

jefferoo
08-24-2007, 01:03 PM
(Here we go again)

Personally, I don't find anything wrong with religion, per-say.
I was raised Catholic and I stopped going to church in high school, much to my mom's dismay.
I think there are a lot of fundamentally positive things in religion as do I think there are lots of terrible things.
I'm one of those "beauty in the eye of the beholder" types who believes it should all be open and left to interpretation.
For some, religion is all they've got.
I don't agree with people using religion as a means to control, frighten or dehumanize others... ie: the religious right.
I think Jesus was a cool dude and a lot of people could learn something from him, especially self-proclaimed christians.
I know very little about islam or judaism, but I'm sure the same applies.
There are always two sides to a coin.

pinocchio
08-24-2007, 01:21 PM
Pinocchio's Outlook:


Years ago, everybody went to church, synagogue, whatever..
and I mean everybody. My grandparents were all Catholic (half of them Irish). This was straight up the way it was in Brooklyn in the 1920s-60s. Fine...my parents tried to take me to church once in a while. I went to CCD, partly because in the early 90s, it was the thing to do. But, my parents couldn't give a dang about religion. Now, with people not needing it as a clutch / justification for famine and disease etc. etc., there is no need for it any more. Now, to make a rather valid generalization, deeply religious people to be somewhat weak minded or uneducated. There are still people I know who do not believe in evoultion. It's quite sad. Anyone now who is madly into these non-existant gods and hardline stances are living in a different world and I really feel bad for them. It is such common sense. If it works for you, fine. But are you living under a rock?

pinocchio
08-24-2007, 01:26 PM
i forgot the word tend up there but oh well, and yes i did see that series. unbelievable. just fucking stop fighting over bullshit! everybody! there is no need. if everybody could just leave everybody to do their own thing and israel and palestine would just get some common sense talked into them what the fuck. i know it's their precious hold land and all of that FAKE shit, but when is this world going to grow the hell up.

Aqualad
08-24-2007, 04:08 PM
i happen to not believe in most of what evolution preaches. I don't find accepting that we evolved from other animals common sense, and if you do, great, but i don't think we'd have a fight if it was common sense. And while i make a divide between corporate and religioon and belief in God, I think the idea that we should leave a belief in God behind is ignorant. You don't know what exists outside of what you perceive, so why criticize other on what they believe to be there when you can't know what they experienced? I, for one, have experienced what I believe to be God, so I stand on the other side of the fence. But if we leave religion behind and all it teaches, should we leave the morals it teaches behind too? How far are you willing to take your stance? What grounds other than religion is there to hold a standard? At some point you must accept an absolute or you'll find yourself excusing murder as such. And who justifies famine and disease through religion? You're "valid" gerneralization means nothing when almost the entire population is weakminded and ignorant. We fall for things like iphones and hd tv because it's prettier. We try to avoid complex moral problems because they make us think. We accept what we are told from both sides because we don't think to question. We accept the government enough not to raise our voices. We're all fools, is what we are, and you want us to grow up. The war for their holy land means something to the people of the middle east. It means more to them than anything you've ever wanted, and you criticize them for it. Everyone's willing to criticize, but no one will accept criticism. What exactly is their so great in your life to live for compared to a pursuit for the eternal? Is that really so bad? Do you really need to say, "why don't you stop searching for that bogus stuff and check out these great pictures of cats on the internet." I don't believe their fight is justified, but I think there should be a good reason for them not to fight, instead of "God is not real because I went to church when i was a child and that means it's childish."

ﺶﻙﯔ
08-24-2007, 04:32 PM
i watched part of this. so entertaining. i'm gonna cop that syed qutb book "milestones," just to see what's up.

jefferoo
08-24-2007, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
i happen to not believe in most of what evolution preaches. I don't find accepting that we evolved from other animals common sense, and if you do, great, but i don't think we'd have a fight if it was common sense. And while i make a divide between corporate and religioon and belief in God, I think the idea that we should leave a belief in God behind is ignorant. You don't know what exists outside of what you perceive, so why criticize other on what they believe to be there when you can't know what they experienced? I, for one, have experienced what I believe to be God, so I stand on the other side of the fence. But if we leave religion behind and all it teaches, should we leave the morals it teaches behind too? How far are you willing to take your stance? What grounds other than religion is there to hold a standard? At some point you must accept an absolute or you'll find yourself excusing murder as such. And who justifies famine and disease through religion? You're "valid" gerneralization means nothing when almost the entire population is weakminded and ignorant. We fall for things like iphones and hd tv because it's prettier. We try to avoid complex moral problems because they make us think. We accept what we are told from both sides because we don't think to question. We accept the government enough not to raise our voices. We're all fools, is what we are, and you want us to grow up. The war for their holy land means something to the people of the middle east. It means more to them than anything you've ever wanted, and you criticize them for it. Everyone's willing to criticize, but no one will accept criticism. What exactly is their so great in your life to live for compared to a pursuit for the eternal? Is that really so bad? Do you really need to say, "why don't you stop searching for that bogus stuff and check out these great pictures of cats on the internet." I don't believe their fight is justified, but I think there should be a good reason for them not to fight, instead of "God is not real because I went to church when i was a child and that means it's childish."

I'm sorry, I missed your point.
Do you believe in god or not? (I assume yes because of the capital G)
If so is god a he or she?
If either, why?

Stormx
08-25-2007, 03:49 AM
My stance:

I haven't got issues with religion much of the time. I like to look into this sort of thing, and I think Jesus was a pretty cool guy - he had some ideas that were well ahead of his time.

And that's just the thing, accepting christian (or any other religious) teachings as absolutes is absolutely insane. I look at the people wearing those "WWJD" wristbands and thing "Jesus would tell them to use their own fucking common sense / moral standards, his own are only guidance)

I personally don't believe in God. If there is credible evidence that God really does exist, sure I would. I'd be sceptical of course, but whatever. If we start believing stuff that we only have indirect and little-understood proof of, it opens a whole pandora's box of stuff and just degrades our collective intelligence. We might as well believe that we evolved from pirates and that there is a flying spaghetti monster.

I also haven't got an issue with people who genuinely have a relationship with who they call God. My perception is that they are simply talking to their subconcious, and that is a good thing, it helps you get a clearer view on things.





The issue is that this can all be misused. When you get organised religions, it just turns into a phat groupthink convention. People are dying every day because western governments decided to make a zionist state right where people had already settled and set up their lives. How about ireland? Ravaged by christianity throughout it's history. Witchhunts, scapegoats, etc.

Even in modern times, this persists. Some crackpots in the USA actually send weapons and money to both Israel AND Lebanon during the conflict a little while ago, because they thought it was the biblical apololypse and wanted to help things along.

Aqualad

Even most creationists accept microevolution. It's macro-evolution they're concerned about, and make up some pretty insane excuses. What's far worse is that some people simply don't understand where the scientific community is coming from with this Evolution business. I hate people who can't understand well-accepted (and virtually proven) theories because they don't look into them, and don't reduce their issues with them. That's why I make it my business to understand their arguments.

But seriously. Creationists give christianity a bad name. Most christians I've met are really cool, but those who will just shun hundreds of years of research and scientific observation in favour a god-of-the-gaps with no credible evidence should be shot.

jefferoo
08-25-2007, 07:37 AM
btw. we are animals, like it or not.
I think creationism is a tragedy because it actively suppresses PROVEN fact.

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 09:19 AM
ecclesiastes says we're animals, too.

And I really haven't found much evidence for or against evolution. I do know that in texas there is an ancient river bed with dinosaur prints and human footprints side by side.

Microevolution, sure, like small changes the animals take like the tortoises in different areas. That's easily observable. What I don't understand is how you can process from this that whole species were formed from others. I don't know what evidence can be produced by the scientific community to prove it, anyway. If you can seriously point me into a scientific journal pointing out what makes evolution so true and won't raise even more questions(which I doubt), I'd have no problem with it.

Also what kind of excuses do creationists make that are so insane? Let's step out of our belief and look at both beliefs.

evolution: believes all of life evolved from each other. That is, somehow random mutations did not kill us, but instead managed to evolve a female and male of almost all species existing, who need each other to produce.

creationism: God created all the species. That is, a being created the universe we live in and all that's in it.

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by jefferoo

Originally posted by Aqualad
-clip-

I'm sorry, I missed your point.
Do you believe in god or not? (I assume yes because of the capital G)
If so is god a he or she?
If either, why?

why would that even matter?

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 09:31 AM
i can't believe how close-minded you guys are to any belief that's not yours. UGH OU LIKE RON PAUL UGH YOU BELIEVE IN GOD UGH YOU DON"T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION THAT"S SO JUVENILE


that's about how most of you come off. stormx this now includes you because of hating people who believe in creationism.

JoeJustJoe
08-25-2007, 09:37 AM
Aqualad, you are an idiot. You probably voted for Bush twice, think Brownie did a great job after Katrina, and Scientists plant dinosaur bones only to discover them later. What the fuck do you know about the war for the holy land? What you local preacher tells you?

I'm 1/2 Palestinian. I spent a month in the West Bank last year during the conflit with Lebanon. I still have Family still that lives in Bethlehem. What I obsverved with my own eyes was completely disgusting. It's not very Christian-like to allow a population of people to collectively suffer for your religious beliefs and bullshit prophecies yet, that's exactly what's happening. The Isrealis are doing to the Palestinians exactly what the Nazis did to Jews in Europe.

Warsaw Ghetto=West Bank & Gaza.

America openly approves everything Isreal does. Isreal would be a failed state if we didn't subsidize and arm them like we do. Christian Zionists applaud the killing of people, destroying their homes, putting them in jail for extended periods w/o charges. It's really sad. People here are so clueless as to what goes on over there. It's primarily the media's fault. They don't tell us about what happens to the Palestinian people at the hand of Israel. They highlight any and all Palestinian's crimes as Terrorism.

Before someone says it, I'm not anti-semitic. I have plenty of jewish friends and most of them agree with me. Flame away.

quixoticgoat
08-25-2007, 09:41 AM
i just wrote a blog about religion and mother teresa
http://quixoticgoat.blogspot.com/2007/08/mother-teresa.html

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 10:08 AM
So soon we have very fast squirrels. How am I closeminded for being unable to find evidence of evolution? If I can't find it, I can't find it. I was asking for you guys to link me to something that would help. How is that closeminded?

And please, go ahead and go over evolution again. If it's not random mutations it's just what you just said, faster squirrels. I don't see how that proves evolution.

quixoticgoat
08-25-2007, 10:19 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Snapshot-Intelligent-C.article.jpg

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 11:08 AM
id is pretty weird. anything that waters down both ideas is a bad idea.

hockywierdo
08-25-2007, 11:29 AM
close minded? jeez you people are classifying religion an calling it out based on radicals. there seems o be very little akknowldgement of what good religion has done and that it creates some good people. as in every form of human organization there is conflict and radicals. radical liberal democrats, radical right wing christians, radical religious freaks.

people seem to categorize republicans like they categorize christianity and many muslims in the middle east, by the worst of them and the most radical. openyur mind and look beyond, in any organiztion there are wide breadths of people and you get the worst of human nature which is inherantly greedy. at least christianity tries to teach against greed.
i would infact say that religion can be very beneficial in its true form because it tries to fight human nature, which seems to be a way of life now.

Alx5tk
08-25-2007, 11:40 AM
Pro-spirituality, anti-religion.

quixoticgoat
08-25-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad
I do know that in texas there is an ancient river bed with dinosaur prints and human footprints side by side.

i would really REALLY like to see where you got that information because i think that that is a big vat of bullshit.

its a fact that dinosaurs died when a meteor crashed into the earth...

and that that was followed by many many many moons of the earth being extremely inhabitable.

and that man formed later from the animals that survived it.

goodNESS, i cant even believe that this is still up for debate...

anyway.. point me to the article that says that dinosaurs existed during the same time as man.. i would be seriously interested in reading that.

jeez, i feel kinda nauseous..

hockywierdo
08-25-2007, 12:02 PM
im agree with everyone elses whose telling you evolution is possible and probably happend. i believe in it and im catholic.
the days that God made the earth was the time in which it was possible for evolution, no one truely knows how long those days actually were.

quixoticgoat
08-25-2007, 12:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluxy_River

Paluxy River is a river in the U.S. state of Texas. It is a tributary of the Brazos River. It is formed by the convergence of the North Paluxy River and the South Paluxy River. It is best known for numerous dinosaur footprints found in its bed near Glen Rose, Texas at the Dinosaur Valley State Park. The Paluxy River became famous for controversy in the early 1900's when locals found dinosaur and supposed human footprints in the same rock layer. Consequently Glen Rose, Texas regularly attracts thousands of visitors to the area, especially to the Dinosaur Valley State Park which features many dinosaur prints and to the Creation Evidence Museum where the history of human footprint findings has been documented. However, these anachronistic human footprints were shown to be either mistaken interpretation and even some outright fakes[1]. The Paluxy River is subject to severe flash floods which remove overburden and also wash away the many rock layers. Erosion of footprints is rapid and many have been swept away in the floods. Prints outside the normal river flow are the best preserved.

more info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

"However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock). "

[Edited on 8-25-0707 by quixoticgoat]

tomatoesandradiowires
08-25-2007, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by quixoticgoat

Originally posted by Aqualad
I do know that in texas there is an ancient river bed with dinosaur prints and human footprints side by side.

i would really REALLY like to see where you got that information because i think that that is a big vat of bullshit.

its a fact that dinosaurs died when a meteor crashed into the earth...

and that that was followed by many many many moons of the earth being extremely inhabitable.

and that man formed later from the animals that survived it.

goodNESS, i cant even believe that this is still up for debate...

anyway.. point me to the article that says that dinosaurs existed during the same time as man.. i would be seriously interested in reading that.

jeez, i feel kinda nauseous..

It's not a fact that dinosaurs were killed by a meteor..there are many theories about that; there are few facts about dinosaurs at all. And a dinosaur could have made one set of prints by a river, and then when man came around he could have walked by those fossilized tracks and left his own, those tracks, if they exist, are no proof for or against evolution.

To be nauseous about other peoples point of view is really lame (hyperbole though it is). Most people in this thread seem to be "really really openminded...so long as someone doesn't say something I disagree with". It takes all sorts folks, and there is some good discussion to be had here if you'll show a little bit of respect.

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 12:21 PM
http://www.grisda.org/origins/02064.htm


And i was wrong about the dinosaur tracks thing, that was pretty dumb of me, but I hadn't looked into it for about 6 years, and when I had it was seen as pretty legit and the pictures look pretty convincing.

[Edited on 8-25-0707 by Aqualad]

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 12:39 PM
Or at least I think I'm wrong, I don't know. Both sides believe what they want, I guess.

It's not a big deal, though.

funeralpudding
08-25-2007, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
Or at least I think I'm wrong, I don't know. Both sides believe what they want, I guess.

It's not a big deal, though.

I'll will say that it takes more guts than most have to readily admit when wrong. However, it is a big deal. It's a big deal in Ireland, where Protestants and Christians kill each other over their different interpretations of how to worship virtually the exact same thing. It's a big deal to Palestinians and Israelis, and all of the other people constantly at war with each other because they believe their interpretation is the right one and their anthropomorphic God has instructed them to kill... like when Bush said God told him to invade Iraq.

Stormx
08-25-2007, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
i can't believe how close-minded you guys are to any belief that's not yours. UGH OU LIKE RON PAUL UGH YOU BELIEVE IN GOD UGH YOU DON"T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION THAT"S SO JUVENILE


that's about how most of you come off. stormx this now includes you because of hating people who believe in creationism.

