Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Philosopher1701 on October 29, 2005, 11:17:20 pm
-
Do you believe in "God"?
-
I don't believe in "faith"...
-
Yes.
-
I only believe in things which have a rational basis.
P.S. Do you want to make this a poll?
-
Do you believe in "God"?
Why do you ask?
-
To keep it extremely short:
No.
-
Go ahead, GrayLensman.
-
Yes I do believe in God. I also believe that Allah and God are one in the same.
-
"God" is generic.
"God" can be anything from Zeus to Brahma to Mother Earth to Allah to Yahweh.
"God" is any form of a supernatural entity.
-
I believe in God, but I can't say that I put myself in any sort of religion or particular faith. I don't like religion but yea I do believe in god or some higher consciousness, whatever that may be. I think it's foolish to assume anything too much, and what can you really assume about something like god or a lack of god anyway?
-
"God" is generic.
"God" can be anything from Zeus to Brahma to Mother Earth to Allah to Yahweh.
"God" is any form of a supernatural entity.
In that case, yes.
-
Yes I do believe in God. I also believe that Allah and God are one in the same.
How many times do I have to tell you, Allah is just the arabic word for God!
And yes...I believe in it, and strangely enough, due to scientific facts
-
I do believe in God.
-
Yes I do believe in God. I also believe that Allah and God are one in the same.
How many times do I have to tell you, Allah is just the arabic word for God!
And yes...I believe in it, and strangely enough, due to scientific facts
Well one of the five pillars of Islam states that:
There is no God, only Allah.
-
I believe that there's just as much reason for me to believe in (a) god(dess[es]/s) as there is for me not to. But my highest belief is that believing or not believing in said w/e won't matter so it's best not to worry myself over such trivial matters.
-
I believe in God of the Bible.
and that about it. o.o
-
The Christian God, the Jewish God, and the Muslim God are all the same, its just that the religions have a different take on his "prophets", and differences on things about God. For example, Christians believe that the prophets in the Old Testiment are really prophets of God, yet neither Jews or Muslims believe Jesus is the Son of God. However, Muslims do acknowledge (to my knowledge) that Jesus was a prophet of God. The take on Jesus is just one of many areas where the three religions vary. But when you get back down it, they all believe in the God of Abraham.
-
Go ahead, GrayLensman.
I meant for you to do it by editing your first post.
-
I believe in God and Fate.
-
Deleted by Moderator: Off-Topic
-
Yes I do believe in God. I also believe that Allah and God are one in the same.
How many times do I have to tell you, Allah is just the arabic word for God!
And yes...I believe in it, and strangely enough, due to scientific facts
Well one of the five pillars of Islam states that:
There is no God, only Allah.
Sentenal is spot on. What it is supposed to say, "there is not god BUT allah" It means that THAT certain god is the right and only god. He has no partners. Or child. So pretty much, The Abrahamic God is the only God, creator, sustainer and destroyer of the Universe....
I like pie
-
I believe that the universe and therefore, nature, is an ordered system, but I do not feel the need to personify that order.
-
Kind of a low turnout on the "poll" part of this thread. Lots of responses addressing it, but actual votes is low.
-
Kind of a low turnout on the "poll" part of this thread. Lots of responses addressing it, but actual votes is low.
The poll was added late. Most people haven't seen it yet.
-
Yeah, sorry about that. :roll:
-
Deleted by Moderator: Off-Topic
-
I need more proof to be a believer. And also, I would never be a Christian again.
-
Deleted by Moderator: Off-Topic
-
I need more proof to be a believer. And also, I would never be a Christian again.
Well, yeah...once you leave a religion you normally dont go back. If i left my religion (hopefully i wont be killed. ha ha ! ...) i would become atheist, because to leave my religion id have to stop believing in God, not just THE god. Then after atheism buddhism
-
I believe in potato chips
they are tasty ;~
Why did you say?
Same reason I didn't
But you did say that.
Did I?
yes.
Oh... is that so...
Yes, that is so.
Nested quotes are disruptive. Don't do this again.[/i]
-
I'm a believer, but not in the god discribed of the christianity. There are to many unclear things about this god. The katholic church for example used this god to make people buy a letter of indulgence. Jehova's witnesses say his son will kill us all(donno if they see Jesus as a god). Satanist think they can become gods themselves.
What I want to say is, there are many different ways of believing in a different or the same god.
God is always some kind of superior entity, that's why I think nature is a big part of what we call god, because nature is everything and everywhere, it causes life and death, day and night, water and fire etc.
Oh another "prolly stupid" question, is Jesus, the son of god, a "real" god, too? Hercules for example is(or was?) a halfgod, because his father Zeus is a god and his biologic mother a human. Jesus' father was God, but as far as I know Maria didn't ve sex with god, that's why she isn't part of his DNA(she just birth the seed of god). So he should be a "whole" god, but if he is, and we are not supposed to have another god, what are we supposed to believe then?
I am confused...someone might want to explain it to me? I never asked my priest...
And yes, I believe in something like a god.
-
I guess you ment Mary...
The difference between Jesus, the Son of God, and a mythical figure like Hercules is that Zeus screwed the woman, and passed his seed for his son. With Jesus, its actually God being "born" as a human. The Holy Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Unless you are Morman, the Holy Trinity are all the same God. So, Father=Son=Spirit. But they are difference as well. Its confusing. I guess you could say that the Holy Spirit and the Son are difference encarnations of the Father.
-
I guess you ment Mary...
The difference between Jesus, the Son of God, and a mythical figure like Hercules is that Zeus screwed the woman, and passed his seed for his son. With Jesus, its actually God being "born" as a human. The Holy Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Unless you are Morman, the Holy Trinity are all the same God. So, Father=Son=Spirit. But they are difference as well. Its confusing. I guess you could say that the Holy Spirit and the Son are difference encarnations of the Father.
That brings up something I never quite got about Christianity. Jesus says that he is the son of God, and also God. That seems like a paradox to me, but it's not really what my question is. Jesus is said to have cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" when he was executed. If he was God, what possible line of reasoning could lead to that question? The only logical reason to ask that question would be if Jesus was not in fact the same as God, else he would know his own will. That sentance may be a bit awkward, but I think you know what I'm getting at.
-
The holy trinity...yeah i think i remember that a bit.
Well TX i knew i should've listend in religion(and english) at school and sry that i donno the english names or terms.
I never saw a different in the Gods, other religions have many where others ve one, but its not a differents. The Greeks had alot, for nearly everything another one, and christianity has one for nearly everything. There is no reason for everything...anyways TX again u made my day :)
-
That brings up something I never quite got about Christianity. Jesus says that he is the son of God, and also God. That seems like a paradox to me, but it's not really what my question is. Jesus is said to have cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" when he was executed. If he was God, what possible line of reasoning could lead to that question? The only logical reason to ask that question would be if Jesus was not in fact the same as God, else he would know his own will. That sentance may be a bit awkward, but I think you know what I'm getting at.
Try this link (http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/psalm22.htm). Not necessarily that un-confusing either, but it was a near-top hit on google. =D
Basically the gist of it is that Jesus is mirroring earlier scripture, not calling out for his own sake, or own belief. Now that in itself proves nothing more than he's trying to fufill existing prophecy, but the fact that he dies MOMENTS afterwards (as is foretold), IS the "miraculous" part, in that he chose his own time to die. The statement "why have you forsaken me" is just so that those present realize what he is referring to.
-
That's the nice thing about Mormonism. They have non-confusing answers to questions that most the rest of Christianity just ignore and call 'confusing'.
They explain what happened before this life, the whole 'plan' and whatnot, that the purpose of us coming down here is not to become perfect servants of a selfish God, but to be given a full share of glory our God was given, and that Jesus was God's first son who would carry out this 'plan', and suffer for our sins so we wouldn't have to, thereby opening the way for us to become perfect as our own God. It's a good answer, totally fulfills the 'purpose of religion', as far as I believe.
Other Christians call it blasphemous. I say it makes sense; if you're gonna believe 'theories of life', might as well believe the theories that make the most sense and come with the most complete set of answers. :roll:
-
Mormonism basically takes Christianity, and with one book, reintruptes the entire thing to something completely different from what it earlyer was. Its absurd, and thats why its such a small religious sect in the US.
And Jesus was reciting a Psalm, RD.
-
Nested quotes are disruptive. Don't do this again.[/i]
OK
-
Nested quotes are disruptive. Don't do this again.[/i]
OK
I'd have given you a million points if you'd have quoted his entire message.
Anyhow, this topic really took a turn into the bizarre, although anyone could have seen it coming given the subject matter. The topic creator didn't reply to my question--I was curious, before I answered his topic question, as to why he was asking--but since I guess he's not going to reply, I may as well just throw in my two cents to help bring things back on track a bit:
I am a big question mark when it comes to God. It's called agnosticism: I do not claim to believe in a God, but neither do I claim to believe that no such God exists. I don't know either way, although I would urge everyone not to mistake the absence of an opinion as siding more closely with one faction or the other.
However, I flat-out reject the Christian god and the Muslim god--which, as we've seen, are one and the same--as well as the gods of any other religion I've ever come across, including the representation in many religions of the divine as a force without personified form. Not wanting to draw any believers of the world's religions into a scuffle, I don't need to elaborate on my opinion here, but to anyone who reads my posts, I think my views are pretty clear by this point anyway.
~ Josh (posting from Officeland)
-
That brings up something I never quite got about Christianity. Jesus says that he is the son of God, and also God. That seems like a paradox to me, but it's not really what my question is. Jesus is said to have cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" when he was executed. If he was God, what possible line of reasoning could lead to that question? The only logical reason to ask that question would be if Jesus was not in fact the same as God, else he would know his own will. That sentance may be a bit awkward, but I think you know what I'm getting at.
Try this link (http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/psalm22.htm). Not necessarily that un-confusing either, but it was a near-top hit on google. =D
Basically the gist of it is that Jesus is mirroring earlier scripture, not calling out for his own sake, or own belief. Now that in itself proves nothing more than he's trying to fufill existing prophecy, but the fact that he dies MOMENTS afterwards (as is foretold), IS the "miraculous" part, in that he chose his own time to die. The statement "why have you forsaken me" is just so that those present realize what he is referring to.
Well how bout that? The "Look at the context!" answer was right for once. Thanks for the link.
-
Mormonism basically takes Christianity, and with one book, reintruptes the entire thing to something completely different from what it earlyer was.
Actually it's more of a combination of all Christianity, with a few things changed, a couple things deleted, and A LOT added, but a good part of Mormonism is like other Christian beliefs. There's just so much more substance to Mormonism than any other form of Christianity, but there's also alot more forced involvement, being it's biggest problem to me, but that also fits along with its teachings perfectly, so...*shrug*
Its absurd, and thats why its such a small religious sect in the US.
Mormonism is not only now one of the bigger sects of Christianity outside of the US (more than 12 million members worldwide), but it's also still the fastest growing religion in the world AND the USA, and has been for several decades. And most USA converts come from other Christian religions.
Oh, and actually there are three new books in Mormonism, not just one. One is the well-known-and-highly-criticized Book of Mormon, supposedly an ancient American testament of Jesus Christ being the son of god, resurrected and yada yada, the Doctrine & Covenants, which contain modern-day revelations to the prophets from God that reveal more of the 'Law of Christ' and help make members 'better people', and the Pearl of Great Price, which contains things taken out of the original Old Testament through alot of mistranslations, corruption and stuff, revealed by revelation to the prophets from God.