Finally you understand me. However, I don't hate people purely on beleives. I hate them on how they manifest these beleives.

For example, convincing a school board that the insane amount of time and effort undertaken over centuries to build the theory of evolution is somehow surpassed by an ancient, and entirely wrong "theory" of how we came to be.

Again, literal creationism is giving Christianity a bad press everywhere that most of the followers doesn't deserve.

opopopo
08-25-2007, 03:14 PM
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

pinocchio
08-25-2007, 03:26 PM
that can't be for real

Stormx
08-25-2007, 03:44 PM
Absolutely for real. I myself am a proud owner of The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

quixoticgoat
08-25-2007, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by opopopo
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

yesssssssss!
i was touched by his noodley appendage

opopopo
08-25-2007, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
i happen to not believe in most of what evolution preaches. I don't find accepting that we evolved from other animals common sense, and if you do, great, but i don't think we'd have a fight if it was common sense. And while i make a divide between corporate and religioon and belief in God, I think the idea that we should leave a belief in God behind is ignorant. You don't know what exists outside of what you perceive, so why criticize other on what they believe to be there when you can't know what they experienced? I, for one, have experienced what I believe to be God, so I stand on the other side of the fence. But if we leave religion behind and all it teaches, should we leave the morals it teaches behind too? How far are you willing to take your stance? What grounds other than religion is there to hold a standard? At some point you must accept an absolute or you'll find yourself excusing murder as such. And who justifies famine and disease through religion? You're "valid" gerneralization means nothing when almost the entire population is weakminded and ignorant. We fall for things like iphones and hd tv because it's prettier. We try to avoid complex moral problems because they make us think. We accept what we are told from both sides because we don't think to question. We accept the government enough not to raise our voices. We're all fools, is what we are, and you want us to grow up. The war for their holy land means something to the people of the middle east. It means more to them than anything you've ever wanted, and you criticize them for it. Everyone's willing to criticize, but no one will accept criticism. What exactly is their so great in your life to live for compared to a pursuit for the eternal? Is that really so bad? Do you really need to say, "why don't you stop searching for that bogus stuff and check out these great pictures of cats on the internet." I don't believe their fight is justified, but I think there should be a good reason for them not to fight, instead of "God is not real because I went to church when i was a child and that means it's childish."

I finally read that and can't resist making a few points.

- Why not read "Origin of Species" by Darwin. It's a rather good place to start on the subject of evolution.

- As you seem to think there is no correlation between stupidity and believing in god(s) or intelligence and atheism, read this:http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

- "The idea that we should leave a belief in god behind is ignorant." Is it? Giving up the supernatural and focusing on facts and logic and science isn't ignorant. Religion was created in mankind's infancy. Now that we have explanations for all the things we used to rely on religion for (how we got here, etc), we don't need it. Just like a child gives up an imaginary friend and faces reality. It's not ignorant. That child may get joy from their imaginary friend, and the world may be a scary place without it, there is plenty of joy to be had with people and things that are real.

opopopo
08-25-2007, 07:38 PM
Hey Daniella, I just read your blog on Mother Theresa. I had no idea that she didn't entirely believe in god. It's kind of odd how much more respect I have for her knowing that she was something of an atheist.

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 07:52 PM
we don't have answers for how we got here. we don't have answers for why we're here. That's why religion is still around. it's foolish to think science can replace religion when in fact they attempt to answer two different questions. Evolution is not about creation, to be specific, it's about how some molecules and atoms that were already here became the life we see now. I may find it just as incredible as believing in God, no matter how much people have researched it and theorized, but it still explains only part of the process. I keep my stance that it's ignorance because science can't explain that. Science by nature is about observation and when something like metaphysics is brought into play science cannot cope. We fall back on science because it's easy to find comfort in facts and hard evidence and the things we can see, and then doubt our own observations by diving into existentialism, and when we begin to doubt our doubts, we shrug it off and try to make the best of our life, regardless of lack of meaning.

Aqualad
08-25-2007, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
Or at least I think I'm wrong, I don't know. Both sides believe what they want, I guess.

It's not a big deal, though.

I'll will say that it takes more guts than most have to readily admit when wrong. However, it is a big deal. It's a big deal in Ireland, where Protestants and Christians kill each other over their different interpretations of how to worship virtually the exact same thing. It's a big deal to Palestinians and Israelis, and all of the other people constantly at war with each other because they believe their interpretation is the right one and their anthropomorphic God has instructed them to kill... like when Bush said God told him to invade Iraq.

I meant the specific thing about the dinosaurs and man footprints. But a lot of it is subject to interpretation and someone looking to prove either one true might be able to provide substantial evidence. Christianity is a far cry from what it should be. Denominations were spoken out against in the Bible, and yet we have too many to count. Really, even pastors were less of a definied thing, it was about 3 or 4 different people who would stand up and speak or sing or some such thing each time. I miss the early church :(.

I don't know, people screw up everything.

karmaregis
08-25-2007, 08:06 PM
http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg
"Remember, we are all His creatures."

tomatoesandradiowires
08-25-2007, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by opopopo
Hey Daniella, I just read your blog on Mother Theresa. I had no idea that she didn't entirely believe in god. It's kind of odd how much more respect I have for her knowing that she was something of an atheist.

She doubted her faith yes, but because she saw the horrible cruel fates of others rather than because of the small leaps of faith most of us struggle with. Even jesus doubted his faith when he was on the cross. But yes, those letters will surely be an interesting read.

quixoticgoat
08-25-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by opopopo
Hey Daniella, I just read your blog on Mother Theresa. I had no idea that she didn't entirely believe in god. It's kind of odd how much more respect I have for her knowing that she was something of an atheist.

i think what really touches me is that she did all that work without feeling like god had her back. what a strong woman. really admirable.

narashinga
08-25-2007, 09:50 PM
hinduism, the cosmos in a juice box. when i heard that the collosal guatama buddha, forgive the misspellings... was defaced by the arms of el quack quack, i cried. balled. by the way, your guyses stances are tighter than the point of a fine point pen. darwin gets snaps and a standing ovation. as do you. egg as a whole is "a" god"
s" ball pen, the elephant is the mayan apparatius, and shiva natajiris cosmic dance in the orb of the sun. common sense is decaying...

narashinga
08-25-2007, 09:53 PM
but im just rilked up today. and thus is the infinite cycle of birth death and rebirth...

hockywierdo
08-26-2007, 01:24 AM
well tell me our purpose if believing in a god or religion is ignorant.

last time i checked we cant know everything and prove everything.
why do certain people fall in love.

i think to put things into concretes especially in relation to religion or lack there of is an ignorant thing to do. so watch yourself.

tomatoesandradiowires
08-26-2007, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by quixoticgoat

Originally posted by opopopo
Hey Daniella, I just read your blog on Mother Theresa. I had no idea that she didn't entirely believe in god. It's kind of odd how much more respect I have for her knowing that she was something of an atheist.

i think what really touches me is that she did all that work without feeling like god had her back. what a strong woman. really admirable.

That is pretty cool. Imagine if more people were good to each other for the sake of being good

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by opopopo
I finally read that and can't resist making a few points.

- Why not read "Origin of Species" by Darwin. It's a rather good place to start on the subject of evolution.

- As you seem to think there is no correlation between stupidity and believing in god(s) or intelligence and atheism, read this:http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

- "The idea that we should leave a belief in god behind is ignorant." Is it? Giving up the supernatural and focusing on facts and logic and science isn't ignorant. Religion was created in mankind's infancy. Now that we have explanations for all the things we used to rely on religion for (how we got here, etc), we don't need it. Just like a child gives up an imaginary friend and faces reality. It's not ignorant. That child may get joy from their imaginary friend, and the world may be a scary place without it, there is plenty of joy to be had with people and things that are real.


-Debating evolution and debating whether or not religion should be abolished are two different things. Don't insult religious people by wrongly confounding the two. This is the same as saying all Atheists must be Stalinists, because Stalin was an Atheist.

-These statistics are probably useful for those who have trouble thinking for themselves. At one time most of the scientists would have said the Earth was flat. Popular opinion, even among the "educated" is not always the correct one. Besides, who do you think decides who is an "eminent" scientist in this survey. By the way, these "eminent" scientists sure have done a bang-up job in the last century, haven't they? What with the atom bomb, chemical and biological weapons, global warming do to over use of technology and etc.

-Religion vs. logic and science is a false dichotomy. What about religion is illogical? I feel it's much more illogical to believe either 1.) space-time, despite the second law of thermo-dynamics (entropy) and mathematical impossibility of traversing time in an infinite set, is and has been eternally self-existent for no particular reason or cause, or 2.) the Universe spontaneously generated itself out of Nothing for no reason somehow in a way that we can't explain, even though that would violate every known law of physics. Yep, that logic is air-tight! Not like those idiots who accept things on faith. Also, other things created in "mankind's infancy:" Love, Philosophy, Art, Music, Reading, Writing and Science. Out with the old and in with the new!


[Edited on 8-26-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

tomatoesandradiowires
08-26-2007, 06:26 AM
Aux! where've you been!

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 06:32 AM
I've been around. Busy with music, new baby, and teaching. Sorry my return is me getting angry about something ::embarrassed::

tomatoesandradiowires
08-26-2007, 06:34 AM
Oh but it was eloquent, justified, and well thought out anger- I can think of no better kind. Congrats on the new baby! I hope you still enjoy teaching and that your music making is going well.

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 07:18 AM
I don't have a problem with people believing god created everything. thats fine. it's ignoring scientific fact that bothers me.
...like this...
http://www.creationmuseum.org/about

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 07:19 AM
I don't have a problem with people believing god created everything. thats fine. it's ignoring scientific fact that bothers me.
... like this...
http://www.creationmuseum.org/about

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 07:31 AM
Does believing in an eternally self-existent or self-created Universe count as ignoring scientific fact, since either flies in the face of multiple established laws of physics and causality? Neither side has a monopoly on ignoring scientific fact, or accepting some things on faith. Besides, with advances in sub-atomic physics and quantum mechanics, "scientific fact" starts to look pretty nebulous.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 08:13 AM
No. If you have created a reality subjective to your own thought, then you're in the clear.
Well done.

hockywierdo
08-26-2007, 10:19 AM
thank you aux! you said it better than i could've thought to.

especially with the flat earth thing.
+1 auxiliaryoctopus

opopopo
08-26-2007, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires

Originally posted by quixoticgoat

Originally posted by opopopo
Hey Daniella, I just read your blog on Mother Theresa. I had no idea that she didn't entirely believe in god. It's kind of odd how much more respect I have for her knowing that she was something of an atheist.

i think what really touches me is that she did all that work without feeling like god had her back. what a strong woman. really admirable.

That is pretty cool. Imagine if more people were good to each other for the sake of being good

Yes! Exactly. I just happen to think it's a much more beautiful and meaningful thing when good things are done just for the sake of it, and not because someone feels obligated to do something to win points with some god.

i.am.superman
08-26-2007, 10:50 AM
you guys are behind the times. in 1930, kurt godel (sorry diacritical marks) proved mathematically that we can never know everything. it's called Incompleteness. it helps me sleep at night.

[Edite le 8-26-0707 par i.am.superman]

uncle eggma
08-26-2007, 10:53 AM
the best music has always been made by religious, or at least spiritual, people. and that's a fact not up for debate. seriously.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by uncle eggma]

opopopo
08-26-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Originally posted by opopopo
bla bla bla


-Debating evolution and debating whether or not religion should be abolished are two different things. Don't insult religious people by wrongly confounding the two. This is the same as saying all Atheists must be Stalinists, because Stalin was an Atheist.

-These statistics are probably useful for those who have trouble thinking for themselves. At one time most of the scientists would have said the Earth was flat. Popular opinion, even among the "educated" is not always the correct one. Besides, who do you think decides who is an "eminent" scientist in this survey. By the way, these "eminent" scientists sure have done a bang-up job in the last century, haven't they? What with the atom bomb, chemical and biological weapons, global warming do to over use of technology and etc.

-Religion vs. logic and science is a false dichotomy. What about religion is illogical? I feel it's much more illogical to believe either 1.) space-time, despite the second law of thermo-dynamics (entropy) and mathematical impossibility of traversing time in an infinite set, is and has been eternally self-existent for no particular reason or cause, or 2.) the Universe spontaneously generated itself out of Nothing for no reason somehow in a way that we can't explain, even though that would violate every known law of physics. Yep, that logic is air-tight! Not like those idiots who accept things on faith. Also, other things created in "mankind's infancy:" Love, Philosophy, Art, Music, Reading, Writing and Science. Out with the old and in with the new!


[Edited on 8-26-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

O what have we gotten ourselves into here? I am fighting a bit of a hangover here, so I'm sorry if I lack any eloquence.

- Sorry, I really was just suggesting he read some Darwin if he wanted more information on evolution. It is incredibly interesting stuff. However, I will say that since the theory of evolution does go against things that are said in the Old Testament, so it places flaws in the book that most religious people I've encountered use as their main proof for their case.

- Interpret those stats however you like, I don't really care.

- So basically you're saying you're happier believing that we're here for a reason and uncomfortable with the thought that the universe did just happen and doesn't have any sort of purpose? That's fine. I just happen to find it even more beautiful to consider the vast odds against my existence at all. And yet I'm here! It's amazing and sends shivers up my spine. I used to be quite religious, but all that worshiping in churches never brought me so much joy. And if you really think that science, logic, etc, are provide equally likely/unlikely odds for both our cases, than you my friend are out to lunch. Go right ahead and believe that the Universe is only 6000 years old.

"What about religion is illogical?"
I'm sorry, but this is maybe the funniest thing I've ever heard.

If anyone is actually interested in someone who can argue the case for atheism much much much better than I can read:

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens
"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel C. Dennett

Or, if you're lazier than that, just watch any of these blokes on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs

I'm not trying to get out of the argument, of course, I just do want anyone who feels deep down that there probably isn't a god to have better sources of information than my hungover self. I'm still up for a debate. Kinda.

uncle eggma
08-26-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Besides, with advances in sub-atomic physics and quantum mechanics, "scientific fact" starts to look pretty nebulous.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

this is a very good point.

opopopo
08-26-2007, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by i.am.superman
you guys are behind the times. in 1930, kurt godel (sorry diacritical marks) proved mathematically that we can never know everything. it's called Incompleteness. it helps me sleep at night.

[Edite le 8-26-0707 par i.am.superman]

Of course we can't know everything, but I get a warm tingly feeling inside from learning new things. Also, I hope internet debates aren't keeping anyone up at night in the first place.

uncle eggma
08-26-2007, 11:00 AM
are you a freshman or sophmore in college?

opopopo
08-26-2007, 11:01 AM
College? Never heard of it.

Aqualad
08-26-2007, 11:20 AM
I think we're eventually going to have to admit both sides are illogical. The creation of molecules from nothing makes no sense, and the creation of molecules from an eternal source doesn't make sense. Whatever. We are hardly logical creatures at our roots.

tomatoesandradiowires
08-26-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by uncle eggma
the best music has always been made by religious, or at least spiritual, people. and that's a fact not up for debate. seriously.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by uncle eggma]

I love you jesussss cha-riiiii-ssssttt
Jesus christ I love yoouuuuu yesssss I dooooo

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad
We are hardly logical creatures at our roots.
Speak for yourself!

uncle eggma
08-26-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires

Originally posted by uncle eggma
the best music has always been made by religious, or at least spiritual, people. and that's a fact not up for debate. seriously.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by uncle eggma]

I love you jesussss cha-riiiii-ssssttt
Jesus christ I love yoouuuuu yesssss I dooooo

a love supreme, a love supreme.

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by uncle eggma

Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires

Originally posted by uncle eggma
the best music has always been made by religious, or at least spiritual, people. and that's a fact not up for debate. seriously.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by uncle eggma]

I love you jesussss cha-riiiii-ssssttt
Jesus christ I love yoouuuuu yesssss I dooooo

a love supreme, a love supreme.
I am a Christian son
They tried to fuck my mind
And then threw a fit
Because they could not impregnate it

REPEAT #2:
I am a Christian son
They tried to fuck my mind
And then lost their shit
Because they could not castrate it

I don't want to grow fat with you suckers
Why do you try so hard to seem the same?
You're not gonna vanish if you step out of line

You screwed me down when I was younger
I didn't know that all along
It was you that had it all wrong yeah yeah

REPEAT #1

REPEAT #2

I don't want to grow slow with you suckers
Don't want to play your game of mirror reflection
You're not gonna vanish if you stand on your own

You told me up when I was younger
I didn't know that all along
It was you that had it all wrong yeah yeah

You step on all my books
You hurt me
Can you hear me?

REPEAT #1

funeralpudding
08-26-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
I think we're eventually going to have to admit both sides are illogical. The creation of molecules from nothing makes no sense, and the creation of molecules from an eternal source doesn't make sense. Whatever. We are hardly logical creatures at our roots.

Science is willing to change itself and make corrections when observations don't follow established lines of thought, religion is usually not. Religion purports to be the truth, yet when evidence arises that something in the scriptures may be wrong, it is still voraciously defended.

http://www.ocellated.com/2006/04/13/bill-nye-in-waco/

Now, of course that doesn't apply to all religious people. But most are willing to pick and choose from scripture that is convenient for them. Do you eat shellfish, Aqualad? Going to hell, then, if you believe everything in the Bible.

As for the New Testament: hard to accept as fact stories written at least 40 years after Jesus died. Try writing down exact conversations you're having right now in 40 years. Would you guarantee their accuracy?

Also: why would a god command us to kill each other?

"We're both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. Since you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours." -Roberts

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by funeralpudding]

quixoticgoat
08-26-2007, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding
"We're both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. Since you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours." -Roberts

this is a really good quote. i'll have to remember this one.

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 12:30 PM
This is getting good.

funeralpudding
08-26-2007, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by uncle eggma
the best music has always been made by religious, or at least spiritual, people. and that's a fact not up for debate. seriously.


Since there are more religious people than atheists, you could also say the best of anything is made by religious people.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=kY8q86a9Dw8

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 12:42 PM
The Beatles

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by opopopo

O what have we gotten ourselves into here? I am fighting a bit of a hangover here, so I'm sorry if I lack any eloquence.

- Sorry, I really was just suggesting he read some Darwin if he wanted more information on evolution. It is incredibly interesting stuff. However, I will say that since the theory of evolution does go against things that are said in the Old Testament, so it places flaws in the book that most religious people I've encountered use as their main proof for their case.

- Interpret those stats however you like, I don't really care.

- So basically you're saying you're happier believing that we're here for a reason and uncomfortable with the thought that the universe did just happen and doesn't have any sort of purpose? That's fine. I just happen to find it even more beautiful to consider the vast odds against my existence at all. And yet I'm here! It's amazing and sends shivers up my spine. I used to be quite religious, but all that worshiping in churches never brought me so much joy. And if you really think that science, logic, etc, are provide equally likely/unlikely odds for both our cases, than you my friend are out to lunch. Go right ahead and believe that the Universe is only 6000 years old.

"What about religion is illogical?"
I'm sorry, but this is maybe the funniest thing I've ever heard.

If anyone is actually interested in someone who can argue the case for atheism much much much better than I can read:

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens
"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel C. Dennett

Or, if you're lazier than that, just watch any of these blokes on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs

I'm not trying to get out of the argument, of course, I just do want anyone who feels deep down that there probably isn't a god to have better sources of information than my hungover self. I'm still up for a debate. Kinda.

-Why are you assuming the argument is against Christianity (with your reference to the Old Testament)? How do you know I'm not a Muslim, Hindu or a Deitist? The fact that you brought this up proves your not interested in the debate, rather you are intollerant of a particular set of religious beliefs. That's cool, nothing new there.

-Okay. I interperate them as circular reasoning. "the smartest people share our beliefs. Smart=the ability to articulate our beliefs." I interperate tham as the largely white, wealthy and educated classes being self-satisfied that they have finally figured out the Universe, unlike the 90% of us other ignorant folks. Eww. Also, do you think it's a little suspicious that few of those surveys date post-1970's, when the science establishment first began to be met with harsh criticism from philosophers?

-I said nothing about what makes me "happier." One of the biggest misconceptions in this debate is that religion exists as a sort of comfort mechanism. Not so! My religion makes me feel much more uncomfortable than if I could just believe in meaninglessness and subsequent oblivion. That seems like a crutch to me.

I believe precicely because I don't think that logic is equal for both our cases. I think that it is illogical to believe that the Universe is either eternally self-existent (in which case, it contradicts thermo-dynamics and mathmatical possibility), or the Universe spontaniously self-generated ex nihlo, which violates scientific causality. Can you account for either of these unscientific dogmas?

-Cool, I'm glad I am responsible for the funniest thing you've ever heard. That's a great way to not have to think about something. Maybe we can trot out that hillarious spagehtti monster again too, LOLZ!

-I've read Dawkins, etc. I'll bet he has terrible hemorrhoids. Seriously, dude's a preacher, plain and simple.

uncle eggma
08-26-2007, 12:54 PM
brian wilson

opopopo
08-26-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

-Why are you assuming the argument is against Christianity (with your reference to the Old Testament)? How do you know I'm not a Muslim, Hindu or a Deitist? The fact that you brought this up proves your not interested in the debate, rather you are intollerant of a particular set of religious beliefs. That's cool, nothing new there.

-Okay. I interperate them as circular reasoning. "the smartest people share our beliefs. Smart=the ability to articulate our beliefs." I interperate tham as the largely white, wealthy and educated classes being self-satisfied that they have finally figured out the Universe, unlike the 90% of us other ignorant folks. Eww. Also, do you think it's a little suspicious that few of those surveys date post-1970's, when the science establishment first began to be met with harsh criticism from philosophers?

-I said nothing about what makes me "happier." One of the biggest misconceptions in this debate is that religion exists as a sort of comfort mechanism. Not so! My religion makes me feel much more uncomfortable than if I could just believe in meaninglessness and subsequent oblivion. That seems like a crutch to me.

I believe precicely because I don't think that logic is equal for both our cases. I think that it is illogical to believe that the Universe is either eternally self-existent (in which case, it contradicts thermo-dynamics and mathmatical possibility), or the Universe spontaniously self-generated ex nihlo, which violates scientific causality. Can you account for either of these unscientific dogmas?

-Cool, I'm glad I am responsible for the funniest thing you've ever heard. That's a great way to not have to think about something. Maybe we can trot out that hillarious spagehtti monster again too, LOLZ!

-I've read Dawkins, etc. I'll bet he has terrible hemorrhoids. Seriously, dude's a preacher, plain and simple.

- Oh I love this. You do know that the old testament is a holy book not just to Christians, but to Jews and Muslims, too. So why are you assuming my argument against the old testament is against Christians? For the record, I have an equal lack of belief towards all gods. I am sorry if you're not Christian or Jewish or Muslim, I shouldn't have assumed that you were. So what religion are you?

- I said I don't care. Skew it however you like.

- Wow, so you're religious and you don't even find comfort in it? I would be very interested in knowing why you choose to believe in gods. I mean, if it's not bringing you happiness and comfort, then why? Just because it's the societal norm? I'm sure you've got a better reason, and I'd honestly like to hear about it.

Yeah, Dawkins can get a little preachy. I really like what he has to say about most things, though.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by opopopo]

uncle eggma
08-26-2007, 01:32 PM
you really got him there with all your "hahahahaha"s...definitely a fitting counter strike to his thermo dynamics argument.

funeralpudding
08-26-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
My religion makes me feel much more uncomfortable than if I could just believe in meaninglessness and subsequent oblivion.

Why is atheism "meaninglessness and subsequent oblivion"? Because we believe in the finality of death? How is that the everlasting peace and happiness most religious people think awaits them after death is less comforting than this? How is divine absolution for all your mistakes less comforting than having to deal with the real-life consequences?

opopopo
08-26-2007, 01:34 PM
Yeah, I know I shouldn't laugh, but some of that stuff is really quite funny.

funeralpudding
08-26-2007, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
I think that it is illogical to believe that the Universe is either eternally self-existent (in which case, it contradicts thermo-dynamics and mathmatical possibility), or the Universe spontaniously self-generated ex nihlo, which violates scientific causality. Can you account for either of these unscientific dogmas?

Why is it illogical to believe that the Universe is eternally self-existent? Isn't that what religious people believe about their god?

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by opopopo

- Oh I love this. You do know that the old testament is a holy book not just to Christians, but to Jews and Muslims, too. So why are you assuming my argument against the old testament is against Christians? For the record, I have an equal lack of belief towards all gods. I am sorry if you're not Christian or Jewish or Muslim, I shouldn't have assumed that you were. So what religion are you?

- I said I don't care. Skew it however you like.

- Wow, so you're religious and you don't even find comfort in it? I would be very interested in knowing why you choose to believe in gods. I mean, if it's not bringing you happiness and comfort, then why? Just because it's the societal norm? I'm sure you've got a better reason, and I'd honestly like to hear about it.

Yeah, Dawkins can get a little preachy. I really like what he has to say about most things, though.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by opopopo]

-Yeah, thanks, I had no idea the OT was the religious text of all the Abrahamic religions. My point is, your beef isn't a logical one (you've roundly dodged all my logic/science-based arguments), rather a cultural one. That's fine, you hate another culture. Whatevs.

-Cool, you gave this one up.

-Yep, I believe because it's the cultural norm. That's exactly what I said in my last post. That must be why I keep appealing to popular opinion while you keep appealing to concrete logical arguements.

-If you want to be dismissive, and chuckle at someone's belief's, cool. Just don't flatter yourself that your being more logical or reasonable in the process.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Why is it illogical to believe that the Universe is eternally self-existent? Isn't that what religious people believe about their god?

Finally, good question.

It is illogical to believe the Universe is eternally self-existent for two major reasons:

1.) The second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that the Universe is constantly losing energy, and will sometime, in the finite future, suffer from something called "heat death," or entropy. If the Universe existed for an infinite time past, it would have long ago run down, like a windup toy. This is a cornerstone of Newtonian physics.

2.) In mathmatics, it is impossible to traverse an infinite set with successive addition or subtraction. Infinity minus one=infinity. Therefore, if there was an infinite number of seconds before this one, we could never have arrived at this second.

As to your second question, which was a keen observation, most religions conceive of God as outside the space-time continuum, and therefore not subject to time-space restraints of entropy or time. God could have "always existed" without having to exist in time, like physical objects.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Why is atheism "meaninglessness and subsequent oblivion"? Because we believe in the finality of death? How is that the everlasting peace and happiness most religious people think awaits them after death is less comforting than this? How is divine absolution for all your mistakes less comforting than having to deal with the real-life consequences?

Religion can indeed be a comfort, but it is not only a comfort. And sometimes, it is the opposite. Many have suffered torture and death for it.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

opopopo
08-26-2007, 02:09 PM
You're accusing me of hating a culture?

Things like religion are fun to argue, as it's interesting to see other opinions and have your opinions challenged, but I suppose the internet isn't the place to do it.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by opopopo
You're accusing me of hating a culture?

Things like religion are fun to argue, as it's interesting to see other opinions and have your opinions challenged, but I suppose the internet isn't the place to do it.

Of course, now it's not.

When you could shoot fish in a barrel it was fine.

[Edited on 8-26-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

funeralpudding
08-26-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Religion can indeed be a comfort, but it is not only a comfort. And sometimes, it is the opposite. Many have suffered torture and death for it.


However, many more have suffered torture and death in its name

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

However, many more have suffered torture and death in its name

Sadly, sadly true. But, like alchohol, the abuse doesn't invalidate the use.

funeralpudding
08-26-2007, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
It is illogical to believe the Universe is eternally self-existent for two major reasons:

1.) The second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that the Universe is constantly losing energy, and will sometime, in the finite future, suffer from something called "heat death," or entropy. If the Universe existed for an infinite time past, it would have long ago run down, like a windup toy. This is a cornerstone of Newtonian physics.


http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug07/prebigbang/index.html

Again, I'll reiterate that science is flexible to new knowledge, religion is not.

jefferoo
08-26-2007, 02:24 PM
touche

auxiliaryoctopus
08-26-2007, 02:27 PM
Interesting article. I can't really find anything that invalidates either one of the arguements, if that was the intent. I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which a purely material Universe is no longer subject to math, physics or causality. That starts to look a whole lot like religion.

Goes a long way to show how today's Law is often tomorrow's laughing-stock though.

Aqualad
08-26-2007, 03:21 PM
i'm glad aux is here because he's got a better knowledge of some of the things i was trying to touch on.

And the old universe, new universe is old. It still avoids the beginning. even if it is true, looping requires a beginning as well.

I just wanted to point out that comfort is not the point of religion, as you guys seem to point out. People recognized that something was pressing down on their perception and sought to name it. Once they had figured out that there was some sort of God out there they tried to figure out what he or she or they wanted. The comfort part came much later into play, at the same time that convenience became the rule for our life.

JoeJustJoe
08-27-2007, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by opopopo
Things like religion are fun to argue, as it's interesting to see other opinions and have your opinions challenged, but I suppose the internet isn't the place to do it.

The interents are totally the place to do it. You have some degree of anonymity and I personally feel like I can listen to someone's online rants and not hold any grudge. In person, I'd probably have serious issues and have a hard time controlling my own emotions. You know "Everything you said is wrong, fuck you, goodbye"

RaelO
08-27-2007, 04:09 AM
I just kinda like the idea of there being a god because all this wacky stuff couldn't be here by accident.

But I don't waste too much time worrying about what its name is or whether or not it wants me to eat more or less cookies.

Stormx
08-27-2007, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad
I just wanted to point out that comfort is not the point of religion, as you guys seem to point out. People recognized that something was pressing down on their perception and sought to name it. Once they had figured out that there was some sort of God out there they tried to figure out what he or she or they wanted. <snip>

There's something I can appreciate. Now consider organised religion as a contrast: If it is true that when we find our own God, it is personal to us, then why are millions christians, sikhs, etc etc etc. It doesn't make any sense.

If there were one true perceivable God, then there wouldn't be seperate religions at all.

If everyone's perceptions of God were different, there still wouldn't be religions.



In both cases, it would be a much more accepted and appreciated part of society.



However, given the finite number of religions / cults, and their very specific geographical distribution, I'd say religion is more a product of culture than any divine being.

GhostInTheMachine
08-27-2007, 08:44 AM
interesting discussion all round

it's particularly curious that most of the genuine intolerance/intransigence in the thread is from the secular guys

shame mother teresa couldn't have relaxed her views on contraception if she really wanted to prevent the suffering in calcutta

Aqualad
08-27-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Stormx

Originally posted by Aqualad
I just wanted to point out that comfort is not the point of religion, as you guys seem to point out. People recognized that something was pressing down on their perception and sought to name it. Once they had figured out that there was some sort of God out there they tried to figure out what he or she or they wanted. <snip>

There's something I can appreciate. Now consider organised religion as a contrast: If it is true that when we find our own God, it is personal to us, then why are millions christians, sikhs, etc etc etc. It doesn't make any sense.