As I said, Mormonism offers way more substance than any other Christian religion, and probably any religion out there, I suppose. You can outright disagree with the Mormon church, call it Satans church or whatever, but it deserves respect, it's a damn good, loaded-to-the-brim church, and it's rate of growth only backs that up.
There, I hope someone learned something from all that, whether you agree or not.
-
I'm not going to join the Mormonism discussion, for I know nothing of it. But I do have this to say, Mormonism isn't the fastest growing religion, Islam is. Also, don't believe bible.ca, they are fully bully (bullshit).
-
Sorry, wrong.
The LDS Church as more than 12 million followers. More than doubling in the past quarter centery. Wow, what can stop them! Hardly. The LDS Church puts out those numbers.
They are not the fast growing. Seventh-Day Adventist, Assembles of God, and Pentecostal groups have grown much faster in more places around the world.
But then agian, those are numbers put forth by the respective churchs, so who am I to disbelieve the Mormons, but believe them? Regardless, if we accept all the posted numbers of religious growth, Mormonism is not the fastest growing. It will never be a major religion.
Now, lets take a survey that wasn't handled by the LDS Church. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, and guess what? The LDS Church lost just as many people as it gained.
If we take the substance of the LDS church, everything removed/add/changed is just pissing on the bible! It is dependant on the fact that the Bible had somehow been corrupted, and now God is trying to fix things. For this, like I have said previously, the Bible here is "innocent" until proven "guilty" here. You prove it has been corrupted, and maybe I might look at Mormons with something other than pity.
-
I'm more likely to believe someone who actually has a complete database of member info, which is actively updated, than some organization who's making a survey that ends up being far from complete to merit as much credit. I never put much trust in surveys. Honestly, how many of these surveys that have been produced by all these thousands of groups have YOU participated in? I haven't participated in almost any myself, I dunno about you.
And it's not just the church who call themselves the fastest growing, even major media groups acknowledge it. For example: Time magazine (a popular source for making the church look like crap) and CNN. I witnessed these facts being presented by these groups myself. Sure, these are similar surveys to those compiled by all the others, but I'm ever-so-slightly more willing to believe surveys compiled by people who have already been through all the schooling and are getting paid rather decently to do so correctly.
And in either case, you can prove the bible is true just as easily as the LDS church can prove all its books are. The difference is three were organzied and produced by a few people within the past two centurys, while one was organized and produced by tons of people thousands of years ago, but they're both based on claims of being material given by God. They all have 'prophecies' that have 'come true'. I'll probably keep saying this until the day I die, but it's all based on faith, which is why I'll never agree with any of these theories and beliefs again, unless I get more than faith to back them up.
-
Do you have any idea how childish you just sounded? "Nooo, I don't want to believe anything that differs from my beliefs...! It is wrong!!" You would basically rather a biased source than a neutral one if the biased one suits your tastes. FACT: The numbers for growth the LDS Church puts out is less than the numbers those others put out. I don't care how much you disagree, it doesn't change facts.
And unlike you, I'm not saying that the books added for the Mormon Church have been "corrupted." There is a difference between disagreeing with the material, and said it was made up, and simply saying that the material is a forgery, which is what you are saying.
-
I don't care how much you disagree, it doesn't change facts.
Oh, Sentenal, I wish you could see the look on my face! It's kinda like: ^_^
Sometimes I seriously wonder if you Republicans get together in secret every night just to laugh your asses off at us dumbfounded liberals who scratch our heads that you guys can flip-flop, blow with the wind, and talk out of both sides of your mouth without even breaking a sweat, and always keep a straight face while you're doing it!
"Woop! The Republicans don't like facts; they like faith! O snap, now they like facts again! Whoosh! Nope...time for faith! Zing!"
It's too rich... Sometimes, I simply must bow to the absurd. Well played, Sentenal! Well played indeed!
-
Corruption in church is nothing new.
-
Josh, things like that get me mad.
-
Corruption in a government isn't anything new either
-
You are a different Christian religion than Mormonism. You have first-hand experience at being anti-, if not simply very non-Mormon. You'll realize that the Mormon church has more enemies, legitimate enemies, than any other religion...except perhaps Jehovah Witnesses, and Judaism (though I'm not sure if that's more their culture, blood, or religion). Of course they're gonna put out numbers that make the LDS church look like liars or worse. There is so much anti-Mormonism out there it's ridiculous. I've seen thousands of the arguments and points made against the church, and they're mostly either misinterpreted/misunderstood or direct lies/manipulation. For these points people have brought up against the LDS church, I have been able to provide a legit LDS belief or fact that either proves the person wrong, or answers their question. Sure, there are some questions Mormons can't answer, but there are a helluva lot less than other Christian religions. But no one's attacking most of those other religions, are they? At least not the way the Mormons are attacked.
I want you to go ahead and meet the people in the LDS church who 'put out' these numbers and talk to them for a few minutes, get to know them a bit, find out about their life and personality, who they are and such. Do the same with most active members. You'll find that they are good, honest people who believe in what they're doing and how they're living with all their heart, just as much as you do. The church is full of honesty, no matter how much untruth may be present in its doctrine or whatever.
If you're not willing to go through the effort to try to really prove me wrong, then you don't really have the grounds to call me biased and incorrect when I've known these people my whole life, and know them to be good honest people. The best people I know are Mormon, and I've met my fair share of people. Those numbers are not lies, I promise you.
...oh, the corrupted book thing. Well ok, here. No, you guys don't call the Mormon books corrupted. You guys call it bullshit. Is that much better? Not really. I see no more reason for these books to be any more bullshit than the bible, and there definetely hasn't been corruption with these books, since I can get copies of them all as old as when they were first published. No such situation with the bible. It's hard to believe the New Testament, with all it's enemies and antagonists, hasn't been corrupted in some way, never mind the Old Testament. Sure it's possible...but think about it, is it really likely? Really?
I'd like to see someone point out legitmate godly features of the Song of Solomon, properly named "Bible Porn" by some friends of mine (LDS, yes). Point out doctrine, principles, revelations, any of that good religious stuff. Point out a reason God would want people to study it and memorize it and live by it. Song of Solomon was written by an older, wicked Solomon and put in simply because he was a king who initially followed God.
And J, I was laughing too.
-
Sentenal, you're a decent enough guy, and obviously I mean no offense to you personally, but you've got to wake up and see what a ridiculous position you're putting yourself in. Either you support factual truth all the time, or not at all. Your being such an insistent champion of the facts in this thread is in stark contrast to most of our other encounters, where you argue from a faith-based perspective and any unflattering facts pile up in your epistemological rubbish bin. This juxtaposition of contradictory tactics makes you look insincere. You're saying that you can have your cake and eat it too, but the cold hard truth is that you cannot be in favor of respecting the facts only when they agree with you. The Republicans in Washington and the evangelical Christian right in particular have been pulling this shit for over twenty years, and look what's come of it. Just look where we are today. And look at what dupes (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index_np.html) they've made of well-meaning people like you! If you want to be taken seriously by groups outside your own, then give people a reason. Think of your credibility, man! How do you think I define "decent enough guy," anyhow?
-
Firstly, you still don't know what your talking about.
And secondly, your still on the pretext of corrupted until proven legit.
Mystik, your not even worth my time arguing with you. 'OMG, Mormons have enemies, so me is going to label anything that disputes the claims of Mormon as anti-mormon!!' Mormons are attacked because they considered themselves Christian, when they just piss on our beliefs, and try and gain acceptance as "Christians". There is a difference between toleration and acception.
And get over your idea that attacking a religion is attacking the people of the religion.
-
You're talking to me? Or Mystik?
Edit: Whoops. I see your reply was posted at the same time as mine. That'd mean you were talking to Mystik. My bad...
-
Yeah, I was talking to Mystik.
Josh, please, if you have a question about something I've said, in relation to this, post it (as in quote it), and I will clarify. I don't know exactly what you are refering to.
-
I quoted the money line a couple of posts ago. You were telling Mystik that disagreeing with the facts doesn't make them go away. And I laughed--I really did, just like the ^_^ I typed--because it was so characteristic of the very worst in neocon politics, like a page straight out of The Art of War (As Told by Karl Rove):
Chapter 1: Agree with the facts when they agree with you[/list:u]So, in this thread you were arguing with Mystik about denominational growth statistics. Many of the Christians I meet tell me that the religion they hate more than any other, even Islam, is Mormonism, so I'm not surprised to find you heatedly committed to this debate. And to help you out, you produced some factual support for your position. It's great to see you relying on facts to prove a point. Assuming they are legit, you completely shut down that line of the debate.
What's not so great to see is that you're not nearly so respectful of the facts when you're on the losing end of them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have never, not once, in all the threads on the Compendium, changed your mind by using facts. I think deep down you respect the power of factuality, considering how you leapt to wrap yourself in supportive facts in this thread, as well as taking into account that you mentioned in another thread that you think more highly of me than of other liberal scumbags, which presumably is not because of my witty charm, but because I put so much effort into factual citation and logical consistency in its application. Yet, when the facts conflict with your religious beliefs, you become monumentally unresponsive to factual arguments. That's the problem with religious fundamentalism--with emphasis not on the word religious, but on fundamentalism.
The unique neoconservative movement that currently has its first (and last) hold on supreme power across nearly all aspects of American society, has made such a mockery of the truth, and such a pauper of those who argue factually, and I just don't want to see you grow up into the same sordid ideology. The neocons lie out their asses, and ordinary people lap it up because they can't tell the difference. Sometimes all you need to prove a point is a very simplistic factual chain, but most truths in life are subtle and require a thorough awareness and interpretation of a slew of specific facts. But who has the patience to sit through that kind of a debate anymore? It's all smoke and mirrors nowadays:
- Some nutjob comes out and says evolution is wrong, and the factual reply is a long boring biology lesson that nobody wants to hear. And now evolution is on trial! Point, neocons.
- Practically every Republican in the Senate comes out and demands an "up-or-down" vote on Bush's Supreme Court nominees, until Harriet Miers comes along, and nobody in the media thinks to call bullshit on this contradiction because rhetoric trumps the facts. So Miers gets the boot and up comes Judge "Dredd" Alito, and boom! It's back to the "up-or-down" meme! Point, neocons.
- The talking heads on Faux News prattle on and on about how global warming is a fairytale and liberals care about caribou and fish more than people. So we continue to wreck the planetary biome without regard to the future wellbeing of our species or that of any other, and the pundits will keep right on blathering about what a myth it all is until the water is up to their fucking ears and they drown to death through their big open mouths. Point, necons![/list:u]The facts get no respect, because all that really matters is what people perceive the truth to be. Neocons and religious fundies figured it out twenty years ago that baldfaced lying is the easiest way to persuade a very large group of people. And, depending on my mood, it makes me laugh or weep...because it's utterly absurd.