If there were one true perceivable God, then there wouldn't be seperate religions at all.

If everyone's perceptions of God were different, there still wouldn't be religions.



In both cases, it would be a much more accepted and appreciated part of society.



However, given the finite number of religions / cults, and their very specific geographical distribution, I'd say religion is more a product of culture than any divine being.

You're touching on a lot of things here. A lot of cultures tend to deify nature or objects, or even other things spiritual. Most of the religions are incomplete anyway. Only a couple religions are able to bring our entire experience into view: hinduism and christianity. I'm not saying there are others, but those are the two I know of that are complete religions. The thing is they are vastly opposite religions in their methodology.

Also note: One religion being true doesn't make all other religions false. It makes them not completely true. Lots of religions have the basic concepts, beliefs, and ideas shared that are obvious. Moses said "eye for an eye," Confucius said "don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you," and Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." I really recommend picking up the book "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. In it he compares a buch of religions beliefs and points out how similar their moral code even though they may have sprouted in entriely different areas.

Now, accepting that there are all these moral similarities, it's not so hard to see that there might be the product of a divine being and not just culture, and it's our culture and ourselves that screws up the religion.

quixoticgoat
08-27-2007, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad
Most of the religions are incomplete anyway. Only a couple religions are able to bring our entire experience into view.

what do you mean by incomplete?

rogersbowne
08-27-2007, 09:59 AM
In related terms, I, an atheist, wrote a christian song and had my mother-in-law sing her heart out on it. check it out at www.myspace.com/weallshootheroin under I Turn To Him

JoeJustJoe
08-27-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by GhostInTheMachine
it's particularly curious that most of the genuine intolerance/intransigence in the thread is from the secular guys

If Christians would practice the tenets of their faith, the world would be a much better place. They don't. Take a look at history. Christians are responsible for so much human misery it's not even funny.

Jesus please save me from your followers.

[Edited on 8-27-0707 by JoeJustJoe]

GhostInTheMachine
08-27-2007, 10:34 AM
A lot of confusion in this thread between belief and organised religion. Bad people are responsible for human misery whatever they claim their beliefs are, and yr right - if christians practised the tenets of their faith it would be a different matter. but the other argument there is that if they don't, they aren't really christian.

quixoticgoat
08-27-2007, 10:40 AM
because my sister is smarter then i am, this is a gmail chat we had this morning about this thread. and she makes a lot of sense. these are all kinda chopped up.. but i just wanted to point out a few things she said...

atheists don't say that there is NO possibility of the existence of a god. they just don't think it is very likely. about as likely and worth consideration as the teapot floating around saturn things.

me: fp brought up a good point that science is willing to change once new information is available, whereas religion doesn't accept change

her: [fp is] abolutely right on there. science has great regard for evidence. blind faith (by definition) requires no evidence. but you'll find that many of the religious or the "faithful" still demand and make up evidence for their beliefs, something to make their faith more reasonable. for example. evidence of miracles (mary's face on a pancake, jesus's image in a grease smear) or the quest to find the cloth that jesus was burried in, the holy grails. blah di blah. they want evidence, the human mind can't help but want evidence.

i told her that robert's quote that fp posted....

her: i've heard it as: "most people are atheists with regards to the gods of rome, and egypt. I just go one further"... that's exactly my point. if they really had blind faith, they would not have to use evidence to back their shit up

then i wrote:
fp asks: Why is it illogical to believe that the Universe is eternally self-existent? Isn't that what religious people believe about their god?
response: Finally, good question.

It is illogical to believe the Universe is eternally self-existent for two major reasons:

1.) The second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that the Universe is constantly losing energy, and will sometime, in the finite future, suffer from something called "heat death," or entropy. If the Universe existed for an infinite time past, it would have long ago run down, like a windup toy. This is a cornerstone of Newtonian physics.

2.) In mathmatics, it is impossible to traverse an infinite set with successive addition or subtraction. Infinity minus one=infinity. Therefore, if there was an infinite number of seconds before this one, we could never have arrived at this second.

As to your second question, which was a keen observation, most religions conceive of God as outside the space-time continuum, and therefore not subject to time-space restraints of entropy or time. God could have "always existed" without having to exist in time, like physical objects.

her: again, like I said, faith is evidence-less. i would say that it is illogical to believe that the universe...etc, because scientist and physicist and newtonian physicist don't believe that is the case. they have a theory, and one that can have holes punched into it. just like this guy did. duh, that's science. and theories are always subject to criticism and when a better theory comes along viola, we have progress. and this guy, makes that point, in the end. that god "exists" outside of material constraints (physical, material objects follow laws of thermo). and you should let fp know that scientist don't believe anything, not in the sense that he was trying to compare to god-faith

scientist make their best estimation, based on the observable evidence available and make theories, all of which are subject to being disproven. even I will never 100% commit to an idea, we could be living in the matrix for chrissakes. how you then choose to live you life, makes the most sense to base your decisions on what is most likely. living in the matrix...not as likely as just living in a universe that is infinitely old. but then again, I have never studied metaphysics. and that's where you'd have to go next to really get at the question here.

[Edited on 8-27-0707 by quixoticgoat]

jellyjar
08-27-2007, 11:29 AM
<3 auxiliaryoctopus.

Stormx
08-27-2007, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by quixoticgoat
<snip>

It is illogical to believe the Universe is eternally self-existent for two major reasons:

1.) The second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that the Universe is constantly losing energy, and will sometime, in the finite future, suffer from something called "heat death," or entropy. If the Universe existed for an infinite time past, it would have long ago run down, like a windup toy. This is a cornerstone of Newtonian physics.



Actually no. The whole basis of the thermodynamic laws is that energy cannot be created or lost, only converted. That's a basic part of physics. You should refer to the first law of thermodynamics for this, and also look up Conservation of Energy

It doesn't mean your energy argument is wrong. It's perfectly reasonable for the finite amount of energy in the universe to exist in an infinitately small space (e.g. big bang).







Beleivers: Science can't explain everything. The mathmatics of the first few seconds of the big bang are still badly understood, etc. What pisses me off is that God is pointed out as some kind of temporary fix-all theory to everything science can't understand. This is the "God-of-the-gaps" i was talking about earlier.

It's scientifically proven that we cannot know everything (but, I can't remember the exact proof). I guess we'll always be having these debates if the god-of-the-gaps proponants stick around.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-27-2007, 01:33 PM
True, but entropy does not really entail the destruction of energy, rather the maximum dispersal of energy in space over time. When you spread a finite amount of energy over an infinite amount of space, things start to look pretty chilly, and you approach a practical absolute zero.

quixoticgoat
08-27-2007, 04:03 PM
stormx, i was just quoting someone from earlier in this thread

Stormx
08-27-2007, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by quixoticgoat
stormx, i was just quoting someone from earlier in this thread

Oh, I didn't even realise. Many apologies :)

quixoticgoat
08-27-2007, 04:49 PM
its all good dude

Aqualad
08-27-2007, 05:19 PM
I agree that the "God-of-the-gaps" thing is dumb. God is not a crutch for our inability to discover things. Einstein was aware of this and said just as much. he wanted to go as far as he could with natural sciences, but believed at the end of it all there will still be a God who made it all. And he got far, obviously. So we shouldn't be scared of losing God because we find more and more natural laws. If people understood this idea, there would definitely be less of a split betweenscience and religion becaus eone would be able to see that they are parallel each other, unable to explain each other.

witahemuii
08-27-2007, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
You're touching on a lot of things here. A lot of cultures tend to deify nature or objects, or even other things spiritual. Most of the religions are incomplete anyway. Only a couple religions are able to bring our entire experience into view: hinduism and christianity.


I don't understand how you can decide that other religions are incomplete. What does this mean?

I'm curious as to what you believe God's role is, as well. Is he/she merely a creator, or also a protector or something like that?

witahemuii
08-27-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
Einstein was aware of this and said just as much. he wanted to go as far as he could with natural sciences, but believed at the end of it all there will still be a God who made it all. And he got far, obviously. So we shouldn't be scared of losing God because we find more and more natural laws.

Do you mean that one (especially a religious person) shouldn't be afraid that they will lose their spirituality if they make more and more scientific discoveries? I think this is a really good point and a good idea. I don't believe in God, but I think that if religious people realize/aren't forced to believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, it would bring a lot of good to the world. Vice versa, as well.

Stormx
08-27-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
I agree that the "God-of-the-gaps" thing is dumb. God is not a crutch for our inability to discover things. Einstein was aware of this and said just as much. he wanted to go as far as he could with natural sciences, but believed at the end of it all there will still be a God who made it all. And he got far, obviously. So we shouldn't be scared of losing God because we find more and more natural laws. If people understood this idea, there would definitely be less of a split betweenscience and religion becaus eone would be able to see that they are parallel each other, unable to explain each other.

In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (Brian 1996, p. 127) In 1950, in a letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

Aqualad
08-27-2007, 08:50 PM
based on the biography i read he was more of a theist in the end, confident there was aGod behind all things, but not one who cared about mankind that much. It's funny that he says that since the basis of christianity isn't reward and punishment, but grace and forgiveness. Reward and punishment falls to a secondary doctrine in it, but in judaism and hinduism it's one of the biggest foundations.


"I don't understand how you can decide that other religions are incomplete. What does this mean?"

I mean it doens't leave loose ends in terms of morality, spirituality, etc. A lot of religions are very vague or don't neccessarily need a lifestyle to follow it. It just becomes a part, not a whole, and sometimes contradict our own experience. I'm not really dissing the other religions, I'm actually pulling this idea from C.S. Lewis(one of my heroes), it's not saying the other religions are bad, but they don't touch all the bases. Plus a lot of religions are just offshoots of others. I guess I can lump judaism into the complete religions, although empty in action(constant attention to laws that no one can completely keep).

Again, I recommend everyone read the "Abolition of Man" for a better view at the unifying parts of Religious morality.

pinocchio
08-27-2007, 09:29 PM
you guys take these threads to a whole new level. we should dwell more on subjective, happy things like of montreal, BP, the apples, great lakes, etc.

These are the reasons we're all here, are they not? I want to start a religion called SMILE THERE'S ALWAYS MUSIC.

Stormx
08-28-2007, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad
based on the biography i read he was more of a theist in the end, confident there was aGod behind all things, but not one who cared about mankind that much. It's funny that he says that since the basis of christianity isn't reward and punishment, but grace and forgiveness. Reward and punishment falls to a secondary doctrine in it, but in judaism and hinduism it's one of the biggest foundations.

What? READ the old testament. God encourages people to rape and kill, your lovely "grace and forgiveness" argument lasts for some of the new testament.

Oh, grace and forgiveness? That's the other side of the same coin dude.

"If you do good, repent, etc, you go to heaven and life in infinite bliss for eternity. If you don't, you get sent to hell to die over and over again in fiery pits of lava". Doesn't sound so good when you put it like that, does it now?

My biggest gripe is that you can be a convicted serial killer, pedophile, rapist, whatever, but if you ask forgiveness to God, that's okay.

I mean, what the fuck? Imagine for a second that this life is all we have (I know it's hard, isn't it? Wait, it isn't). This is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It takes weight off this life, people care less about this life and more about the perceived "greater scheme of things", even when there is zero credible evidence that there is a greater scheme of things.


Originally posted by Aqualad
"I don't understand how you can decide that other religions are incomplete. What does this mean?"

I mean it doens't leave loose ends in terms of morality, spirituality, etc. A lot of religions are very vague or don't neccessarily need a lifestyle to follow it.

Nope. No religion has absolutes like that.

"And Jesus Did Spake: HIV/AIDs is a growing problem but cannot be blamed on homosexuality"

Wouldn't that just be great? Yeah?

Everyone's idea of Christianity is just their reading of the bible. It is not complete, because people reapply the teachings of Jebus in different ways.




For example, Dutch Reform Church imposes a segregation regime, seperating white from black, in the name of the lord. At the same time, pretty much every other denomination apposes it. If that's not a moral issue I don't know what is.

Having an absolutist religion is so stupid it's almost unbearable. You cannot re-apply someone else's morals - it just doesn't work. The situations can be slightly or drasticly different.

I can't believe people are so weak minded that they think Jesus's morals are some kind of revolution; their not. In fact its us atheists who are kinder to mankind

"Atheists move in to reclaim homeland, Jeruselum burns, killing thousands"

"Atheist crusades bring children into slave labour"

and on and on and on.



Originally posted by Aqualad
It just becomes a part, not a whole, and sometimes contradict our own experience. I'm not really dissing the other religions, I'm actually pulling this idea from C.S. Lewis(one of my heroes), it's not saying the other religions are bad, but they don't touch all the bases. Plus a lot of religions are just offshoots of others. I guess I can lump judaism into the complete religions, although empty in action(constant attention to laws that no one can completely keep).

Again, I recommend everyone read the "Abolition of Man" for a better view at the unifying parts of Religious morality.

I recommend listening to the ideas of the common atheist / agnostic. We're not making money to write what white america wants to hear.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-28-2007, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Stormx

My biggest gripe is that you can be a convicted serial killer, pedophile, rapist, whatever, but if you ask forgiveness to God, that's okay.


Based purely on evolutionary standards, what's wrong with rape and murder? It allows the strongest to pass on their genes without regard to petty slave morality, and gets the weak out of the way. I mean, look at the other animals (of which we are indisputably one). They don't get all uptight about tearing each other to pieces when they feel like it, right? Read your Nietzsche.



Nope. No religion has absolutes like that.

Wouldn't that just be great? Yeah?

Everyone's idea of Christianity is just their reading of the bible. It is not complete, because people reapply the teachings of Jebus in different ways.


Jebus. Cute. Wait, does this criticism also apply to the scientific method, which by definition can never be complete, and is constantly reapplied in different ways?




Having an absolutist religion is so stupid it's almost unbearable. You cannot re-apply someone else's morals - it just doesn't work. The situations can be slightly or drasticly different.


Wait, isn't applying absolutes exactly what your doing in this arguement? Religion is stupid and should never be followed sounds pretty absolute to me.



I can't believe people are so weak minded that they think Jesus's morals are some kind of revolution; their not. In fact its us atheists who are kinder to mankind

"Atheists move in to reclaim homeland, Jeruselum burns, killing thousands"

"Atheist crusades bring children into slave labour"

and on and on and on.


Okay, How about:

"Leader, applying modern scientific evolutionary principals, gasses a bunch of Jews"

or

"Athiest regime jails and executes thousands for their religious beliefs"

or

"Athiest Premier Joseph Satlin sends many to forced labor camps, kills millions."

The reason you guys don't have as long a record of atrocities, is that you haven't been around in large numbers long enough. If your track record over the last century keeps up, I dare say you'll catch up to the collective atrocities of religion (accumulated over a couple millenia) pretty quick though.

By the way, your really displaying that progressive Athiest acceptance and understanding you talk about. Unlike all the close-minded religious goons who shove their beliefs down people's throats.

Did you figure out what to do about that entropy thing yet?


[Edited on 8-28-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

Stormx
08-28-2007, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Originally posted by Stormx

My biggest gripe is that you can be a convicted serial killer, pedophile, rapist, whatever, but if you ask forgiveness to God, that's okay.


Based purely on evolutionary standards, what's wrong with rape and murder? It allows the strongest to pass on their genes without regard to petty slave morality, and gets the weak out of the way. I mean, look at the other animals (of which we are indisputably one). They don't get all uptight about tearing each other to pieces when they feel like it, right? Read your Nietzsche.