The facts are important to me. I think the only time I've ever lost my temper in my two years of posting on the Compendium is when Daniel Krispin, with a straight face, denied the history of Christianity and made up a Disney version of it, to which he adhered unflaggingly. The icing on the cake? He claimed to be a student of history! Bald. Faced. Lie. But ordinary people believe that sort of thing, because pied pipers like Krispin are intelligent, adamant, and claim to have some experience in the matters at hand, and that all adds up to an enticing package. That's why I went so utterly out of my way to expose him, and why I was so furious when that bullshit of his hit the fan of Christian sexism throughout history. It's slightly pathetic to lose your temper while sitting in a chair and staring at a screen, but if Captain Picard could do it, I figure we're all entitled from time to time.
And, to a much lesser degree, it's the same story here. Here you are, rolling out some facts, because in this case they support your fervently pro-Christian, anti-anti-Christian ideology in your beef with Mystik. Here you are, innocently proclaiming to him, "I don't care how much you disagree, it doesn't change facts." And I'm supposed to take you seriously--which I certainly would, except for my concern that you don't actually care about factuality, and that tomorrow we'll be in another thread, I'll drop the dread F-Bomb on you--F for Facts--and it'll have no impact whatsoever, just as has been the case in the past.
Which brings me to the point I made in my last post. If you want to be taken seriously by people outside your circle, you have to be consistent in your support for the facts. As it currently stands, you are not consistent in your support for the facts. Instead, you are consistent in your support for your religious beliefs...and only tangentially does your preference for factuality figure in to your arguments. Therein lies the problem.
Hey, I'm all for seeing you put your head on straight. I like having mutual respect with people across the aisle...but only if it's deserved. If you don't want to be taken seriously by people who don't agree with you, it's your choice to make.
-
I still think nature ~ god...
The last posts took me an hours to understand lol
-
“It's all Christianity people! The little, stupid differences mean nothing next to the big, stupid similarities!”
-Bart Simpson.
Hey, wisdom is wisdom, whether it comes from Shakespeare, George Orwell, Master Yoda, or an animated 10-year old boy.
-
Josh, are you refering to our debate on the size of government? Or the nature of Christianity? I don't remmber you ever giving any facts to show that Christianity is evil, or facts showing big government is the only way for society to work.
-
Josh, are you refering to our debate on the size of government? Or the nature of Christianity? I don't remmber you ever giving any facts to show that Christianity is evil, or facts showing big government is the only way for society to work.
=)
I know a loaded remark when I see it. I don't want to ruffle your feathers, and I'm not going to cheese you off on a delicious Friday evening with an oblique attack on your religion or political theories. Just to pull everything together, I think what I've been saying thus far is wildly off-topic for this thread, and that might be what has thrown you off. I will gracefully postpone this until the issue has a more concrete impetus to be brought up. Hopefully, no harm done.
-
...I'm probably gonna regret this...
Exodus is right (http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1725&start=30) about typical religionists. I've had first hand experience being one of those people, and knowing several others like them. And living in Silicon Valley in California gave me the opportunity to meet tons of people, just as stubborn, in tons of different religions. This would be the reason I've decided to basically abandon pursuing my argument about Mormonism with Sentenal. I realized his location, and you'd be more successful teaching a fish to not swim than teaching a Southern Christian any form of positive truth about Mormonism. Tell them all the losses they've suffered, and all the corruption that has been 'found' (most of which turns out to be bullshit, in my experience) and they'll eat it up; tell them good things that make the Mormons look good in any way and the opposite reaction follows (it's exactly the same as the political game Democrats and Republicans play). The way they refer to Mormons reminds me of the way Southerners referred to Blacks back in the day when they were taught how inferior, and all other sorts of rubbish, blacks were. Very few of them listen to reason, and grasp at any possible bit of info out there that supposedly disproves Mormons as a whole. (Oh, and by the way, I know all this about Southern Christians because I currently reside in Louisiana, and have acquaintances who either visited or went on missions to other southern states, and it's the same story every time)
...and then there are the other Christians, most of who simply disagree with Mormonism, much like how they disagree with most other Christian sects...and they call many of the LDS teachings' blasphemous. That's about the extent of disagreement most Christians outside of the South have, in my experience.
Oh by the way, my parents have lost jobs, friends, and family members simply because they became/were Mormons. Anti-religion and not anti-member? I don't think so. Not all the time, at least.
...yeah, this post was probably a mistake, but I stand by what I've said. And if there's gonna be anymore replies starting with the words "No, you're wrong," I sure hope there's gonna be good stuff in there worth reading, unlike most the replies I've received on this subject. I'm definetely open to correction, as I've shown in the past, but tell me why I'm wrong, instead of simply saying "No, you're wrong, I'm right" and talking about a small survey that doesn't really compare to other facts. If that response is all I'm gonna get, then this is indeed my final post on the subject. Rest assured, I'll keep reading these, and I'll let you know when you've convinced me.
I know it doesn't seem like it, but I actually really dislike getting into heated arguments with people I'd love to respect and agree with...but I can't see a point be made that I'm strongly under the impression is false and just let it sit. Either I need to be corrected, or the person needs to see their falsity. One of my weaknesses, I suppose. Or a desire to spread more truth among people of this world where it seems to be lacking...*shrug*
-
I commend your pricinpled stand, Mystik. From your seat, your post may have seemed inflammatory, but I think you acquited your point of view with exemplary temperance. I myself could have done little better. I count a couple of Mormons among my lesser circles of friends, and they have relayed to me the discrimination they undergo by other Christian sects. Likewise, I have more mainstream Christians also within my outer spheres of friendship, and they have put forward the other point of view, which they could espouse much more eloquently than I. Needless to say, it is a dispute of much interest to me because, as I have no personal investment in either side, I can consider the debate even more impartially than usual. In that spirit, I offer these plaudits for your even-handed reply.
-
Can someone please tell me, or give me a website, showing the difference between the Christian sects? And why do Chrisitan people gang up on Mormonism and LDS specifically?
-
Can someone please tell me, or give me a website, showing the difference between the Christian sects? And why do Chrisitan people gang up on Mormonism and LDS specifically?
Mormon doctrine does indeed change several ideas of standard Christian belief. It takes the Law of Christ and actually analyzes it to a degree other Christianity doesn't even seem to realize exists. They also received 'revelations' that added additional doctrine, mostly about the 'Plan of Salvation'. This plan describes where we came from, why we're here, what we need to do while here, and where we're going (based on how we live and what we do and all that). Mormons say that we do not live simply to become servants of God. According to the Plan of Salvation, we came down here to gain a body, like what God has, and go through our 'Trial of Faith' to prove we are worthy to receive Celestial Glory like He has, essentially becoming like God himself, which includes marriage to a member of the opposite gender. This is one infamous doctrine, along with the Trinity actually being a Trinity. Those are the reasons I hear by far the most from most Mormon antagonists.
...if you need clarity, let me know. I'm unaware of any ubiased site out there that really compares all religions with all their beliefs and doctrines without some sort of either misconception, alteration, or incomplete...ness. However, if you want a couple good sites to learn about Mormon doctrine, http://www.mormon.org and http://www.lds.org are accurate places, though mormon.org is probably what you're looking for as it's a bit more of a Q&A and FAQ-type site, while lds.org is the official website for the church; it's more for current members as reference, news and other such information.
-
Please clarify.
When was Mormonism founded?
By Mormon Antagonists you mean...
The whole "new books" and its laws and stuff is already here. In Islam. Islam states where we came from (literally, it talks about sperm, eggs, and the development in the womb) It also says exactly what to do.
What Islam would have a problem with Mormonism is that you also believe in Trinity, which we despise, due to the fact that associating God with partners is blasphemy. But thats all Christianities for you. Also, what most Abrahamic Religions are agro about is that your religion states is that you can become God like. Why would God do this? Why would he make it so his creation can soon be like him. Its like the whole "slave becomes master" thing. And so marriage is necessary in your religion. I think it is in our religion as well. What happens if you gay marriage?
EDIT: This post was my 666th post. What a coincidence ^_^
-
Mormonism held it's first official meeting on April 6th, 1830 (I think...o_O).
Actually taking the term "trinity" literally is not a common Christian thing to do. Most Christianity seems to believe in the Trinity actually being one God calling himself different names...it doesn't make any sense, and all they ever answer that with is "yeah, it's confusing, but don't worry, it's true." -_-
The church's response to you asking why God would have us go through all this to gain eternal life as perfect celestial beings would be: "We have been given revelation from God that this is the absolute truth." My personal response would be "Why not?" =p
And in LDS doctrine, homosexuality is a sin against God, though really gays are still treated with respect and as human beings. Since it's a sin, they aren't allowed to participate in certain covenants and activites and stuff if they delve into being homosexual. Actually an LDS interpretation of the major sin of Soddom and Gomorha (I slaughtered that spelling...) was indeed homosexuality, which makes sense if you read the King James version of the bible and hold certain words to mean certain things throughout the bible... :roll: But yeah, if you commit to being gay, you're not considered an active member of the church. It's a major accusational problem the church is dealing with, as you can imagine.
...god, I should probably stop talking about Mormon stuff, I sound like I'm a member again o_O
-
Youre answer to my question about celestial beings was stupid. It was a serious question. God is unique, so why would he want more. And the sodom and gomrah (w/e) were gays, so yeah
-
Youre answer to my question about celestial beings was stupid. It was a serious question. God is unique, so why would he want more.
Whaaaat, it was a serious answer. Besides, no one really knows the nature of God, if he truly exists that is, so who are we to decide what his goal and nature are? There's no more reason for God to have spirit children and, like a father, want the best for them, than to believe God is unique and there's no possible way to become like him, which doesn't explain exactly how he became God =p
-
"What you say?! No rubbish or Ayla, head go boom!"
Thats exactly what I wanted to say...
I don't think God "became" god, nor was he "born" at all.
"He" can also be the god of comsos, or just the god of earth, or god of everything, no one can know it, at least not as far as we can think.
-
Nice Mystik, not only did you surrender, but you devoted an entire paragraph to saying Southerns are stupid. Good job there.
-
Youre answer to my question about celestial beings was stupid. It was a serious question. God is unique, so why would he want more.
Whaaaat, it was a serious answer. Besides, no one really knows the nature of God, if he truly exists that is, so who are we to decide what his goal and nature are? There's no more reason for God to have spirit children and, like a father, want the best for them, than to believe God is unique and there's no possible way to become like him, which doesn't explain exactly how he became God =p
We know what his goals are from 3 Major Books. The Torah, The Gospel, and The Quran, all of which say, worshipping. God is not human. Why would God want children. As is seen from the Meaning of Life Thread, we have children to continue the race. God can't die, all the prophets said so, and therefore, why the children. Why couldnt Jesus just be an important creation of his? Plus, the creation of god is an unanswerable question. God is god. God came before Universe even had a property.
PWND
-
Youre answer to my question about celestial beings was stupid. It was a serious question. God is unique, so why would he want more.
Whaaaat, it was a serious answer. Besides, no one really knows the nature of God, if he truly exists that is, so who are we to decide what his goal and nature are? There's no more reason for God to have spirit children and, like a father, want the best for them, than to believe God is unique and there's no possible way to become like him, which doesn't explain exactly how he became God =p
We know what his goals are from 3 Major Books. The Torah, The Gospel, and The Quran, all of which say, worshipping. God is not human. Why would God want children. As is seen from the Meaning of Life Thread, we have children to continue the race. God can't die, all the prophets said so, and therefore, why the children. Why couldnt Jesus just be an important creation of his? Plus, the creation of god is an unanswerable question. God is god. God came before Universe even had a property.
PWND
Take a look at one of those books. Humans are the children of God, ot so the belief goes.
-
Nice Mystik, not only did you surrender, but you devoted an entire paragraph to saying Southerns are stupid. Good job there.
Nice condescension on your part.
-
I don't believe in god... but CC made me believe in fate. >_>
I don't respect fate, but I think there's nothing you can do about it. If things'll be changed, then let it be changed. Who cares?
-
I don't believe in god... but CC made me believe in fate. >_>
I don't respect fate, but I think there's nothing you can do about it. If things'll be changed, then let it be changed. Who cares?
My current understanding of how the universe works makes me believe that there is no fate. That even with perfect knowledge of the state of the universe at one moment, because of the randomness inherit in quantuum processes, one cannot predict with 100% accuracy any arbitrary future state of the universe, therefore, no room for fate.
I'm quite happy with this belief. I don't like the idea of fate.
-
Youre answer to my question about celestial beings was stupid. It was a serious question. God is unique, so why would he want more.
Whaaaat, it was a serious answer. Besides, no one really knows the nature of God, if he truly exists that is, so who are we to decide what his goal and nature are? There's no more reason for God to have spirit children and, like a father, want the best for them, than to believe God is unique and there's no possible way to become like him, which doesn't explain exactly how he became God =p
We know what his goals are from 3 Major Books. The Torah, The Gospel, and The Quran, all of which say, worshipping. God is not human. Why would God want children. As is seen from the Meaning of Life Thread, we have children to continue the race. God can't die, all the prophets said so, and therefore, why the children. Why couldnt Jesus just be an important creation of his? Plus, the creation of god is an unanswerable question. God is god. God came before Universe even had a property.
PWND
Take a look at one of those books. Humans are the children of God, ot so the belief goes.
No, as it goes we believe the past books were all corrupted and the whole text basically changed
-
Take a look at one of those books. Humans are the children of God, ot so the belief goes.
No, as it goes we believe the past books were all corrupted and the whole text basically changed
Radical_Dreamer is right. That we are "Children of God" is an ancient Jewish belief which has survived into modern times, and was variously flirted with by Christianity and Islam over the generations as well.
-
My priest always says something like "You are all equal children of god, and u should treat each other as an equal".
-
I only believe in things which have a rational basis.
Take a peak at Descartes' book of Meditations, especially the fifth Meditation (his ontological argument).
Rationality doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of there being a God (or higher being, or whatever).
-
I only believe in things which have a rational basis.
Take a peak at Descartes' book of Meditations, especially the fifth Meditation (his ontological argument).
Rationality doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of there being a God (or higher being, or whatever).
Perhaps I should have said: I only believe in things which have a scientific basis, or I'll believe it when I see it.
-
Of course God has not scientific basis, it transcends time and space!
-
Consider this:
Religious doctrines the world over, faced with the lack of phyiscal evidence for the existence of their One True Deity, boldly claim that, because science makes no provision for the supernatural, therefore God cannot be expressed by any scientific measure. However, to the extent the human body and mind are as physical, measurable, and natural as everything else in the universe--which is to say, in total--then this "ineffable God" theory would preclude our ability to comprehend by any means this wonderful God who defies all comprehension. So if there is a God, then by this line of thought the universe has no means whatsoever to detect the existence of God, or express its nature, and likewise we humans in particular have no means to become aware of God, or interact with it, which is another way of saying that God has no observable interaction with the universe, and therefore either cannot or does not interact with any part of it, at all--including us!--which is as good as saying that, in fact, there is no God after all! It's a nasty little concrete wall between God and the universe...and, if you're religious, it's a very unpleasant consequence to all this malarky talk that God inherently transcends physical description.
You can't sneak past logic. You can't bypass science. If God exists, and we are able to become aware of God, yet are ourselves physical creatures governed by the consistencies of the universe, then the means of our becoming aware of God would necessarily entail God manifesting itself in such a way as would be detectable by some physical aspect of our being. To argue otherwise is to suggest that it would take something nonexistent, something beyond our humanity, to become aware of God.
That's where the religious folks start talking about the "soul," which they say defies all corporeal existence and cannot be measured, quantified, or so much as captured on a brain scan machine. It's the ultimate cop-out: When reality proves you wrong, just invoke the powers of faith and start talking about that ethereal, immortal soul goo which is intangible to all the tendrils of our "mundane" world. Hey...if it doesn't exist and isn't real, then those damned secular humanists can't possibly disprove it, yes?
Sadly, that sophomoric gobbledygook constitutes a complete chain of thought on the issue for all too many religions.
-
God has manifested in our universe before. See Jesus Christ.
-
God has manifested in our universe before. See Jesus Christ.
I was daydreaming this morning...about this very thing. We went back in time to check out this Jesus' character's story, and, seeing it for the mundane reality it was rather than the divine myth it has since become, we went further back in time to extract this guy from the annals of history when he was still a boy. Speaking in the native tongues, we came to an amicable understanding and flew him up in our time machine.
Most of the daydream, of course, was much more interesting: We went BACK!! To the future! to see if the world had turned out for the better. But that is neither here nor there. The moral of this tale:
Jesus: Good story. Okay teachings. Bad religion. I am unpersuaded by the claim of his divine nature.
-
Jesus is also hypocritical. I always tried to ignore that when I believed, or say as an excuse: "there's a purpose I don't understand," or even: "it's been corrupted, so maybe he isn't." My opinion nowadays tends to agree with this one:
I've been reading some of the bible, see. As it turns out, Jesus is not the guy I thought he was. My respect for him has plummetted.
I've only read half of Luke -- after which I couldn't stomach any more -- so I may be missing some important things. However, from what I've seen, the whole "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", "do not judge", etc. is, like, one thing he said once. The majority of the time, Jesus is busy doing one of the following:
1) Showing off.
2) Telling people how great he is.
3) Judging people.
4) Warning people how fucked they're going to be if they don't do what he says.[/list:u]
Seriously, all these miracles he supposedly performed? Curing the sick, resurrecting people, commanding the weather, etc.? It all stinks of a popularity campaign. If Jesus wanted to cure people for the sake of curing people, then why didn't he just cure everyone in one move? Why does he allow disease to exist? No no, he cures people to show off and make people follow him.
And for someone who tells others not to judge, Jesus sure does a hell of a lot of judging. He's constantly telling people how much they suck, both to their faces and to others.
And, of course, there's the old "You will go to hell if you don't believe in me.". It turns out Jesus really does make this threat. Yes, apparently a "benevolent" god has put us in a world containing no evidence of his existence other than some 2000-year-old stories, and yet if you are skeptical of him, he will send you to eternal suffering.
Real benevolent, yes. I really feel loved by this asshole of a god.
I appologize to those of you who are Christian, but this is ridiculous.
I understand the belief that Jesus is God, and is the person, of all people, to judge, and his warnings about damnation and hellfire could be taken as legit truth. I understand that people can and will believe that Jesus is above the law that he set, being God. However, on the whole, I agree with this guy I quoted.
-
Of course God has not scientific basis, it transcends time and space!
There is are invisible tiny pink flying unicorns hiding behind your head. I have a very profound feeling that they are there. No you can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste them because invisible tiny pink flying unicorns are completely undetectable in every way. How can I know invisible tiny pink flying unicorns really exist, you ask? You don't have to take my word for it; it's all written down in this book. Really, it's true, no kidding!
God has manifested in our universe before. See Jesus Christ.
Given the historical evidence, I'm willing to accept that Jesus was a real person. I am a bit more skeptical of the idea he was the son of god.
-
Pink flying unicorns? Careful, Gray. Someone's bound to take you literally, and then, in two thousand years or so...
-
Mystik, that guy you quoted has a huge lack of understanding of theology and christianity.
-
Of course God has not scientific basis, it transcends time and space!
There is are invisible tiny pink flying unicorns hiding behind your head. I have a very profound feeling that they are there. No you can't see, hear, smell, touch or taste them because invisible tiny pink flying unicorns are completely undetectable in every way. How can I know invisible tiny pink flying unicorns really exist, you ask? You don't have to take my word for it; it's all written down in this book. Really, it's true, no kidding!
God has manifested in our universe before. See Jesus Christ.
Given the historical evidence, I'm willing to accept that Jesus was a real person. I am a bit more skeptical of the idea he was the son of god.
You theories intrigue me, I would like to sign up for your newsletter.
-
Pink flying unicorns? Careful, Gray. Someone's bound to take you literally, and then, in two thousand years or so...
I must say this. I can't resist. I'm sorry. LOL!!!!!!!1!!11!!eleven
First of all, we as humans can not comprehend much. Tell me, do you believe in the big bang? What was before it? Huh? (For the record I believe in big bang as well) Second of all, the fact that God is God. The universe does not have to stay the same for him (Him for the record of habits) while having to change for everyone else. What i should of said is that God can at any time transcend all physics. Third of all, the guy you talked about Mystik was, quote, IDIOT! Wow, Jesus was condemning people. If Jesus is portrayed as God in such books, he would be telling people that "damnit, if you dont listen to me youll die a horrible death and go to a flaming hell!" Also, people in those days had to be wowed by greatness and miracles and Godliness. Maybe God put disease here for a reason, so why would he take it away and go "Ok fine, maybe i was a tad to harsh. Ill just remove all pain and bad stuff from this world and allow you to live on heaven on earth, so my creations can have a nice time, and so that arrogance within humans and hatred among them can be allowed, but at least you wont be sick! So my creation, shall i make you a cup of tea?"
-
Maybe God put disease here for a reason, so why would he take it away and go "Ok fine, maybe i was a tad to harsh. Ill just remove all pain and bad stuff from this world and allow you to live on heaven on earth, so my creations can have a nice time, and so that arrogance within humans and hatred among them can be allowed, but at least you wont be sick!
So...it's our fault for being who God created us to be. And, therefore, we deserve the ills in the world around us. These are the cards we are dealt upon being born into this world as humans. But we don't have the authority to take responsibility for our nature and choose our own destiny. Instead, we have to pay obeisance to God for all eternity to have even the chance of a better existence.
It's like God is playing poker with our money and our cards, losing as badly as possible, on purpose. Does God have it in for us? Like one of those despicable sports team managers?
God: I shall create...a basketball team!
Angel: Very good, Almighty God!
God: It shall be the very worst team there is! They shall always lose, and I shall have them play for me until the end of time. But each day I will write game plans so horrible they cannot win, and I will make them the laughing stock of the galaxies.
Angel: Won't that dispirit them, O God?
God: No! They shall love me for it, and worship me forever, upon threat of eternal damnation in the hellfire. I shall make them play every game according to my will, and my will is that they be the worst basketball team in the universe, forever.
Angel: What if they try to improve upon your game plans so that they might win on the court?
God: Then I shall be most displeased, and I shall frown, and I shall dip them into the hellfire, and their damnation shall be everlasting. Yea, for it is not their destiny to win. It is their destiny to be the miserable little losers I will them to be! And if they question my will, or defy me, I shall dip them into the hellfire tenfold.
Angel: Yet, O Great God, I cannot help but think--
God: Yes. I am so great, and I will command them to tell me how great I am...several times each day! And then I will afflict them with injuries and bad tempers, in my mercy, and they shall adore me for having created them according to my will. And when their God-given pain clouds their judgment, and the tempers that I gave them arise against me, I shall dip them into the hellfire until their entrails broil in their own juices.