The issue is that we're well past that sort of thing. What you're describing barely happens in the rest of the animal kingdom, let alone the human race. Grow up, you know that's a stupid argument. Murder = bad. Rape = bad. Thats well accepted by the vast majority of the human race, and it does benefit the human race not to kill eachother for individual dominance.


Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


Nope. No religion has absolutes like that.

Wouldn't that just be great? Yeah?

Everyone's idea of Christianity is just their reading of the bible. It is not complete, because people reapply the teachings of Jebus in different ways.


Jebus. Cute. Wait, does this criticism also apply to the scientific method, which by definition can never be complete, and is constantly reapplied in different ways?


You're confusing ethics and scientific fact. Science, by definition, has to be repeatable with the same results. That's the foundation of it. You key in the variables in your particular situation and you get an answer, and everyone can get the same answer when using the same process.

Moral matters are different, because they use human judgement and one's own common sense. You're adding another layer of complexity which spits out different results from person to person.

Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus



Having an absolutist religion is so stupid it's almost unbearable. You cannot re-apply someone else's morals - it just doesn't work. The situations can be slightly or drasticly different.


Wait, isn't applying absolutes exactly what your doing in this arguement? Religion is stupid and should never be followed sounds pretty absolute to me.


Again, it's as above. Religion applies to almost everything, if you look at everyone's use of it. As such, there are an infinite number of possible moral dilemmas which religion can't address. Certainly it can go some of the way and give basic guidence that can be applied to most things, but it cannot exactly describe every situation and give the "correct" answer. That's the whole reason religions are so diverse. Most of the issues in this thread are contendable and depend on your own POV but I don't think this is one of them. This is an established fact. It's not an insult at religion, it doesn't take sides.

Anyway, I never said that religion is stupid and shouldn't be followed. Point out where I said that. It's a sliding scale, and I get pissed off with some of it, and really like some of it. Try and tell me that's an absolute.


Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


I can't believe people are so weak minded that they think Jesus's morals are some kind of revolution; their not. In fact its us atheists who are kinder to mankind

"Atheists move in to reclaim homeland, Jeruselum burns, killing thousands"

"Atheist crusades bring children into slave labour"

and on and on and on.


Okay, How about:

"Leader, applying modern scientific evolutionary principals, gasses a bunch of Jews"

or

"Athiest regime jails and executes thousands for their religious beliefs"

or

"Athiest Premier Joseph Satlin sends many to forced labor camps, kills millions."

The reason you guys don't have as long a record of atrocities, is that you haven't been around in large numbers long enough. If your track record over the last century keeps up, I dare say you'll catch up to the collective atrocities of religion (accumulated over a couple millenia) pretty quick though.

By the way, your really displaying that progressive Athiest acceptance and understanding you talk about. Unlike all the close-minded religious goons who shove their beliefs down people's throats.


Nice use of sarcasm. Read the rest of my comments. I have a good few religious friends, but I get pissed with how certain people apply it. Also I don't think it's entirely down to their personal responsibilty, and my general distaste of the media and the "religion is good in all cases" attitude it has makes me speak about this sort of thing.

As far as I can tell, I am being progressive. I like progressive atheists and theists, who recognise modern issues and don't stick to tired advice.

You were right about the stalin business tho. I've tried to be careful not to group most theists with those who go over the top, but I don't like how you guys aren't as hostile to the extremist theists as some atheists are. It's like being part of a family - you'll hide and protect your brother even if he has committed a crime.



Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Did you figure out what to do about that entropy thing yet?

I don't like your tone. I already had it "figured out", it was just phrased incorrectly in the bit i talked about.




I'm also sick of your arguments. They're very knit-picky and don't address the wider scale of things. You're also confusing moral and factual matters, which are different things.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png


[Edited on 8-28-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

[Edited on 8-28-0707 by Stormx]

GhostInTheMachine
08-28-2007, 10:12 AM
i'm a bit alarmed that the christians seem to be winning this on points

JoeJustJoe
08-28-2007, 10:19 AM
The thumpers have to win otherwise the word of God is wrong and that could never be. Right?

GhostInTheMachine
08-28-2007, 10:32 AM
contributions like that just make you look like a petulant fool

JoeJustJoe
08-28-2007, 10:53 AM
First of all you can go fuck yourself. How's that for petulant. My statement is absolutely correct. Fundamentalists and all christians alike have to be right otherwise the bible is wrong. Which is it douchebag?

GhostInTheMachine
08-28-2007, 10:58 AM
temper temper my tolerant friend... such a posterboy for the secular worldview ;)

GhostInTheMachine
08-28-2007, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
First of all you can go fuck yourself. How's that for petulant. My statement is absolutely correct. Fundamentalists and all christians alike have to be right otherwise the bible is wrong. Which is it douchebag?

and to cover your sophistry, i don't think any of the christians in the thread have asserted that every single word of the bible is correct which leaves your argument with more holes than substance. unless you're saying they have to be right otherwise they are wrong, in which case, well - duh

JoeJustJoe
08-28-2007, 11:24 AM
you are obviouly unfamiliar with fundamentalist christian ideology . The bible is the word of god. therefore it is undeniable and irrefutable truth. So they say. Never did I suggest that anyone else here made those claims. But if any part of the bible is incorrect or inacurate then you've got to questions the validity of the entire book.

I'm a posterboy for my views, noone else. I'm not trying to win over any converts either. Actually, I could care less what people believe as long as they "don't tread on me". It's just shocking that people believe what they do. And it makes for an interesting thread.

you should spend less time at dictionary.com.

quixoticgoat
08-28-2007, 11:29 AM
watch this.. right now.. everyone..

teapot atheism:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/teapot_atheists.html

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 11:38 AM
Even if there was rape and murder in the old testament, it never followed that God approved of it. Half of it is a history of the tribe of Israel, and obviously they were just as messed up as any of us.

The reason I'm tlaking about grace and forgiveness being the foundations of Christianity is because the new testament is a new covenant. if you look it up it replaces the laws of the old testament with a new covenant based on God's son. The Bible is adamant that none of us is "good" or can ever achieve salvation on our own. We don't earn our way into heaven, we admit we can't and accept that he made it possible that we can(cross, resurrection, and all that). In terms of salvation and such, yeah, you can be convicted of a number of crimes and if you seriously ask forgiveness you can be saved, but it doesn't redeem you from the law of the land, obviously.


Imagine for a second that this life is all we have (I know it's hard, isn't it? Wait, it isn't). This is a get-out-of-jail-free card. It takes weight off this life, people care less about this life and more about the perceived "greater scheme of things", even when there is zero credible evidence that there is a greater scheme of things.

people have a different point of view about this life, but it doesn't change anything that dramatically. It does make for happier people, though, doesn't it?

And finally, have you read the New Testament? Denominations are wrong in and of themselves, the Bible says it very clearly.


And C.S. Lewis' ideas in abolition of man were controversial, not commercial. he challenged a belief that each religion was separate in an unbiased manner. it didn't sell a million copies and it wasn't targeted at any market. Don't make a claim like that. That's the kind of response that breeds ignorance.

Stormx
08-28-2007, 11:43 AM
Go goaty! wooo!

Literalists are kinda silly. Especially as most of the new testement was written well past 100 A.D. and early church leaders picked and chose which books to include.

Also, things like the "7 day" thing is kinda crap. My moderate christian friend often points out that the original hebrew simply means "period of time" and not "day", and that we've only kept "day" to keep up convention and avoid controversy.

quixoticgoat
08-28-2007, 11:47 AM
hmm.. in case anyone is interested.. this is sort of a side note.. but i remember when they first aired on tv all the stuff about how they found the book of judas. so here it is if anyones interested:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Okay, How about:

"Leader, applying modern scientific evolutionary principals, gasses a bunch of Jews"

or

"Athiest regime jails and executes thousands for their religious beliefs"

or

"Athiest Premier Joseph Satlin sends many to forced labor camps, kills millions."

The reason you guys don't have as long a record of atrocities, is that you haven't been around in large numbers long enough. If your track record over the last century keeps up, I dare say you'll catch up to the collective atrocities of religion (accumulated over a couple millenia) pretty quick though.

Hitler was Catholic.

And outside of this thread, in the real world, many, many, many more people are being murdered in the name of religion than in the name of atheism. Atheists are more likely to let people live and worship as they choose, you certainly don't hear about atheists demanding nobody pray in school, yet once again because they can't force their religion on the rest of us, Christians are up in arms about the attack on religion because we won't have teachers lead the class in prayer.

Also - Christians would rather deny Africans health care entirely than give them health care that could possibly mention abortion or birth control.

And ghostinthehalfhand, if religion is going to win this argument on points, devolving the conversation into "what's wrong with rape and murder" doesn't score very many.

And it's a little disingenuous to claim the right to pick and choose from the Bible, yet turn around and claim the certainty of something because it's in the Bible.

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Aqualad
Even if there was rape and murder in the old testament, it never followed that God approved of it.

Didn't your god ask Abraham to kill his son to prove his loyalty?

JoeJustJoe
08-28-2007, 12:13 PM
I'm a teapot athiest!!

Figglyduff
08-28-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding
And ghostinthehalfhand, if religion is going to win this argument on points, devolving the conversation into "what's wrong with rape and murder" doesn't score very many.


I really don't think that's Half Handed! I'm pretty HH isn't religious! (Or indeed pro rape/ murder...)

I'm surprised there are so many religious people on this board, to be honest. Maybe we should do a poll? :)

JoeJustJoe
08-28-2007, 12:36 PM
good idea. I'm curious about peoples age as well.

Figglyduff
08-28-2007, 12:39 PM
Yeah, we need a Townhall census!

quixoticgoat
08-28-2007, 12:40 PM
i too am surprised at the amount of religious people here.
i am a non religious twenty two year old

quixoticgoat
08-28-2007, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
I'm a teapot athiest!! FTW

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Figglyduff
Or indeed pro rape/ murder...)


That was auxillaryoctopus. I still can't make sense of that, I thought it was sarcasm but then it was reinforced with Nietzsche.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-28-2007, 12:57 PM
Yeah, nobody is pro rape or murder, I hope, on either side. I was saying that in a purely material Universe, it's more difficult to make the case against it.

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Yeah, nobody is pro rape or murder, I hope, on either side. I was saying that in a purely material Universe, it's more difficult to make the case against it.

In a purely material universe? That doesn't make sense because it was originally in response to a valid statement that religion ultimately absolves you of guilt of possibly horrible crimes, you're clouding the issue. When I was Christian, I truly felt relieved of my guilt after walking out of the confessional, it's a crutch to placate your conscience. Same as the notion of heaven. How many people blowing themselves and others up are saying "ah, fuck it, I have a glorious afterlife waiting for me"? I would say most all of them.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-28-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Stormx

The issue is that we're well past that sort of thing. What you're describing barely happens in the rest of the animal kingdom, let alone the human race. Grow up, you know that's a stupid argument. Murder = bad. Rape = bad. Thats well accepted by the vast majority of the human race, and it does benefit the human race not to kill eachother for individual dominance.

It'd be great if we were past that sort of thing. Unfortunately, there's the news.

Ummm, animals "barely" kill other animals?

In a purely material world, who cares about the perserverence of the human race as the ultimate goal anyway? Wouldn't oblivion be preferable to the amount of suffering that existence entails? What about the destruction that human life causes to other life, on a mass scale?



You're confusing ethics and scientific fact. Science, by definition, has to be repeatable with the same results. That's the foundation of it. You key in the variables in your particular situation and you get an answer, and everyone can get the same answer when using the same process.

Moral matters are different, because they use human judgement and one's own common sense. You're adding another layer of complexity which spits out different results from person to person.


So, "rape=bad and murder=bad" aren't moral absolutes?




Again, it's as above. Religion applies to almost everything, if you look at everyone's use of it. As such, there are an infinite number of possible moral dilemmas which religion can't address. Certainly it can go some of the way and give basic guidence that can be applied to most things, but it cannot exactly describe every situation and give the "correct" answer.

So, since religion applies to everything, how does it follow that there are an infinite amount of things it can't address? Since science "addresses everything," does the same apply?



That's the whole reason religions are so diverse. Most of the issues in this thread are contendable and depend on your own POV but I don't think this is one of them. This is an established fact. It's not an insult at religion, it doesn't take sides.

Anyway, I never said that religion is stupid and shouldn't be followed. Point out where I said that. It's a sliding scale, and I get pissed off with some of it, and really like some of it. Try and tell me that's an absolute.


You said: "Having an absolutist religion is so stupid it's almost unbearable."

I may have misinterpreted...



Nice use of sarcasm. Read the rest of my comments. I have a good few religious friends, but I get pissed with how certain people apply it. Also I don't think it's entirely down to their personal responsibilty, and my general distaste of the media and the "religion is good in all cases" attitude it has makes me speak about this sort of thing.

As far as I can tell, I am being progressive. I like progressive atheists and theists, who recognise modern issues and don't stick to tired advice.

You were right about the stalin business tho. I've tried to be careful not to group most theists with those who go over the top, but I don't like how you guys aren't as hostile to the extremist theists as some atheists are. It's like being part of a family - you'll hide and protect your brother even if he has committed a crime.

Well, I've shown there are two sides to the cover-up coin. But, you are right. People who are religios have a resposibility to denounce its abuse. Wrong religion is more dangerous than no religion.



I don't like your tone. I already had it "figured out", it was just phrased incorrectly in the bit i talked about.

I missed it. What was your solution?



I'm also sick of your arguments. They're very knit-picky and don't address the wider scale of things. You're also confusing moral and factual matters, which are different things.

So morals, like "rape and murder and genocide are bad" aren't facts? Which is it? Perhaps I'm not the only one who confuses the two...

Also, cute cartoon. Seems like somebody brought up an arguement based on a mathmatical certainty earlier...

Sorry about my tone. Being called "stupid" and "feeble-minded" tends to put an edge on my tongue. Thank you for maintaining such an even-keeled demenor tho-


[Edited on 8-28-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

auxiliaryoctopus
08-28-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding
In a purely material universe? That doesn't make sense because it was originally in response to a valid statement that religion ultimately absolves you of guilt of possibly horrible crimes, you're clouding the issue. When I was Christian, I truly felt relieved of my guilt after walking out of the confessional, it's a crutch to placate your conscience. Same as the notion of heaven. How many people blowing themselves and others up are saying "ah, fuck it, I have a glorious afterlife waiting for me"? I would say most all of them.

Stormx was trying to have it both ways. You can't say that religion is invalid because it advocates absolutes, then say that it is invalid because of absolutes that you hold. My point is, if Stormx has a problem with the killing in the Bible (rape is never advocated), then he is applying absolutes. If moral absolutes don't exist, as he says, he has no right to judge anything by an absolute moral standard.

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Originally posted by funeralpudding
In a purely material universe? That doesn't make sense because it was originally in response to a valid statement that religion ultimately absolves you of guilt of possibly horrible crimes, you're clouding the issue. When I was Christian, I truly felt relieved of my guilt after walking out of the confessional, it's a crutch to placate your conscience. Same as the notion of heaven. How many people blowing themselves and others up are saying "ah, fuck it, I have a glorious afterlife waiting for me"? I would say most all of them.

Stormx was trying to have it both ways. You can't say that religion is invalid because it advocates absolutes, then say that it is invalid because of absolutes that you hold. My point is, if Stormx has a problem with the killing in the Bible (rape is never advocated), then he is applying absolutes. If moral absolutes don't exist, as he says, he has no right to judge anything by an absolute moral standard.