Angel: But God! What if you were to create a winning basketball team? Would your players not be happy and satisfied?
God: I wish to create a team of losers, losers who will lose so badly, yet worship me so deeply, for all eternity. This is my will!
Angel: Amen.
So my creation, shall i make you a cup of tea?"
If only God were so benign! As it is, I don't think I'd trust God's tea.
-
So...it's our fault for being who God created us to be. And, therefore, we deserve the ills in the world around us. These are the cards we are dealt upon being born into this world as humans. But we don't have the authority to take responsibility for our nature and choose our own destiny. Instead, we have to pay obeisance to God for all eternity to have even the chance of a better existence.
Josh, you disappoint me in your knowledge of Christianity. I suggest you read the story of the Garden of Eden in Genisis. Specifically the fall from Eden. Basically, disobediance brought this upon man.
The more you speak of Christianity, the more your knowledge of the religion betrays your claims of what it teachs.
-
So...it's our fault for being who God created us to be. And, therefore, we deserve the ills in the world around us. These are the cards we are dealt upon being born into this world as humans. But we don't have the authority to take responsibility for our nature and choose our own destiny. Instead, we have to pay obeisance to God for all eternity to have even the chance of a better existence.
Josh, you disappoint me in your knowledge of Christianity. I suggest you read the story of the Garden of Eden in Genisis. Specifically the fall from Eden. Basically, disobediance brought this upon man.
The more you speak of Christianity, the more your knowledge of the religion betrays your claims of what it teachs.
That's the one where God demands our willful ignorance, and brings all manner of suffering into existance because we chose knowledge over ignorance, right?
-
Maybe you need to read it also to know what it says...
-
Here's the story of the Garden of Eden, according to my reckoning. This interpretation is open to correction, flaming, and applause.
God (and according to Mormonism, Jesus, along with our help, those of us who supported Christ's plan and fought against Satan [Lucifer] in the War in Heaven) created the different aspects of the universe, all physical things thereof. All animals, all of space, all the elements. After everything was complete, from the ashes rose Adam (whether he warped into being ala Star Trek, transformed out of the sand like Naruto, or was a result of a final stage of evolution from another fellow monkey, we don't know), the first human and the first living being of God's creations to have the spirit of one of his children. He tended to the Garden of Eden, provided happiness for all living things and kept harmony. But he was lonely, so "using one of his ribs", God created Eve, the first female (I actually heard in one of my seminary lessons that my teacher had heard from a scientific source that males have one fewer ribs than females; I've since heard that was a stupid claim and highly untrue), and the human race (all two of them) was at equality.
They lived in harmony, but they knew no happiness, for they knew no sadness. They knew nothing except what God told them. At this point, they communicated with God (because, according to Mormonism, Earth at this time was close to the star Kolob, God's home) directly. He gave them two rules: 1) reproduce and fill the earth with his children, and 2) never eat the fruit that would tell them how, teach them wrong and right, knowledge, the balance of differing...everything, etc. So basically he tricked them into disobeying him no matter what they did. Satan, not thinking it through, in the form of a serpent tempted Eve to eat the fruit. She did, got Adam to, and they both fled when God showed up because they were naked. God, in his judicial anger, cast them out of the Garden, made them mortal, and sent Earth away from Kolob into it's current location. The continents began shifting. Adam and Eve remained loyal to God and followed his commandments, and began having kids.
Ok.
I must say, I did laugh during J's God-Angel dialogue.
-
Thats the way mormons teach it? :shock: Alright...
Basically, God created Man, and created all animals to please him. He created Woman. They living in paradice, without having any disease, pain, suffering, or sin. They lived in harmony with God. They were commanded that they could eat of anything in the Garden of than fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Satan tempted Eve, who then tempted Adam, to eat the fruit, because according to Satan, God doesn't want them to eat it because it would make them like God. They ate the fruit, and disobeyed God. It was here that vice of man came into being, rather than peace and innocence. Now that Man had sinned, man was now separated from God. God is perfect, and now man had corrupted himself, and placed himself out of God's reach. So they were forced to leave the Garden, and suffer mortality and damnation that they had brought upon themselves. God however still cared about Man, and loved them so much that he eventually sent Jesus to die so that Man could reestablish the relationship that man had once severed.
-
The only difference I see, besides the additional information of the "before" the Mormons provide, is A) the fruit's purpose, and B) the "damnation" as a result of eating the fruit. They're mostly identical understandings aside from those differences.
-
I don't consider Satan being thrown out of Heaven to be the same story as Man getting thrown out of Eden. Meh, I was unaware the Mormons did the same thing to the Old Testiment as what they did to the New Testiment. And that God lives on the star Kelob :shock:. And really, the fruit's pupose is the same, I just phrased it different. No difference there.
-
I don't consider Satan being thrown out of Heaven to be the same story as Man getting thrown out of Eden.
That's why I said the "before" stuff was different. It's not part of the same story, I just referenced it in a rather unclear fashion. My mistake.
Meh, I was unaware the Mormons did the same thing to the Old Testiment as what they did to the New Testiment.
...what do you mean by "did"? Interpreted differently? The version of the bible the Mormons use is the King James version, and they haven't altered the actual text of that version. However the Pearl of Great Price contains much documentation the Mormons believe to have been taken out of the Old Testament, including specifics on the Garden of Eden story. You should read it, it's interesting.
And that God lives on the star Kelob :shock:.
...ok, so that was different too =p
-
...what do you mean by "did"? Interpreted differently? The version of the bible the Mormons use is the King James version, and they haven't altered the actual text of that version. However the Pearl of Great Price contains much documentation the Mormons believe to have been taken out of the Old Testament, including specifics on the Garden of Eden story. You should read it, it's interesting.
Where exactly in the NKJ Version does it say that God moved Earth away from the star Kelob? In my experiance, I don't remmber that ever being said in the bible.
-
However, we are not Adam and Eve, are we? Why even let us exist at all?
As Cartman once said:
"FUCK JESUS! I WANT MY PLATINUM ALBUM! GOD DAMMIT SON OF A BITCH!"
-
However, we are not Adam and Eve, are we? Why even let us exist at all?
As Cartman once said:
"FUCK JESUS! I WANT MY PLATINUM ALBUM! GOD DAMMIT SON OF A BITCH!"
No, but you carry their genes, if even remotely.
-
So you're suggesting I be held responsible for something my great aunt Malany did?
-
Listen, this is a simple consept.
If you have a good relationship with the Father, then you go to heaven. If not, you are unable, and the Father is unable to save you. Humans initially started with a good relationship, but they damned themselves. Going to hell isn't punishment being dealt out by God. Its "punishment" that humans have brought on themselves.
And on another note, have you ever done one thing in your entire life that would be considered a sin? If you don't believe in original sin, this works in the same way.
-
Listen, this is a simple consept.
If you have a good relationship with the Father, then you go to heaven. If not, you are unable, and the Father is unable to save you. Humans initially started with a good relationship, but they damned themselves. Going to hell isn't punishment being dealt out by God. Its "punishment" that humans have brought on themselves.
And on another note, have you ever done one thing in your entire life that would be considered a sin? If you don't believe in original sin, this works in the same way.
Humanity damned itself because of a poor choice by two people?
Super-duper forgiving God.
Simple concept my ass, really.
-
Where exactly in the NKJ Version does it say that God moved Earth away from the star Kelob? In my experiance, I don't remmber that ever being said in the bible.
Mmk, I don't think that belief is actually in either the old testament OR the pearl of great price...I think that's later revelation given to one of the modern-day LDS prophets...*shrug* I'm unaware of the specifics on this one, or even the entire correctness on my part of the interpretation of this belief. It's not talked about almost ever, though, it's not part of the standard teachings. It's one of those things they get talking about when you go in-depth into the teachings.
So you're suggesting I be held responsible for something my great aunt Malany did?
I'm under the impression that typical Christians believe so, or at least that the answer is simple insomuch that we were born to imperfect beings, diminished under the eyes of God because of their act. The Mormons have the Articles of Faith, one of which states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression", and the reason we are in the state we are is because we had to be, because Adam and Eve had to do what they did, or we would never be born.
Makes a lot of sense, huh? =p Actually it's not too confusing if you really study up on it and think about it, but...yeah.
-
I'm under the impression that typical Christians believe so, or at least that the answer is simple insomuch that we were born to imperfect beings, diminished under the eyes of God because of their act. The Mormons have the Articles of Faith, one of which states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression", and the reason we are in the state we are is because we had to be, because Adam and Eve had to do what they did, or we would never be born.
Is it just me, or does Mormonism rock?
It... combines logic with belief. Amazing.
And they actually try to explain some things rather than giving you a blank expression and calling you an heretic.
-
I'm under the impression that typical Christians believe so, or at least that the answer is simple insomuch that we were born to imperfect beings, diminished under the eyes of God because of their act. The Mormons have the Articles of Faith, one of which states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression", and the reason we are in the state we are is because we had to be, because Adam and Eve had to do what they did, or we would never be born.
Is it just me, or does Mormonism rock?
It... combines logic with belief. Amazing.
And they actually try to explain some things rather than giving you a blank expression and calling you an heretic.
Its just you.
-
I'm under the impression that typical Christians believe so, or at least that the answer is simple insomuch that we were born to imperfect beings, diminished under the eyes of God because of their act. The Mormons have the Articles of Faith, one of which states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression", and the reason we are in the state we are is because we had to be, because Adam and Eve had to do what they did, or we would never be born.
Is it just me, or does Mormonism rock?
It... combines logic with belief. Amazing.
And they actually try to explain some things rather than giving you a blank expression and calling you an heretic.
Its just you.
A bold claim. Have you anything to back it up?
-
Look at what you said is logic.
First "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."
And then "the reason we are in the state we are is because we had to be, because Adam and Eve had to do what they did, or we would never be born."
Basically, they don't believe that men will be punished for Adam's sin, yet it is because of Adam's sin that we are in the situation were in (being punished).
-
Josh, you disappoint me in your knowledge of Christianity. I suggest you read the story of the Garden of Eden in Genisis. Specifically the fall from Eden. Basically, disobediance brought this upon man. The more you speak of Christianity, the more your knowledge of the religion betrays your claims of what it teachs.
Come on, now. It's a pretty weak argument to disagree with the likes me on grounds of knowledge. That's a fight you will lose.
I have found that Christians--such as yourself--who have never been skeptical of their religious indoctrination, actually know less about their religion than those who encounter it objectively. The fact that you missed the point of my little narrative is an example of this. Burning Z is Muslim, so I was going for an unholy blend of the two religions, but even so the lesson applies to Christianity just as well: According to the religious creed itself, human beings are in an unwinnable position, through no fault of their own, but because of the way your god supposedly created us. I grant freely that religious devouts like you may disagree with my definition of "unwinnable," but that's a matter of personal conviction. Why phrase your argument as such an oblique attack? What should I make of your credibility now?
It's a bit esoteric, Sentenal, but I would say that living in perpetual subordination to God and therefore unable to assume full responsibility for our own destiny, defines "unwinnable." You don't have to agree with me that living beneath God with no hope of surpassing God is the existential short end of the stick, but, really, just get on and say it. And, this time, why not give the community some reasoning to support your views? But be wary of the traditional tack which you implied: The "free will" argument that Christians so commonly invoke on this subject is second only to the "God's mysterious plan" argument in its absurdity, not least of which because it entirely fails to address the point I am raising:
Yes. I am so great, and I will command them to tell me how great I am...several times each day! And then I will afflict them with injuries and bad tempers, in my mercy, and they shall adore me for having created them according to my will. And when their God-given pain clouds their judgment, and the tempers that I gave them arise against me, I shall dip them into the hellfire until their entrails broil in their own juices.
Boil it all down, and Christianity is saying that God created human beings as protons and then punishes us when we're attracted to electrons. It's absurd. And I don't mean that merely as a pejorative; I mean it is literally devoid of logical consistency. To justify our suffering in terms of our own "disobedience" while maintaining that God is supremely powerful above us in every respect, is furthest from a rational proposition.
I would not be so vehemently against your religion if I didn't know so much about it. And the more I learn, the worse it becomes in my eyes. But you don't have to take my word for it. In many threads here on the General Board, I lay out arguments which support my disgust with Christianity and Islam--with especial emphasis on the fundamentalist sectors of these religions. Take a fundamentalist attitude against me, dismiss me out of hand like you tried to do this time, and you'll discredit yourself. You'll convince no one of your views beyond those who are already likeminded.
-
Wow, arrogant, arn't we? It sounds to me like your sore that you can't be superior to God.
-
Wow, arrogant, arn't we? It sounds to me like your sore that you can't be superior to God.
That's not the sort of reply I would expect from someone who expects to be taken seriously when he tells me I don't know what I am talking about. Who are you, and what have you done with Sentenal?!
-
According to the religious creed itself, human beings are in an unwinnable position, through no fault of their own, but because of the way your god supposedly created us.
Unwinnable? No sir, Jesus Christ has given us the opportunity to save ourselves. Winnable.
It's a bit esoteric, Sentenal, but I would say that living in perpetual subordination to God and therefore unable to assume full responsibility for our own destiny, defines "unwinnable." You don't have to agree with me that living beneath God with no hope of surpassing God is the existential short end of the stick, but, really, just get on and say it.
This is what I was refering to. God is God, we are human. God > Man. Its as simple as that. Just as how you say Mother > Fetus. However, God does love his children (men). Man's purpose is to be in a loving relationship with him. And for a religion to promise you that you will be come god-like is full of itself.
But be wary of the traditional tack which you implied: The "free will" argument that Christians so commonly invoke on this subject is second only to the "God's mysterious plan" argument in its absurdity, not least of which because it entirely fails to address the point I am raising:
Quote:
...
Men have free will, and God has a plan of what he wants us to do. I really don't want to create a serveral page long debate on free will and God's plan, so thats all I will say there.
The quote you gave is incorrect about what Christians believe.
1.) God is great, whats wrong in stating the truth? Hes God, remmber?
2.) God doesn't want blind followers (although it seems your refering to Islam there), he wants his children to come into a loving relationship with him. Its no different from a father wanting his son to love him.
3.) God doesn't inflict people will injury or anything unless there is a good purpose for it. I'm of the opinion that the ends justifies the means, especially since I believe that this world is secondary to eternity.
4.) God didn't give me tempers or pain. Man gave it to themselves.
5.) God doesn't damn people. People damn themselves.
Hows that?
-
First "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."
That refers to when we are judged for our actions and what was in our minds and hearts in the next life, not for this life.
Really though, Mormonism is full of logic more than other religions. You just don't seem to accept the possibility that you may be wrong with your beliefs. That's the nice thing about Mormons, too, I've met fewer Mormons who attack other religions than members of any other Christianity. Not a very Christ-like attribute.
The difference between Mormons and other Christianity is defined as such: Mormons are not so much "the most Christian religion of all Christianity" as "more Christ-following than Christian". Christ stated a very clear law that fulfilled the law of Moses, and I've met far fewer Christians outside of Mormonism who really stick to that law Christ gave. Christ is everything to that religion, the religion is based on all things Christ. These people have a deep love for Christ and his teachings, and a good Mormon strives to do their best to become like Christ, which is after all his instructions when he said:
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect." -Matthew 5:48
That's a pretty blatant command, and Jesus spends the three years of his ministry teaching the people what Christ-like attributes are. Not only to not commit adultery, but to not even lust after a woman (which is obviously impossible, but the point is to strive against that desire). Not only to not kill, but to not bring harm to another (except in self defense, that's a given). Things like that.
Hey, Josh. Here's my opinion on the whole religion thing. All the teachings I've learned in the Mormon church are pretty logical and make complete sense. The more you discover about it, the more true it feels and the more it makes sense. You can really begin to feel the desire to do good and fight against temptation and sin and try your hardest to become the person God longs for you to be. Heavenly rewards, eternal life in an exhalted form...such wonderful, happy things to look forward to, and this lifestyle keeps many people close to the "Spirit" and makes them very very happy, even through all the trials and tribulations their choice to do so brings them. To them it's worth it, even if there really is nothing on the other side. However these people, many of them are convinced of the truth. They believe the feeling of the "Spirit" to be more than some feeling our brain conjured up in an effort to satisfy our personal goal (which is what I came to believe it was after a while, though...who really knows, right?) It's something that can't be proven wrong as of yet, when all things come together...
...so why'd I leave it? Because even though I lived that life, I gave up all my 'evil' desires and sins because I believed it was right, and I tried my hardest to discover it was true, all I had was that 'feeling' that was supposed to be the "Spirit", and only very rarely. I was a very good Mormon, though given I had my problems which I struggled with all the time; everyone does. It's hard, being a good Mormon, especially with the way the world is now, is very VERY hard, and I have incredible respect for good, active Mormons, and hell all other Christians who fight against what they believe is wrong and surrounds them overwhelmingly to do the things they believe is right. And because all I had was the feeling, and I didn't receive an absolute knowledge of the truth, as had been promised in the teachings, then I realized that I would never learn the truth by simply believing in it all.
My definition of "knowing" became "through experience". We'll never know if China exists and what it's like, until we've been there. Sure, we can believe it's there and what it's like, and no one will argue that, but you still don't know, right? Same idea. Jesus could've walked the earth and performed miracles, but you don't know that, you can't unless you were walking around with him and seeing all the things he did. Beliefs argue that "seeing isn't believing", but I'm not talking about just 'seeing', I'm talking about seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling...something that proves to the senses it's real. Tons of people in all religions claim they know, when all they have is a belief they're nurtured and cared for. Many base that "knowledge" on a feeling they felt once. As I stated, I've come to find that we can feel very strange and random things at times, inexplicably. Our brains are quite powerful and capable, we just have no idea how to unlock most of it's potential. Maybe if we did, we'd discover the spiritual realm many people believe in, and be able to see the spirits and discover with our own senses the truth of the matter. But we don't.
I started my questioning at that point, and realized I was incredibly unhappy living the way I was, and I didn't even know if there really WAS anything on the other side, if what I'd been taught and lived by my whole life was really true and worth it. What if there was nothing? Then I will have lived the only life I'll ever have very unhappy and hoping for more when it would never come. That's why I abadoned that life, because I don't wanna risk wasting the only life I may ever have.
For people willing to live a life based on faith, and who would be happy with that, I'd totally recommend them checking out any and all religions (though I'd personally recommend Mormonism because of my personal experience with being very very satisifed with it as a whole). However I don't believe they have the right to force their morals on others, as I believe Exodus said earlier.
...o_O...
-
First of all, Im not linking pain and suffering to Original Sin. In fact we do not believe in original sin. We do not believe that curiosity and knowledge is bad. Maybe the fruit was created to show the consequences of action. We do not believe that it was Eve that ate the fruit, therefore it is womens fault. We do not believe women are less respected then men, as for example, the prophet stated that the mother is to be 3 times more respected then the father. Ok look, men and women arent equal. men are generally physically smarter, women creatively smarter, and so on. They are not equal. But on the last day, we will be treated equally. That doesnt mean that on earth women are to be downgraded, no. Wives are to obey husbands. Why? Well, the husband is to provide EVERYTHING to the wives. Husbands are to please the wives etc. And please dont blend Chrisitanity and Islam J. They are worlds apart, even though its the same god. And look, how can you say that god is unfair and stuff. God is god. Good and evil is defined in that way. Get over it. So, god has millions of servants and can command us. Wow. He created us.
Plus, Mormonism is so cool coz it has a place called Kelob.
-
3.) God doesn't inflict people will injury or anything unless there is a good purpose for it. I'm of the opinion that the ends justifies the means, especially since I believe that this world is secondary to eternity.
Hahahahaha! You must be joking. You have to be. I used to be a Christian, and then my mother died. She was not a bad person, she was an upstanding citizen who did nothing wrong. The same goes for the rest of our family, but yet after she died our entire life was torn apart. My father was never the same person and we have never been a family since then.
I'd love to find the reasoning behind that magical decision.
-
I am not endorsing either side of the argument here, but people who often argue and question why God allows wrong to be done upon the earth usually have missed the point about free agency, and the concept of salvation guaranteed through a good and respectable life spent by choice on the earth. Conversely, one can choose to do evil; the world is free.
-
Sentenal, I think the "Plan" in of itself is part of what Josh means by us being in an unwinnable position. It detracts from our "ownership" of ourselves. If God has a plan for me, and that which I do to stick to the plan, which I'll never know, is "good", and that which I do that strays from the plan is "evil", then my life is not my own life to live. That is, even with free will, my decisions are ultimately secondary in the determination of how I live my life.
You believe that God is akin to a father to mankind. Do you believe that a father has the right to tell his (adult) children how to live? What the purpose of their existance is? Do berate them and cast them out should they fail to live up to this arbitrary purpose? Does a parent own his children?
Mind you, it's not that I don't believe that life has a purpose. I believe that all lifeforms share the same purpose; reproduction. Not a purpose I chose, or that any living thing choses, but ultimately, I believe it is the answer to why we are here. The difference, then, between your belief in an external purpose and mine, is in the moralization. I am not immoral should I fail to reproduce. That purpose is there, yet not all life forms will succeed in achieving that goal*. It is not right or wrong to succeed or fail, however; it simply is.
*At this point, I'm referring to successful reproduction. It's a recursive definition, though. How do you know if you reproduced successfully? If your offspring reproduce successfully.
-
Zeality answered it very well according to - at least some - religious beliefs, but RD followed with a valid, oft-asked question:
If God has a plan for me, and that which I do to stick to the plan, which I'll never know, is "good", and that which I do that strays from the plan is "evil", then my life is not my own life to live. That is, even with free will, my decisions are ultimately secondary in the determination of how I live my life.
An answer to that is that we aren't given "free agency" so much as "agency", where we can choose to do whatever we want but consequences still happen. Free agency implies more of a "action without consequence" life. Judgement on the other side is determined based on what we did with our freedom to choose. Supposedly the point of life is to discover the truth through faith, and then choose the way of the Lord, to find eternal happiness (whether it's becoming like a God, serving God, whatever people believe happens to the best of us).
Don't like the sound of that? Well if you don't have an eternal perspective in mind, then I don't either, and obviously I've abandoned the belief of an eternal life.