Basic moral absolutes are completely different from the absolutes of tales in scriptures. And you are wrong about rape:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 01:36 PM
2 Samuel 12:11-14

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

Stormx
08-28-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Originally posted by Stormx

The issue is that we're well past that sort of thing. What you're describing barely happens in the rest of the animal kingdom, let alone the human race. Grow up, you know that's a stupid argument. Murder = bad. Rape = bad. Thats well accepted by the vast majority of the human race, and it does benefit the human race not to kill eachother for individual dominance.

It'd be great if we were past that sort of thing. Unfortunately, there's the news.

Ummm, animals "barely" kill other animals?

Of the same species. Which is what you were describing, with the whole "murder" thing.

Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


In a purely material world, who cares about the perserverence of the human race as the ultimate goal anyway? Wouldn't oblivion be preferable to the amount of suffering that existence entails? What about the destruction that human life causes to other life, on a mass scale?

Wow. That's a pretty depressing outlook on life. Why haven't you killed yourself already if that's your perception? Sounds like you're just trying to be difficult here.

[i]Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


You're confusing ethics and scientific fact. Science, by definition, has to be repeatable with the same results. That's the foundation of it. You key in the variables in your particular situation and you get an answer, and everyone can get the same answer when using the same process.

Moral matters are different, because they use human judgement and one's own common sense. You're adding another layer of complexity which spits out different results from person to person.


So, "rape=bad and murder=bad" aren't moral absolutes?

They aren't. If you think of how some people support the death penalty, some people choose to rape, etc. I'm pretty sure I like "vast majority" in my post that you lifted this tidbit out of.

[i]Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


Again, it's as above. Religion applies to almost everything, if you look at everyone's use of it. As such, there are an infinite number of possible moral dilemmas which religion can't address. Certainly it can go some of the way and give basic guidence that can be applied to most things, but it cannot exactly describe every situation and give the "correct" answer.

So, since religion applies to everything, how does it follow that there are an infinite amount of things it can't address? Since science "addresses everything," does the same apply?

Theres a difference between applying to everything and covering everything. Pretty much anyone religious can find a place for religion in any matter, but the religion itself won't cover every single part of the issue at hand, only give guidence and standards to follow in finding a solution.


[i]Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


That's the whole reason religions are so diverse. Most of the issues in this thread are contendable and depend on your own POV but I don't think this is one of them. This is an established fact. It's not an insult at religion, it doesn't take sides.

Anyway, I never said that religion is stupid and shouldn't be followed. Point out where I said that. It's a sliding scale, and I get pissed off with some of it, and really like some of it. Try and tell me that's an absolute.


You said: "Having an absolutist religion is so stupid it's almost unbearable."

I may have misinterpreted...


s'okay

[i]Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


Nice use of sarcasm. Read the rest of my comments. I have a good few religious friends, but I get pissed with how certain people apply it. Also I don't think it's entirely down to their personal responsibilty, and my general distaste of the media and the "religion is good in all cases" attitude it has makes me speak about this sort of thing.

As far as I can tell, I am being progressive. I like progressive atheists and theists, who recognise modern issues and don't stick to tired advice.

You were right about the stalin business tho. I've tried to be careful not to group most theists with those who go over the top, but I don't like how you guys aren't as hostile to the extremist theists as some atheists are. It's like being part of a family - you'll hide and protect your brother even if he has committed a crime.

Well, I've shown there are two sides to the cover-up coin. But, you are right. People who are religios have a resposibility to denounce its abuse. Wrong religion is more dangerous than no religion.



I don't like your tone. I already had it "figured out", it was just phrased incorrectly in the bit i talked about.

I missed it. What was your solution?


Well mostly it was just bad phrasing. This issue has already been covered in other posts, but to recap: The energy isn't lost or destroyed, it is just so spread out that at any given point there is basically none there.


[i]Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus


I'm also sick of your arguments. They're very knit-picky and don't address the wider scale of things. You're also confusing moral and factual matters, which are different things.

So morals, like rape and murder and genocide are bad aren't facts? Perhaps I'm not the only one who confuses the two...

What about "the wider scale of things" am I failing to address?



[Edited on 8-28-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

1.) They're facts, but they have to do with humans and the human mind as well. establising the facts in any particular case is second the the judgement of the jury, or judge, or whatever.

2.) I'm a little tired. I'll edit this post when I feel up to recapping.

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 01:38 PM
Zechariah 14:1-2

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

Stormx
08-28-2007, 01:41 PM
I also was reading some feminist blog a while ago that listed a good few. About how the LORD commanded several men to abuse a young girl through the night, but not do any harm to her husband.

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 01:41 PM
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-28-2007, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding
Basic moral absolutes are completely different from the absolutes of tales in scriptures. And you are wrong about rape:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Once again, you have a cultural problem with Christianity. We're talking about whether or not it's reasonable to believe in God. Also, I don't see anything about rape in there. Do you also assume that the Hebrews were to have forced-sex with the livestock?

How are your moral absolutes different from those in the Bible? Also, I believe you now have an issue with Stormx, who denies such absolutes, and believes morality is based on popular opinion.

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Originally posted by funeralpudding
Basic moral absolutes are completely different from the absolutes of tales in scriptures. And you are wrong about rape:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Once again, you have a cultural problem with Christianity. We're talking about whether or not it's reasonable to believe in God. Also, I don't see anything about rape in there. Do you also assume that the Hebrews were to have forced-sex with the livestock?

"But you may keep for yourselves all the women..."


How are your moral absolutes different from those in the Bible? Also, I believe you now have an issue with Stormx, who denies such absolutes, and believes morality is based on popular opinion.

Perhaps there are no moral absolutes, because there are people (and books) in this world who have no problem with rape, slavery, or murder, but these crimes are about as much consensus as you're going to get over what morality should abhor.

[Edited on 8-28-0707 by funeralpudding]

blaise
08-28-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Do you also assume that the Hebrews were to have forced-sex with the livestock?.

As opposed to consentual?

Seriously, they probably ate the livestock or sacrificed it, raped the women, and enslaved the kids. The Bible is scary.

Stormx
08-28-2007, 01:57 PM
Hah! I remember another lovely passage, where the israelites were forced to eat their own shit...

Aaaah good times.

uncle eggma
08-28-2007, 02:10 PM
anyone ever seen a ghost? i think i have.

Figglyduff
08-28-2007, 02:42 PM
Yeah! Check out the Ghosties and Hauntings thread! :P
http://www.e6townhall.com/viewthread.php?tid=8296#pid103369

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by jcmoods

Originally posted by uncle eggma
anyone ever seen a ghost? i think i have.

most definitely.

i believe that they (spirits, etc) have to fit in somewhere. they exist.

The Amazing Randi still has a standing one million dollar cash prize to anybody who can prove virtually anything paranormal.

uncle eggma
08-28-2007, 03:02 PM
there have been too many accounts of paranormal activity for it all to be a hoax. ufos are real as well.

witahemuii
08-28-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Originally posted by funeralpudding
Basic moral absolutes are completely different from the absolutes of tales in scriptures. And you are wrong about rape:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Once again, you have a cultural problem with Christianity. We're talking about whether or not it's reasonable to believe in God. Also, I don't see anything about rape in there. Do you also assume that the Hebrews were to have forced-sex with the livestock?

How are your moral absolutes different from those in the Bible? Also, I believe you now have an issue with Stormx, who denies such absolutes, and believes morality is based on popular opinion.

Quoting from the Bible doesn't mean he has a cultural problem with Christianity. First of all, the discussion has focused around creationism/evolution, and the majority of/ the most visible creationists in the US are Christian. Second, the Bible/Old Testament isn't only holy to Christians, so don't automatically assume he's attacking them. He's merely pointing out that the morals and moral absolutes that Christians, Jews and Muslims hold dear are contradicted in the Bible.

And this idea does relate back to the discussion at hand. One of the points discussed earlier was morals taken from religion and how they are examples of religion's value. Aqualad brought up that moral codes popped up at roughly the same time in disparate places. But isn't it possible that the creators of these ideas had some human decency? He used Moses, Jesus and Confucius as examples, but Jesus was a Jew and was therefore exposed to the words of Mosesw in the Torah, while Confucius was more concerned with social issues and was extremely ambivalent toward aspects of Chinese religion and spirituality. He did advocate ancestor worship, but mainly to strengthen family ties and loyalty (brother-brother and father-son were two of the five most important relationships to him). Similar moral codes and beliefs across the world aren't an example of God's work; anyone's words or ideas can be twisted to appear similar or different to another's.

[Edited on 8-28-0707 by witahemuii]

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 05:40 PM
I like how there are two people arguing for religion, and you guys act like there are a ton of us. WE NEED A POLL LOL.

This really is looking really bad because you guys have this weird stereotypical view of religion.

Anyway, there are key things that all religions will agree on. I hate to keep referring to the Abolition of man, but do yourselves a favor and read it.

Also, the moral absolutes we keep brandishing need to be defined. Killing is wrong in most situations, but it's common sense that in a war killing will be come neccesary. That's just how war goes. Of course, then you have to question if the war is right as well, but I think that's more of the leader's responsibility than the people given orders. Also self-defense and such. Sex isn't bad, but when it's not between two people who are married, it's adultery, and if one of them isn't willing, it's rape. Stealing from other people is wrong, but if there was a desperate and starving man I don't think a good person would hold it against him as long as he promised to return the favor when he is well to do.

Anyway.

"But isn't it possible that the creators of these ideas had some human decency?"

You are renaming the moral code. Human Decency is what we've been talking about all along. The moral code is human decency. If you follow it you will, by all social standards, be a decent human being. And they just didn't pop up or get created by some guy. People knew not to murder already, they didn't need to be told. People knew they should try to help others and such to some extent, they knew they shouldn't take other people's things. It wasn't that it wasn't around. I'm not saying God chimed in and gave all these people revelations of how to live. I'm saying the code of right conduct has always been in mankind. People knew you should keep your word, that you should share, etc.

As for funeralpudding's idea... it's on another page so I'll try to remember. Something about religion and God to placate our conscious? And what's your idea for an alternate solution? Ignore our conscious? Ignore the nagging that we did something wrong? Come up with a philosophy that will excuse our inability to be decent? Because all of us, at one time or another, have been indecent. All of us have lied, broken a promise, etc. And if there's not a natural moral code inherent in all mankind what's the point in saying someone's wrong for doing one of these? If it's not absolute how can you ever say anyone wronged you? I know that you have your social code, but just because a majority agrees on it doesn't mean some random individual can't say he doesn't agree and take what he wants by force. It undermines all our laws and beliefs, but it's the alternative. Social morality only works when it's based on absolutes.

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by Aqualad
Even if there was rape and murder in the old testament, it never followed that God approved of it.

Didn't your god ask Abraham to kill his son to prove his loyalty?

yeah he did, but he didn't let him go through with it, of course.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-28-2007, 06:05 PM
So, to recap, everyone has ditched the idea of dealing with concrete scientific, mathmatical problems for posting their least favorite Bible verses, yes? For not believing it, you guys sure seem pretty preoccupied...

quixoticgoat
08-28-2007, 06:12 PM
so what you are saying is that we shouldnt be interested in a book that millions of people dedicate their lives to worshiping? are you not interested in reading the popul vuh or the koran or the rig vedas or any religious text because you dont believe it?

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 06:25 PM
he's saying we've gotten off topic.

Stormx
08-28-2007, 06:40 PM
I have a quick question here. Totally sincere in this one.

If I were to ignore all the effects Christianity (and I pick Christianity because I understand the theists in this thread are Christians) outside of a purely religious field, is there any compelling reason for me to beleive in God, and Jesus dying for our sins, etc?

I'm a skeptic, but seeing you folks makes me feel like I might have missed a good reason. I'll keep an open mind on anything you say concerning this.

quixoticgoat
08-28-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
he's saying we've gotten off topic.
he's being a dick. and we arent off topic at all. it all ties in together.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-28-2007, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by quixoticgoat
he's being a dick. and we arent off topic at all. it all ties in together.

Ouch. Name-calling. Way to keep it mature.

For the record, my purpose was to defend the reasonability of the belief in God. That's where the discussion needs to begin.

Ms. Goat: I'm not saying you shouldn't read or know about the Bible or any religious text (though I suspect these verses were culled from premade Atheist websites rather than any actual study), what I was saying is that your problems with the Bible and the reasonability of the belief in God are two different things. Don't know why I keep repeating this...

Stormx, I'll stick with my same arguments for the impossibility of either an eternally self-existent or self-generated Universe. Outside of theism, I don't see another option.

I don't know what else to say about this. I don't feel anyone has addressed these arguments with any degree of sincerity.

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 07:22 PM
now can we attack atheism and agnosticism?

funeralpudding
08-28-2007, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
I'm not saying you shouldn't read or know about the Bible or any religious text (though I suspect these verses were culled from premade Atheist websites rather than any actual study), what I was saying is that your problems with the Bible and the reasonability of the belief in God are two different things. Don't know why I keep repeating this...


Of course there is something there, something that reveals itself in the beauty and geometry in nature, and the laws of math and physics, pushing time forward. You are talking about basing your life around 2000+ year old stories of people who claim to have seen, talked to, and been spawned from this something.




Stormx, I'll stick with my same arguments for the impossibility of either an eternally self-existent or self-generated Universe. Outside of theism, I don't see another option.


A regenerative universe.

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by jcmoods
wtf kind of question is that?


well we were all attacking one set of beliefs i figure no would mind taking turns

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 07:52 PM
also a regenerative universe still requires a first generation.

witahemuii
08-28-2007, 08:40 PM
If there can't be a self-generating universe/self-existent because it defys the laws of thermodynamics/scientific theory, then how can there be a self-generating, self-existent being who created the universe? I'm not trying to be standoffish, I am actually interested.

[Edited on 8-29-0707 by witahemuii]

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 08:52 PM
the thermodynamics/scientific theory refers to the universe and what's in it. It doesn't include the spiritual/things outside of this universe.

witahemuii
08-28-2007, 08:56 PM
I understand that. But how can something completely outside of this universe/the laws of physics exist or be more believable than something about which we're not completely sure but are working towards an answer?

Also, do you you believe that God merely created the universe or still watches over and makes change?

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 09:03 PM
I don't think you should use merely before that statement haha.

I believe He interacts with people. That's my personal belief, based on personal experience, so i cna't really argue it.

witahemuii
08-28-2007, 09:14 PM
That's fine, that was all I was really asking for. JoeJustJoe started this thread asking (well, not exactly) about our reactions to God's Children so I'm more interested in personal belief and rational argument than what this thread turned into. So thanks for putting your point across. I'm still positive I don't believe in God, but you've made some really interesting points.

birdman
08-28-2007, 09:38 PM
I think i am too late into this thread to attempt to sway some over to my god, Valis. I worship Valis every sunday while listening to radio free albemuth that preaches about the divine invasion that is fighting the metaphysical presence of bial, satan, i.e. palmer eldritch. With that said, i am going to leave this discussion and go read sand man comics in the library of babel and maybe dream of some circular ruins. or, maybe take a walk towards h, (H of course is the holy mountain), getting there through the garden of forking paths,

or,

lose myself in debauchry, pornography and violence, mr. morrisons the filth-gangbanging lois lane for amusement, for the moment, returning to my animaliaty. insert bataille reference here, though, not from the story of the eye, but from the accursed share, vol 2: segment: object of deisre, totality of the real:
---
It seems to me that the totality of what is (the universe) swallows me (physically), and if it swallows me, or since it swallows me, I can't distinguish myself from it; nothing remains, except this or that, which are less meaningful than this nothing. In a sense, it is unbearable and i seem to be dying. it is at this cost, no doubt, that i am no longer myself, but an infinity in which i am lost...