The difference, then, between your belief in an external purpose and mine, is in the moralization. I am not immoral should I fail to reproduce. That purpose is there, yet not all life forms will succeed in achieving that goal. It is not right or wrong to succeed or fail, however; it simply is.
Indeed, besides the fact that many people are born without the physical ability to reproduce. My heart goes out to them.
-
Hahahahaha! You must be joking. You have to be. I used to be a Christian, and then my mother died. She was not a bad person, she was an upstanding citizen who did nothing wrong. The same goes for the rest of our family, but yet after she died our entire life was torn apart. My father was never the same person and we have never been a family since then.
Sorry about your mother, but Death=Man's fate.
Sentenal, I think the "Plan" in of itself is part of what Josh means by us being in an unwinnable position. It detracts from our "ownership" of ourselves. If God has a plan for me, and that which I do to stick to the plan, which I'll never know, is "good", and that which I do that strays from the plan is "evil", then my life is not my own life to live. That is, even with free will, my decisions are ultimately secondary in the determination of how I live my life.
People are supposed to do the right thing, and make the right choices. God's plan for most people involves simply making the right choices and doing the right thing. Should you stop obeying the law simply to show that the Government doesn't run your life?
You believe that God is akin to a father to mankind. Do you believe that a father has the right to tell his (adult) children how to live? What the purpose of their existance is? Do berate them and cast them out should they fail to live up to this arbitrary purpose? Does a parent own his children?
You people keep saying that God berates and cast his children out. Firstly, a good father SHOULD berate his children when they do something wrong. Secondly, (this is the part you guys don't listen to) GOD DOES NOT DAMN PEOPLE.
And Mystik, its good to know that most of the Mormons you know are very good, honorable people. Its also sad that Christians you know is the opposite. My situtation is the opposite from yours. Most Mormons I knew in HS hate their religion due to the constraints of the Religion, and most Mormons I know now have a disconnect from reality, or the hate their religion. And most Christians I know are good, kind, honorable people.
-
I'm just generally repulsed at all these topics exploding on General Discussion. I honestly believe people are being scared away by these philosophical merrygorounds, and it also paints the community as a bunch of pseudointellectuals. Not that being a real intellectual is much better.
-
I'm just generally repulsed at all these topics exploding on General Discussion. I honestly believe people are being scared away by these philosophical merrygorounds, and it also paints the community as a bunch of pseudointellectuals. Not that being a real intellectual is much better.
Really, we need a serious debate forum and a general discussion form.
-
And Mystik, its good to know that most of the Mormons you know are very good, honorable people. Its also sad that Christians you know is the opposite. My situtation is the opposite from yours. Most Mormons I knew in HS hate their religion due to the constraints of the Religion, and most Mormons I know now have a disconnect from reality, or the hate their religion. And most Christians I know are good, kind, honorable people.
Mm, indeed. It's too bad you didn't meet any good Mormons. I must say I definetely know my fair share of those kind of Mormons, but I found out that most of them felt that way because they didn't understand the teachings of the gospel. They're young, and they'll either understand and ditch it or stick with it, or they'll never understand and condemn it for the wrong reasons.
But I must apologize and say I do know my share of good, good Christians. Again I got ahead of myself in my post. Almost all my extended family are catholic or otherwise Christian, and most of them are very good Christians, and I have several close, close friends who are good Christians. They're great people, they really are. It's just I've met so many who say they're Christian, but don't care about church at all, don't follow the teachings, and everything. There are those in every religion, though, including Mormonism, in which about half the members fall into this category (that's a fact they don't like non-members hearing because they feel it will spread the wrong idea about them, but it's the truth; half the members of the church are inactive, meaning there are really only about 6 million active members worldwide).
-
I'm just generally repulsed at all these topics exploding on General Discussion. I honestly believe people are being scared away by these philosophical merrygorounds, and it also paints the community as a bunch of pseudointellectuals. Not that being a real intellectual is much better.
Really, we need a serious debate forum and a general discussion form.
I think thats a good idea. Many of the forums I visit has a forum set aside for debate, and along with a general discussion forum.
-
Sentenal, I think the "Plan" in of itself is part of what Josh means by us being in an unwinnable position. It detracts from our "ownership" of ourselves. If God has a plan for me, and that which I do to stick to the plan, which I'll never know, is "good", and that which I do that strays from the plan is "evil", then my life is not my own life to live. That is, even with free will, my decisions are ultimately secondary in the determination of how I live my life.
People are supposed to do the right thing, and make the right choices. God's plan for most people involves simply making the right choices and doing the right thing. Should you stop obeying the law simply to show that the Government doesn't run your life?
Of course not. The thing is though, the laws the government makes aren't always right. They may detract from my ability to live happily without hurting anyone else. The fact is, the government isn't always right in the laws it puts in place, therefore I don't have absolute faith in the government. I wouldn't break the law for spite, but there is no shame in breaking in an unjust law. Huh. I guess that brings us to a nice moment of clarity: You have absolute faith in the laws God puts forth, and therefore have no moral or ethical trouble following them. I do not.
You believe that God is akin to a father to mankind. Do you believe that a father has the right to tell his (adult) children how to live? What the purpose of their existance is? Do berate them and cast them out should they fail to live up to this arbitrary purpose? Does a parent own his children?
You people keep saying that God berates and cast his children out. Firstly, a good father SHOULD berate his children when they do something wrong. Secondly, (this is the part you guys don't listen to) GOD DOES NOT DAMN PEOPLE.
I don't think you've really addressed my point here. Of course discipline is part of being a parent. I didn't say it wasn't. I didn't say that God damns people. Perhaps I was unclear, so let me cut out all the extra questions: Does a parent own their (adult) children?
-
I don't think you've really addressed my point here. Of course discipline is part of being a parent. I didn't say it wasn't. I didn't say that God damns people. Perhaps I was unclear, so let me cut out all the extra questions: Does a parent own their (adult) children?
No, a parent does not. But are you impling that Christians believe God owns us? God wants a relationship from his children, as well as respect and love. These are things even adult children should give to their father, is it not?
-
I don't think you've really addressed my point here. Of course discipline is part of being a parent. I didn't say it wasn't. I didn't say that God damns people. Perhaps I was unclear, so let me cut out all the extra questions: Does a parent own their (adult) children?
No, a parent does not. But are you impling that Christians believe God owns us? God wants a relationship from his children, as well as respect and love. These are things even adult children should give to their father, is it not?
I am impling that Christians believe that God defines the terms of their existance; what they should and should not do, what is a success, what is a failure, under what terms are they worthy of happiness, so in effect, yes. Adult children should love and respect parents who were good parents. I was lucky; I had good parents whom I love and respect, but I certainly undesrtand why someone wouldn't love or respect their parents if their parents were miserable parents.
-
First of all, yes, a parent does own all their children. They gave birth to them, and all our respect should go to them.
Second, I told you, we need a philosophy/political/religious forum
Third, there is no fate, but everything we do is known. The point of life is to worship god, and to do things right, which God told us to do. If you do not believe in God, fine, ok. But if you do, then God has told us do the right thing and you will go to heaven.
Fourth, didnt south park tell us that Mormons are too nice?
-
I'm just generally repulsed at all these topics exploding on General Discussion. I honestly believe people are being scared away by these philosophical merrygorounds, and it also paints the community as a bunch of pseudointellectuals. Not that being a real intellectual is much better.
Really, we need a serious debate forum and a general discussion form.
These are some very off-putting remarks by the both of you. If the Compendium is to become a place for people who do not want to talk about serious subjects; if we are to assuage newcomers who are so frightened by topic titles that they flee the Compendium at the mere sight of them; or if our plan will be to satisfy people who are unable to distinguish between the contents of one thread and the character of the entire site, by discouraging or otherwise confining legitimate discussion simply because of its gravity, then I want nothing more to do with this place. Not that I would be terribly missed, I'm sure, but when serious topics become a taboo on the Compendium, and are segregated into their own board, that's the whistle that tells me I'm getting off at the next station.
I dare you to implement such a policy. In the meantime, I will continue to go on talking about whatever I like, replying to whomever I like, however I like...within my best reading of the rules that govern the contents of posts. What the devil is a "General" board for, if not that? Do you know what I do when I find a topic I don't like? I stop reading it. As someone who spends his entire life with a finger on the pulse of long-term, big-picture trends, I see no way for the Compendium to become an enlightened place, if you embrace members who have nothing interesting to say.
-
Yes, I agree with you Josh (shock.horror) but what I think they mean is that these discussions are taking up too much of the GD Forum, and we need a new forum, so we can specially use it for people who aren't wimps and people who believe the world is just pink unicorns, rainbows and lollipops and where everyone plays happily along to John Lennon songs and they all forget about the fact that right behind them is a rapist with A GIANT AXE!!! :evil: sorry...
EDIT: About how god can interact with us, "Kabalistic" Jews say this:
Mainstream Orthodox Judaism teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. They teach that God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. But if God is so different from his creation, how can there be any interaction between the Creator and the created? This question prompted early Kabbalists (Jewish mystics) to envision two aspects of God, (a) God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and (b) the revealed aspect of God who created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind in a personal way. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but complement one another.
Thanks to Wikipedia
-
Yes, I agree with you Josh (shock.horror) but what I think they mean is that these discussions are taking up too much of the GD Forum, and we need a new forum...
It's not the case that General Discussion is too full. If General were legitimately getting so large that it needed to split into smaller boards, then I'd be all for it. But that's not what ZeaLitY and others are saying. If you look for yourself, as of right now there are only 10 threads that have been posted in over the past 24 hours, and only 24 threads that have been posted in over the past week. What they're saying is not that General is too full; they're saying that topics like this one don't belong here because of their content and the effect they have on people who don't like serious discussion.
I have access to 22 boards on the Compendium. Only one of them is described as the place to "discuss anything that doesn't belong in any other forum." And its title is General Discussion. The gripe apparently is that topics like this one are too legitimate to be against the rules, but are so unsavory that they need to be cordoned off from everything else, even the General board, which is home to such meritorious topics as "Word Association." What it all boils down to is a disdain for serious discussion, and I didn't know ZeaLitY felt that way. Perhaps others besides GrayLensman share his opinion. But I don't. I think it's offensive. And I won't hang around here if it becomes official policy.
Anyhow, I've said my piece. Hopefully the powers that be will take it into account. But either way, I will leave the matter at that.
-
According to the religious creed itself, human beings are in an unwinnable position, through no fault of their own, but because of the way your god supposedly created us.
Unwinnable? No sir, Jesus Christ has given us the opportunity to save ourselves. Winnable.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but it still doesn’t address my point. Radical Dreamer touched on this very well:
Sentenal, I think the "Plan" in of itself is part of what Josh means by us being in an unwinnable position. It detracts from our "ownership" of ourselves. If God has a plan for me, and that which I do to stick to the plan, which I'll never know, is "good", and that which I do that strays from the plan is "evil", then my life is not my own life to live. That is, even with free will, my decisions are ultimately secondary in the determination of how I live my life.
And you’re saying, Sentenal, that living for God is the ultimate life we can live…that “touching” God is the apex of our potential. You’re saying there is nothing within us that is great, if it does not somehow embrace God. In so many words, we are nothing and God is everything. And not only is this true today, but forever. So that no matter what we may ever accomplish, in all the centuries, howsoever magnificent by our mundane comprehension, it is meaningless before the glory of God. We are trash whose only redemption is to serve our purpose, and our only purpose is to accept God. And you’re saying it is no shame for us to be God’s trash, because we’re God’s trash.