No doubt this is not entirely true; in fact, on the contrary, never have i been closer to the one who...but'its like an aspiration followed by an expenditure: suddenly the intensity of her desire, which destroys her, terrifes me; she succumbs to it, and then, as if she were retunring from the underworld, i find her again, embrace her...

this too is quite strange: she is no longer the one who prepared meals, washed herself, or bought small articles. She is vast, she is distant like that darkness in which she has trouble breathing, and she is truely the vastness of the universe in her cries, her silences are so truly the emptiness of death, that I embrace her inasmuch as anguish and fever throw me into a place of death, which is the absence of bonds to the universe. But between her and me there is a kind of appeasement which, denoting rebellion and apathy at the same time, eliminate the distance that seperated us from eachother, and the one that seperated us both from the universe.
---
also, witamehul, theoritcially (as in all we have with very early projections of universal creation is theory) the universe can create itself, out of nothing. I had a teacher who was a theoretical physcisits who had worked at los alamos labs who one day sat us down and explained to us how it was possible. I didn't understand it, but I trust his knowledge enough to beleive him.
(the nature of self creaton, being also an unexplored path in Descartes mediations of I think therefore I am. What if the founder of the world, pre-dialectic, was ourself, and had nothing to do with god?) Personal belief: I, we, are god.

(minor question: How do we share time, generationally, time seen as the Kantian self generational type, not strict empirical ejaculating on to blank slate type).

The big question I would ask is how does technology interact with the chaotic system that is the weather in our atmosphere. The role of technolgoy being the domintor, the distractor, creator of our mode of being, what we are doing/taking care of, (side question, is memory responsible for the illusion that is being? true being found in forgetfullness?), which is striving for human survival, (think ishmael and the divison between technical being, the farmer, and the hunter gatherer). As in, the root of the human technolgoical being system is founded upon food production, which is dependent upon the conditions of the globe which is dependent upon a system that is chaotic. The weather shaping the globe shapes us. Obviously. But, how does that effect our actions, what little butterfly in south america just influenced my life, a string of binary commands seaping up into possibility like air out of oil.

In the theater of cruelty, the heart pumps, with every beat, a new universe.

love, to all, light,

birdman

[Edited on 8-29-0707 by birdman]

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 09:45 PM
vague, pain, the world bends at forgotten joints.

Aqualad
08-28-2007, 09:45 PM
in the theatre of arthritis?

witahemuii
08-28-2007, 09:55 PM
Thanks birdman, I agree that it is theoretically possible, although I don't really have the credentials or the belief to back that opinion up. But your discussion of the butterfly effect is important. We did a unit on fractals in my calculus class last year and using the koch snowflake and chaos theory we demonstrated that at each stage the fractal becomes more and more different although still exhibiting self-similarity and even a slight aberration can change it with overwhelming effects. It made me think about the effect our actions have on society and the world around us, everything is connected in frightening ways. Your observations are always welcome and your post reminded me to reread Borges, again.

JoeJustJoe
08-29-2007, 02:21 AM
I'm a Vails Athiest.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-29-2007, 03:55 AM
Stormx:

By what mechanism would the Universe regenerate itself? Even if it did, where would the new energy come from ,since the energy already in the Universe is finite? From outside the Universe? Science doesn't have that. Not saying it won't, but that burden is on you.

Also, what about the math? The Universe would have had to regenerate itself an inifinite number of times, which would have required an infinite amount of time, which means we could never have arrived at this particular time.

witahemuii:

Great question. Why is it more reasonable to assume there is a person outside the Universe creating it than to assume that we just don't really know that much about how this Universe works, right?

Well, the Universe had to have had a begining because of the math bit. In order to regenerate itself or whatever, new energy has to be coming in from somewhere. When you start talking about energy coming in from outside the Universe, or the Universe recharging itself in a way science itself doesn't understand or can't explain, or pre-bang conditions in which causality, physics and reason break down, that starts to look an awful lot like religion.

So, my point from the begining has been, the choice isn't between perfectly reasonable science and ignorant religion, rather multiple religions, each with the things they accept on faith, the things they can't explain and etc.

Mostly, I wanted everyone to see this argument isn't as one sided as was assumed at the outset of this thread. I think when people hear that someone is religious, they picture the Walmart Shopping, Nascar driving, Purpose Driven Life toting, Mega church, 'Merica and Merchendise type. There is still a reasonable discussion to be had about this issue that doesn't involve caricatures.

[Edited on 8-29-0707 by auxiliaryoctopus]

Aqualad
08-29-2007, 06:10 AM
So what scale are we using to call the universe infinitely small?

birdman
08-29-2007, 07:23 AM
Anyone know of Maxwell's demon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon, a theoretical way of getting around the second law of thermodynamics.

karmaregis
08-29-2007, 07:48 AM
I played violin in the church when i was 14, i learned there with the 'pastors'
with 18 i turned atheist
and with 22 i discovered: i'm agnostic
And still plays violin, and acordeon.
Thank you, God.

my english don't allow me discuss more properly as i would, sorry. but birdman, i concour in parts with you. the nature of philosophy, more properly the italian renascentists-preilluminists are fine.

JoeJustJoe
08-29-2007, 11:13 AM
The Miller/Urey Experiment is interesting and certainly could explain how we got here.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

hockywierdo
08-29-2007, 02:25 PM
like we're gonna convince each other we're right and wrong.

go forth into the dark abyss that is internet debate/persuasion.

only persuasion that works for me on the internet is free porn

jkirkpleasant
08-29-2007, 04:07 PM
i haven't commented in this thread yet, but i've been reading it and last night i dreamt i met birdman, who was actually bill doss and we were in hammond, louisiana (where aqualad lives, and where my hometown is)...
speaking of my hometown, there's lots of fundamentalists there so i was pretty skeptical from an early age, because they always freaked me out, but decided that if God or Jesus' teachings, or any religion's teachings were true, they would always be true regardless of the tests i put to them. at this point, i believe that what we call 'God' is something inside us, perhaps akin to consciousness. I don't believe anymore that there is a 'God' outside of us and i definately believe that most religions exist to control people, not necessarily enlighten them. that said, the universe is a big place and i am so very small. the bottom line is that we don't really have the language to describe the spiritual nature of man, though it's fun to delude ourselves into thinking we know something about it. so please don't mind me, continue on...

DaveKent
08-29-2007, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Also, what about the math? The Universe would have had to regenerate itself an inifinite number of times, which would have required an infinite amount of time, which means we could never have arrived at this particular time.

What math, exactly, are you talking about? Are you assuming that there is not an infinite amount of time? If not, are you assuming that it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to pass?

I see no problem with be allowing as a possibility the circumstance that an infinite amount of time has passed before this moment and that an infinite amount of time will pass following this moment.

All of this is assuming that time is linear.

Anyway, your argument also sort of sounds like Zeno's Paradoxes, and there are many, many ways to refute them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradox

birdman
08-29-2007, 09:49 PM
Have any of you ever wondered how the presocratics considerd time? Tried to imagine how they would conceptualize it, measure it. What is the length of the day before the cho cho came chuggaling along with time standardizations and clocks in every city. For them, did a cloudy day take more time than a sunny day, the unfortuante event of having to work overtime, "forman, your sundial must be off, the misses wishes me home, or time to lather up and wrestle, or i am going to play politics with some strapping 14 year old lads."

I think Zeno's paradox is in many way's responsbile for helping us to reach conceptions of contemporay time. The continual breaking down and breaking down of movements, attempting to get to the present. The hour, the minute, the second, etc. Though, statments of particular time, call forth Hegel as well as Husserl: the evolving this, the specious present, pushing it's self forward with a minor taste of fading away.

Time must be linear, right, for what then of our memories and our events. Are our memories non-linear, is my mind more like a fun house then a line. Smoke and mirrors that projet my future, me at age 4, and my past, me at 60, with the most fantastic orchestra playing the perfect audio track. The editing is flawless.

The problems with physics is that physicists are generally not philosophers, and the problem with philosphers is that philosophers are genearlly not physicists. One one end we have the physcis rushing ahead, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, chaos and string theory. On the other, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant whom in his critique of pure reason divorces us from all attempts at touching directly empirical reality (the reality that is the subject of physics), Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc.

For example, a deeply perplexing issue between physics and being; Kant rests the foundation of understanding upon receptivity. This receptivity is then divided into space and time (extensive and intensive magnitudes), and then is categroized nicely with the help of the imagination. Meaning that we know the universe as we know it, not as it is. The dilema with this is the receptivity, how receptive is our mind to things within the universe. For example, what sexual position are the neigbhors in next door to make such a racket. I can hear them, but i can't see them. Physcially, do they exist, exist in the world that my mind categorically makes. How far does my reception stand. Does the universe exist categorically as its completed entity, my mind strecthing from the smallest scratches on the smallest rocks to the most distant dark places of the galaxy? Into the testes and beating heart? Or, does the universe like to play schrodingers cat, fading away as soon as i look away? What is behidn the wall, nothing, god knows where those noises are coming from.

Aqualad
08-29-2007, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by jkirkpleasant
i haven't commented in this thread yet, but i've been reading it and last night i dreamt i met birdman, who was actually bill doss and we were in hammond, louisiana (where aqualad lives, and where my hometown is)...
speaking of my hometown, there's lots of fundamentalists there so i was pretty skeptical from an early age, because they always freaked me out, but decided that if God or Jesus' teachings, or any religion's teachings were true, they would always be true regardless of the tests i put to them. at this point, i believe that what we call 'God' is something inside us, perhaps akin to consciousness. I don't believe anymore that there is a 'God' outside of us and i definately believe that most religions exist to control people, not necessarily enlighten them. that said, the universe is a big place and i am so very small. the bottom line is that we don't really have the language to describe the spiritual nature of man, though it's fun to delude ourselves into thinking we know something about it. so please don't mind me, continue on...

I think "religion" as it is taught today is definitely used to control people. Not always on purpose, but people are prone to follow someone who seems to know what's going on or promises financial blessings and such. The early church as read in the New Testament seems completely unrelated to what we have today. Back then they didn't meet in huge buildings, but in homes. There was less of an influence of a pastor. Rather, a few different people would offer their thoughts or song and such each time they met. Even keeping the sunday as sabbath was accepted as part of the old law and not vital. Paul also warned about denominations.
So the Christian church is hardly what it once was.

A thought, though. Perhaps it is not that God only exists inside of us, but that that is the only place he reveals himself?

auxiliaryoctopus
08-30-2007, 03:44 AM
It's not the same as Zeno's. Those have to do with an infinite number of divisions. Time is linear. Things happen before other things.

DaveKent
08-30-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
It's not the same as Zeno's. Those have to do with an infinite number of divisions. Time is linear. Things happen before other things.

So where's the problem? Are you saying it's impossible for an infinite amount of time to have passed before this moment?

auxiliaryoctopus
08-30-2007, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by DaveKent


So where's the problem? Are you saying it's impossible for an infinite amount of time to have passed before this moment?

Yep. It's impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time by definition.

Aqualad
08-30-2007, 02:51 PM
if space is not infinite, why suppose time is?

DaveKent
08-30-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Originally posted by DaveKent


So where's the problem? Are you saying it's impossible for an infinite amount of time to have passed before this moment?

Yep. It's impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time by definition.

By what definition? The definition of time? The dictionary definition, or the physics definition? Could you type it out?

I'm not sure that you even know what you're trying to argue. I don't know either, but you haven't given an argument based on math or physics; you've simply stated that there is one.

All this time/space/beginning of the universe stuff is still an open question in physics, and you can't use it to refute itself and thus affirm the existence of a divine power or the truth of the bible. Sometimes, we just don't know things yet, or maybe ever, and there isn't anymore to it. I don't know who my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother was, and I'm certain that it would be impossible to figure out with the information presently available. That doesn't mean, however, that I didn't have a great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, or that she was a divine being.

Have you taken any advanced physics or philosophy courses? I haven't, and I don't know very much about this stuff, but I'm going to guess that you haven't either, since you stated that the second law of thermodynamics involves destroying energy. Don't go around spouting these things like you know what you're talking about. Give a different argument.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-30-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by DaveKent

By what definition? The definition of time? The dictionary definition, or the physics definition? Could you type it out?


By the defintion of infinite, which I understand to mean: "without end." Please correct me if I'm wrong.



I'm not sure that you even know what you're trying to argue. I don't know either, but you haven't given an argument based on math or physics; you've simply stated that there is one.

All this time/space/beginning of the universe stuff is still an open question in physics, and you can't use it to refute itself and thus affirm the existence of a divine power or the truth of the bible. Sometimes, we just don't know things yet, or maybe ever, and there isn't anymore to it. I don't know who my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother was, and I'm certain that it would be impossible to figure out with the information presently available. That doesn't mean, however, that I didn't have a great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, or that she was a divine being.

Have you taken any advanced physics or philosophy courses? I haven't, and I don't know very much about this stuff, but I'm going to guess that you haven't either, since you stated that the second law of thermodynamics involves destroying energy. Don't go around spouting these things like you know what you're talking about. Give a different argument.

Well, you'd guess wrong. I took plenty of advanced philo courses, and a couple physics. Either way, that's an invalid appeal to authority.

I don't know why you think I don't know what I'm talking about. I never said 2nd law of thermo-dynamics entails the destruction of energy. It does entail the practical destruction of energy. If there's a practical difference between destroying energy and spreading a finite amount of energy over an infinite space, I'd like to hear it.

That's fine if you admit that you don't know about the start of the Universe. I don't know exactly how it worked either. I've been mainly addressing those who, at the begginning of all this, were acting like they had it all figured out, unlike those ignorant people who accept things on faith...

Argument:

1.) An infinite amount (aleph null set) cannot be traversed by successive addition or subtraction

2.) An A Universe without a beginning implies an infinite amount of time before this particular time

3.) An infinite amount of time cannot have already been traversed.

therefore,

4.) the Universe must have had a beginning

funeralpudding
08-30-2007, 03:27 PM
auxillaryoctopus: I like how you have it both ways with infinity, saying the universe couldn't have existed forever, but then hypocritically saying your deity exists outside of all known laws of physics (although interesting how "he" keeps having these human emotions and dramas).

You said "It's impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time"... wouldn't this also be true about your god? Oh yeah, he can do anything, like Superman.

You want to make the conversation abstract, as if that has anything to do with organized religion, but the fact is a lot of people in this country are still stupid enough to believe the world is only 10,000 years old, so don't act like science is on religion's side.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-30-2007, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding
auxillaryoctopus: I like how you have it both ways with infinity, saying the universe couldn't have existed forever, but then hypocritically saying your deity exists outside of all known laws of physics (although interesting how "he" keeps having these human emotions and dramas).

You said "It's impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time"... wouldn't this also be true about your god? Oh yeah, he can do anything, like Superman.


Well, you know how I deal with the time thing already. You might not like it, because it appeals to something by definition supernatural, but there it is.

But, let's talk about how you deal with it.

funeralpudding
08-30-2007, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

But, let's talk about how you deal with it.

Not with deities.

narashinga
08-30-2007, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by hockywierdo
im agree with everyone elses whose telling you evolution is possible and probably happend. i believe in it and im catholic.
the days that God made the earth was the time in which it was possible for evolution, no one truely knows how long those days actually were.

Could these actually be some lost words of Jack Kerouac???
Would he???

birdman
08-30-2007, 08:02 PM
I think a big trip up in this discussion is the mind-world dichotomy.

Here's how it works.

Aristotle comes along. He places the mind and the world as essential things. He seperates the two, mind is seperate from world, and he places time beneath them. his conception of time is a measurable time. The zeno's paradox of time, it can be divided continually. The placing of time is a bad ontologial move on Aristotles part (though, aristotle isn't known for his ontological theories, he's known for his logic, so its understandable). This placement of mind and the world becomes the dominate view point of ontolgoy, really messing up conceptions of being. Aristotle's theory pushes aside Democritus and the Atomists (to wait two thousand some years for the 20th century to catch up: Lucretius's On the Nature of Things explains atoms very nicely:http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=785).

There's the dark ages, Aristotle becomes THE PHILOSPHER, read by eveyone, and he and Plato become major contributions to the foundation of Christianity. Hence, the belief today still of mind and the world. As in, we exist in a seperate space with time flowing through it. Aristotles outdated perspective.(Augustine will come into a dilema of time as he tries to find the moment in time: book 11 in his confessions is a fabulous exploration of time: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/Pusey/book11 ).

Philosophy is dictated until the 1500 hundreds by this Aristotelian/Platonic perspective (their works the only thing that can be taught/read, other thought lost, forgotten, lack of translations from the Arabs (who at one point confused Aristotle and Plato and spent a large amount of time trying to think through the natural contradictions between the two writers). Descartes comes along and breaks the age of scholastic philosophy (Descartes being an influence on Newton (Newton who develops the Calcus along with Leibniz (who is also known for his metaphysical entity the monad, an atom like entity where if you know one monad the rest of the universe can be known: http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm). Descartes obviously known most for the I think therefore I am (http://www.filepedia.org/node/3). He roots existence on God, because he has an ideal of a perfection that he does not live. Sine he can think of God, these thoughts generally being absolute perfection, God must exist. An argument that leaves some wanting. Descartes stumbels upon being, essential being with the I think therefore I am, though, so closley alined to the thought of the medieval ages, can't leave God behind. God must exist.

Thought progresses from this point on.

The next super important development in thought comes from the interaction between David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Hume pulls out the rug beneath us. If your into physics you should really read Hume (http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html). He denies cause and effect, citing custom of experience. Asking questions like how do we know one billard ball hitting the other causes the one to move in reaction? His work awakens Kant, who is the really essential figure in this dialogue. Read the section on the Transcendental Aesthetic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_pure_reason.

Kant's work is the destruction (so to speak) of the external world. Again, the world that physics depends upon. IN OUR DISCUSSION OF SPACE AND TIME, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSION NATURE IN ITS SELF, WE ARE DISCUSSING THE TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC. From Kant, space and time have nothing to do with Deities or Nature, but completly with our self and our intuitions. Space and time exist as magnitudes ranging from above zero to the infinite; hence the ability to make statments like time is of an infinite nature, or detractable into smaller and smaller increments, except zero. If time were to end, obviously, so would we. WHY ARISTOTLIAN ONTOLOGY HAS TO BE OVERTHROWN. The necessity of placing time back into an essential place.

After Kant, there is an equally frustrating thinker. Hegel is trying to go beyond Kant. He is writing at the fall of Nepolean and the very beginning of the the industrial revolution. His work is ignored by the analytics in the beginning of the 20th century (the analytics being philosophers from England and America) and has a heavy influence on Marx, and in France around the Time of Bataille, Sartre. If your're into psycho-analysis he's a big influence on Lacan and the mirror stage (another crucial element in this discussion of the world). Hegel snakes his way by using negation. His work on being revloves around the Spirit, (society). To have self-consciousness one must interact with an other. One cannot have self consciousness until one does interat with an other (Lacan's mirror stage being the time when a child learns to abstract from the image of itself in the mirror to the realization that the image is itself). Consciousness first emerge as everything, everywhere. Through interactions with other consciousness, consciousness become a self consciousness. Which, later gets a consciousness of its own. THE NECESSITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN DISCUSSION OF THINGS, I.E. GOD, PHYSCIAL REALITY, WE STAND MUCH LATER IN THE DISCUSSION THEN WE GENERALLY ARE AWARE OF.

Now, we can move to the 20th century. At the beginning you have alot of stuff going on. War, Realtivity, and Wittgenstein and Heidegger.

Wittgenstein, i am going to leave aside. Though, post the major points in the Tractatus:
1. The world is everything that is the case.
2.What is the case (a fact) is the existence of atomic states of affairs. (translated differently in other works)
3.A thought is a logical picture of a fact.
4.A thought is a proposition with sense.
5.A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
6.The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function, which is: ( Wittgenstein's logic symbols don't show up in this format).
7.What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Heidegger is a student of Husserl (Husserl writes a book on time, the Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness). Heidegger writes a book, Being and Time (a title very appropiate for this current discussion) with a goal to overthrow Aristotle and Plato. He feels that western philosophy has gotten off to the wrong foot, asking the wrong questions, because of those two. that we have to return to the work of the pre-socratics. In his book, he uses the concept Da-Sein, (german for being there) and sets out exploring being. He sees being driven by having to take care of things and that what he is taking care of comes to shape his mode of being. Our being as we exist, and how we exist, not as being essential but as being in work. Our beings come to understand eachother by the sharing of things, bus rides, train rides, this forum, etc. There's more, but i haven't read all of Being and time, and its Being and Time.

And this is sort of where I end.

Our conceptions of time and space are stuck in these Aristotelian Socratic Christian Frameworks. We tend to think in the mind as indiviudal, seperate, losing site of the connectedness, the inabilty to degrade ourselves into consciousness total again. We tend to believe that the world is as it appears, that we are in strick contact with things in them selves. Custom and habit blinding us to acctualities. The pool ball moves, not becuase another ball hits it, etc. Philp K Dick has this description of reality that is rather fantastic, describing us as information hubs that have continual streams of data hubs pouriing inforamation into us. Minds decoding the code, and projecting the images onto the screen.

Hope you enjoyed your slight history of western thought.

birdman.

DaveKent
08-30-2007, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
I've been mainly addressing those who, at the begginning of all this, were acting like they had it all figured out, unlike those ignorant people who accept things on faith...

Argument:

1.) An infinite amount (aleph null set) cannot be traversed by successive addition or subtraction

2.) An A Universe without a beginning implies an infinite amount of time before this particular time

3.) An infinite amount of time cannot have already been traversed.

therefore,

4.) the Universe must have had a beginning

To the first part: Okay, I understand that, and I would agree that there were silly absolute arguments coming from both sides.

To the second part: Okay, although I wouldn't agree that the set of time is as small as aleph null, unless we're quantizing it here. ;) I guess that my feeling requires just as much faith as yours, but mine isn't in an intelligent deity or something that I see as fundamentally unexplainable. Agree to disagree!

theaddingmachine
08-30-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by DaveKent
I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the US, uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for our children

DaveKent
08-30-2007, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by theaddingmachine

Originally posted by DaveKent
I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the US should help the US, uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for our children

I'm gonna punch you.

pinocchio
08-30-2007, 09:28 PM
i've got an idea! kill this thread. it sucks. there is no god, as any of you who believe in god, see it to be. sorry. check your head. this world would be a lot better off without your religion that even todayou can't let go of. wake up. oh shit, did i just say that while god was watching me...

ps - you know who i feel the worst for? the people who wake up on sunday morning to go to church. oh man i love sleeping in on sunday, cuddling, drinking oj, learning about REALITY in your spare time...imagine that...

peace be with you. shalom.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-31-2007, 04:03 AM
Best argument yet: God doesn't exist because I like sleeping in and drinking orange juice.


Originally posted by funeralpudding

Not with deities.

Right!

Look, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone here. I'm just defending my worldview.

The beginning of the Universe is poorly understood right now. The Atheist concept of an eternally self-existant or self-generated Universe is at odds with some fundamental principles of physics and causality. This does not mean that science will never be able to explain some of these things. You may have faith that science will eventually solve these problems. If you have solved them, please contact your local university, because you will be famous.

As a result, Atheists do not have a right to act so cavalier about their understanding of things. Of course, if you didn't think you were right, you wouldn't believe what you believe. So, okay, believe what you believe. That doesn't make everyone else "feeble-minded."

That's all I want to say about this matter. I'm tired of being "that religious dude" who gets on everyone's nerves. I'll just be Justin now.

JoeJustJoe
08-31-2007, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

As a result, Atheists do not have a right to act so cavalier about their understanding of things. Of course, if you didn't think you were right, you wouldn't believe what you believe. So, okay, believe what you believe. That doesn't make everyone else "feeble-minded."



Well, we don't believe in fairy tales.

auxiliaryoctopus
08-31-2007, 04:38 AM
Nope, you just believe that everything sprang from nothing for no reason in a way you can't explain.

JoeJustJoe
08-31-2007, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
The Miller/Urey Experiment is interesting and certainly could explain how we got here.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Read this. We didn't spring from nothing.

DaveKent
08-31-2007, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
The Miller/Urey Experiment is interesting and certainly could explain how we got here.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Read this. We didn't spring from nothing.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the universe as a whole, not about life.

Aqualad
08-31-2007, 02:30 PM
hey i liked birdman's stuff. it was interesting. I think it's interesting that without space and time there can be no separation of consciousness. The ability to be independent requires both in order to exist at all. Try to imagine two consciousnesses meeting when space doesn't exist. The best we can do is two people floating around in a void. We can say we're all part of some larger consciousness, but inevitably the ability to separate us from that consciousness is drawn from the presence of space. Time is, of course, important to, because there would never be a moment when two people meet up without time, for the moment would be infinite. Time has limits, or else the universe exists right now infinitely. And we know this moment is not infinite except in a being who can contain that moment in its head infinitely.

uncle eggma
08-31-2007, 02:50 PM
the other day i saw a bumper sticker that said "on the 8th day God created bagpipes". that was pretty funny.

jkirkpleasant
08-31-2007, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Aqualad
hey i liked birdman's stuff. it was interesting. I think it's interesting that without space and time there can be no separation of consciousness. The ability to be independent requires both in order to exist at all. Try to imagine two consciousnesses meeting when space doesn't exist. The best we can do is two people floating around in a void. We can say we're all part of some larger consciousness, but inevitably the ability to separate us from that consciousness is drawn from the presence of space. Time is, of course, important to, because there would never be a moment when two people meet up without time, for the moment would be infinite. Time has limits, or else the universe exists right now infinitely. And we know this moment is not infinite except in a being who can contain that moment in its head infinitely.

it seems to me there is some confusion regarding the difference between infinity and eternity. infinity is far greater and beyond what any of us could discuss on this board, whereas eternity is an easier concept to conceptualize because it is based within the life of our own universe. another difference in my opinion is there is a consensus that time is linear and it is, for us, in this dimension. however, on another universe in another dimension, time would be completely different because it would revolve around it's own unique star system. we are confined within the conscious perspective of our own universe unwittingly and could never conceive of the reality within the confines of another universe, even one within telescopic sight of us. we also don't 'float around in a void' because on this planet all human beings are connected through an axiatonal grid system.
here is a quote from one of my favorite books: 'esoteric acupuncture - gateway to expanded healing vol.1' by mikio sankey:

"There exists a massive interconnected gridwork pattern, or systematized Qi flow, throughout the entire solar system connecting all of the stars and planets together throughout our universe. This interconnectedness extends to other solar systems outside of our universe. Some of these pathways are major energy links which have very strong frequencies, while others are weaker energy pathways. This is similar to the Qi flow of the acupuncture meridians in our body. The major meridians are utilized more frequently and carry more Qi than the other connecting pathways or minor acupuncture channels. From the interconnectedness of the tiniest subatomic particles to the largest super novas, there are energy pathways, or a massive Qi flow networking system, linking everything to everything else. And these connecting pathways follow some universal order."
i don't want to go on and bore anyone with endless quotes and ponderings.

funeralpudding
08-31-2007, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Look, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone here. I'm just defending my worldview.

I would say "fair enough", but most religion is designed to convert. And, normally, as long as you aren't hurting other people I could care fuck all what anybody believed in. But religion is hurting a lot of people. All the good it does is completely negated in my mind by its use as justification of murder.

You're looking for answers to our greatest mysteries, we all are. Some of us are willing to accept we don't have all the answers about the universe right now (although our knowledge has come a long way from our place in the center of it a few hundred years ago). Others are willing to believe in a creator. The majority of people are willing to believe this creator told fellow stupid humans how to live their lives thousands of years ago, and that after several oral generations the words were written down and then translated several times, to be followed to the letter. And I'm sorry, but I can't get over the fact that the majority of people in this country believe in the New Testament also, considering the facts behind it. Sadly, most Christians think the Books were written by the Apostles themselves. They were in fact written many decades after Jesus's supposed death, and decided upon by committee for the purpose of creating a religion. If the stories of the life of Jesus were true, why didn't this religion spring to life during his lifetime or immediately after his supposed resurrection from the dead?

You keep wanting to make the conversation abstract, but the truth about religion is its blind loyalty to these kinds of words.

tomatoesandradiowires
08-31-2007, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by funeralpudding
But religion is hurting a lot of people.

Religion doesn't hurt people.
People hurt people.


Also sharks.

Stormx
08-31-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires

Originally posted by funeralpudding
But religion is hurting a lot of people.

Religion doesn't hurt people.
People hurt people.


Also sharks.

lol.

But seriously. Israel, crusades, dumb republican christian ideology, radical islam, etc etc etc

Aqualad
08-31-2007, 05:30 PM
I'd say the neoconservative ideology is in no way connnected with anything really religious except to woo christians. Their political stance for preemptive war and such is totally unchristian.


Originally posted by funeralpudding

Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Look, I'm not trying to "convert" anyone here. I'm just defending my worldview.

I would say "fair enough", but most religion is designed to convert. And, normally, as long as you aren't hurting other people I could care fuck all what anybody believed in. But religion is hurting a lot of people. All the good it does is completely negated in my mind by its use as justification of murder.

You're looking for answers to our greatest mysteries, we all are. Some of us are willing to accept we don't have all the answers about the universe right now (although our knowledge has come a long way from our place in the center of it a few hundred years ago). Others are willing to believe in a creator. The majority of people are willing to believe this creator told fellow stupid humans how to live their lives thousands of years ago, and that after several oral generations the words were written down and then translated several times, to be followed to the letter. And I'm sorry, but I can't get over the fact that the majority of people in this country believe in the New Testament also, considering the facts behind it. Sadly, most Christians think the Books were written by the Apostles themselves. They were in fact written many decades after Jesus's supposed death, and decided upon by committee for the purpose of creating a religion. If the stories of the life of Jesus were true, why didn't this religion spring to life during his lifetime or immediately after his supposed resurrection from the dead?

You keep wanting to make the conversation abstract, but the truth about religion is its blind loyalty to these kinds of words.

Many people believe our knowledge is limited and believe in a Creator. The two ideas aren't at war.

And the gospels were written by the people they represent. I believe it was at the council of nicaea you are referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea. The explanation seems pretty simple. They were only consolidating what was already believed. Churches were around, but they didn't have a unified doctrine, and this was an attempt to do so. The belief in Jesus did spring up directly after Jesus' resurrection and such. Obviously it wasn't grossly distorted liken today's church is and obviously there was a whole lotta persecution going on, so it's understandable there wasn't the same sort of publicity that there is today. Really it exploded. The first time Peter spoke 3000 people accepted his message (Just after the 120 met in acts). Paul wrote two thirds of the Bible, yes. Acts was a documentation of all the early believers did(well probably not all).

Of course you could be talking about the council of trent, but that would harldy matter to a religion already 1500 years in the making.