To express my objection with that, allow me to begin by offering a somewhat weird analogy:
The Whole Milk Story
Human beings are like a little carton of milk. We are fresh and delicious. At the dairy factory there hangs a Holy Chart telling us how important it is to be fresh and delicious, and there’s a picture of someone with a milk moustache to emphasize the point. But our life is very short, because we’re full of bacteria that makes us spoil. If we go rancid when the purpose of a little carton of milk is to give some thirsty person a tasty drink, then obviously we cannot fulfill our purpose!
So we choose to remain fresh. Sounds easy, yes? But we are only a carton of milk! What power does our choice truly have to back it up? Did we create the bacteria that spoils us? No; it is simply in our nature that bacteria finds a home in us. Do we control the motor that keeps our refrigerator running? No; that power is utterly beyond us. Can we prevent our carton from being pierced by a wild bear? Nope. So we live in a world very hostile to milk. Not only are we doomed to spoil, but there is nothing we can do to prevent it, because we are milk, and milk by its very nature must spoil one way or another. That is, unless we get consumed. So how can we give this faraway thirsty person a tasty drink?
Fortunately for us, a long time ago there was a Milkman who died to make us fresh. He pasteurized us with his steam, killing the bacteria that infect us, making it possible for us to reach the thirsty person who wants to drink us. At last, by the Milkman’s grace our choice to remain fresh has some power to back itself up. And so, if we are good, the essential creaminess within us becomes a part of the Great Milk-Mustachioed One, and our cardboard shell is discarded into the rubbish pile of eternity.
But it’s still a very tough world, and despite being pasteurized it is still our nature to eventually spoil. It will always be that way, because milk spoils. And if we go rancid before we can be consumed, then we get thrown out completely, milk and carton alike. In a single instant, we have lost our one and only chance to ever fulfill our one and only purpose. For the rest of eternity, we linger on at the dump in agony, with no way to ever achieve what we were meant to be. For added measure, we suffer milk-curdling physical punishment, too.
Christianity teaches that this is what we are. Our carton is not one of cardboard, but of flesh. Our essential creaminess is not that of milk, but of the soul. Everything else is the same. If our carton were invincible, and there were no bacteria within us, then we would never spoil. But our carton is weak and the bacteria can never be destroyed entirely…so we always spoil—unless we get consumed first. Our whole nature is to be somebody’s drink. This is our single purpose; we are locked into it and cannot change it. We are doomed by our very nature to be overwhelmed by bacteria and spoiled. We have no power over the things that would spoil us. Our only freedom to choose to stay fresh. But that choice is meaningless, because we have no power to enforce it. And, worst of all, this one true freedom that gives definition to our existence is an illusion, for the Great Milk-Mustachioed One doesn’t care if we have chosen to remain fresh or not, so long as we actually are fresh.[/list:u]So you see, Sentenal, the problem I have with Christianity’s doctrine on the nature of humanity is that the message is something of a contradiction in terms. We are supposed to accept Jesus Christ into our lives as our lord and savior. Fair enough. But the physical world in which we live is the gateway through which this choice must be reached, and standing in our way are no end of obstacles—which God himself designed—that make it difficult or impossible for us to fulfill our purpose. It is one thing to build character by winning a hard victory. It is another thing entirely to play a game that cannot be won at all. Just as a carton of milk can choose not to spoil, and then spoil anyway because it has no power over the factors that control its spoilage, so too with us is it meaningless by itself that we have the choice to accept God, for the reason that in many cases our world and our very own nature—all under God’s control—will prevent us from making that choice successfully, or even from making it at all. That’s why I wrote this:
Yes. I am so great, and I will command them to tell me how great I am...several times each day! And then I will afflict them with injuries and bad tempers, in my mercy, and they shall adore me for having created them according to my will. And when their God-given pain clouds their judgment, and the tempers that I gave them arise against me, I shall dip them into the hellfire until their entrails broil in their own juices.
Can you see the contradiction yet? Salvation is like getting a royal flush. We want it ever so badly, but we have no power. God is the one who’s dealing the cards, and most of the time we get junk. And somehow it’s our fault…because we’re the ones paying with our souls. I draw a conclusion from this: We cannot make a divine choice without divine power. And therefore:
By itself, the freedom of choice is hollow.
What we need is the power to rule over our universe, so that we can control all that which would corrupt our freedom of choice. We must not have the freedom alone, but the power to exercise it as well. Yet your religion teaches, and you yourself have attested, that our own power as human beings is minuscule—nay, infinitesimal—before the power of God. By your own words:
God is God, we are human. God > Man. Its as simple as that. Just as how you say Mother > Fetus. However, God does love his children (men). Man's purpose is to be in a loving relationship with him. And for a religion to promise you that you will be come god-like is full of itself.
Maybe it isn’t the same thing to speak of supreme power over the universe and compare that to the omnipotence of God, but what is certain is that because we are corporeal beings living in a physical world, in order to open ourselves to God and have that loving relationship—to embrace Christ as our lord—we must have not only the freedom to make that choice, but the power to exercise it as well, and “power” includes a long list of physical qualities that we might substantiate our expression, and a great deal of intellectual awareness that we might comprehend the subject matter. But life guarantees us neither, and therefore Christianity expects us to exercise a power that we do not inherently possess and cannot definitely earn. Those who claim to be saved are speaking on faith; they don’t know one way or the other. Who do they think they are to say otherwise? God?
The world is our proving ground, and God has not given us the power to prove ourselves. All that remains to us is the possibility of achieving that power in the human future. And how many generations of people must be damned in the meantime? If we are to honor your religion’s interpretation of human nature, then we are torn between a paradox. We cannot be humble. We cannot be sheep. Yet God declares this is what we are. I’ve spoken of the contradiction thus far mostly by analogy—humans are trash; humans are milk cartons; humans are poker players with bad cards—but, putting aside all these analogies now, and speaking to the problem literally, I put it to you that the freedom to choose salvation is a detriment to our immortal existence, unless we have the power—including the knowledge—to see the one golden choice with flawless certainty. Where there is more than one choice, we must choose in ignorance. In other words, free will is a curse, because to pass this little freewill test we must be godlike ourselves…and Christianity is aghast at such a blasphemous idea. Which brings me to the word I used in my earlier post: Unwinnable.
So let’s throw all that away. I’m not going to devote myself to such a miserable destiny, and neither should you.
Do you know what would glorify God even more than a human being who freely chooses to accept God? I’ll tell you what would: Instead of creating flawed and weak human beings, if God had created more Gods, and these had chosen to accept God as well, then God’s glorification would be at its most absolute. But I see no other Gods in this world. (For that matter, I don’t see the one true God, either, but that’s beside the point for the purposes of this discussion.) However, I see in the human future a potential to epitomize this entire universe in excellence and understanding. We already have the power to reason and the capacity to learn; that’s all we need in order to get started. In the millennia to come we can explore this universe from rim to rim, and understand it in every detail, and the only thing standing in our way is the vastness of our undertaking, and the ticking clock of time.
Where is your imagination, Sentenal? Humanity is at the beginning of the best destiny there is. The austerity of Christianity is a rebellion against the old excesses of the late, decaying Roman Empire. It has no place in modern times. With the light of human comprehension amplified by the mechanical and academic progenies of the Industrial Revolution, the Christian lesson of humility and innate wickedness is demonstrably wrong. At risk of becoming an obsolete menace to humankind, religion mustn’t deny our true nature any longer. And our true nature is curiosity and the pursuit of power. Christianity has taught up to this point that both are evils, but Christianity was wrong, and the reason your religion is taking such a beating in our time is that today we stand on the verge of a next step in our evolution, and what we have come to comprehend in the past several hundred years has shed light on the old Christian fallacies.
In this day and age, we are our own worst enemy. We have become powerful enough to shape our own destiny above that of most of the forces of nature, yet we have not yet become powerful enough to ensure wisdom in our actions. I certainly agree with the Christian message that with great power comes even greater responsibility. But if we manage to survive ourselves, and evolve beyond our infancy, I cannot tell you what wonders lie in store for us…because I can barely imagine them myself. Whether or not there is a God, this universe invites our curiosity—and I can think of no better way to spend my lifetime. How do your religious prayers compare? Methinks you are interpreting the word of your god incorrectly…or that your god itself is false. I will let you choose. But choose, because the world is passing you by, and all the Republican majorities in Congress and all the evangelist revivals in the South are not going to prevent the progress of humankind. The inevitable cannot be averted; it can only be postponed, or humanity destroyed altogether—a possibility which becomes more unlikely with each passing year. What Daniel Krispin foresaw as the doom of humanity is not going to be stopped by religious extremists. Neither is it going to be the doom of humanity. He fell victim to the slow extinction of his way of life. You need not. Open yourself to the potential of humankind, and to the beauty of the possibility that your so-called Apocalypse needn’t involve the literal destruction of the world, and that this “mundane” universe of ours shall be the same one where humanity earns its salvation and lives out its paradise. I fail to see why your love of Christ demands that you hate all meaningful human accomplishment, and why it demands that you reject humanity’s self-made, intrinsic greatness. So let your faith evolve and have a look at the world to come. If you want to dedicate your part in our future to the glory of God, I won’t stop you. Wouldn’t you like to be on the same side, if you can keep your core values and I can keep mine?
It all begins in moments like these, where we debate human nature and therein give meaning to our existence. Some Christians believe that accepting God is the pass-or-fail mark of salvation, and that a true believer is saved no matter what else he or she does in life. Obviously this causes great controversy within the religious community, because it implies that we can commit the most horrible deeds in this world without suffering any penalty in the hereafter. Thus, other Christians believe that salvation depends upon one’s conduct in this life, with belief in Christ being a necessary but not a sufficient condition for salvation. Still other Christians argue that a “true” belief would discourage one from engaging in sinful acts, and therefore those people who claim to be believers but who commit acts deemed by others as wicked, are making a false claim (whether or not they realize it). I would be curious to know which camp you follow, Sentenal.
If simply accepting God truly is the pass-or-fail mark of salvation, then my little milk carton story isn’t applicable. But such a belief is so patently false that it is difficult to reason with those who cling to it, and so I would hope that you do not count yourself among their number. Thus, if salvation requires us not only to choose God, but to lead thoughtful lives as well, then the point of the milk carton story, and of this entire post, is to highlight that God gave us the means to achieve the former, but not the latter. Having free will itself is meaningless if we do not have the power to exercise it successfully. Yet here we are, powerless…so saith Christian doctrine. We are made to play in a game we cannot necessarily win. And when we lose, the price is our soul.
I say it isn’t true.
-
Josh, whether you're right or wrong, I'm always highly entertained by reading your posts. Well done.
I'm gonna sound kinda like a broken record, which will probably get on peoples nerves, but I had to tilt my head and remember Mormon teachings after reading your very powerful argument. Mormons would answer "It's true, it's impossible to be perfect and live the life God wants us to. BUT in the end, we are not judged simply by our actions. We are judged by what was in our minds and hearts, what our motivation was, the reasoning behind it all. If we tried our hardest, even if we failed God will see that we tried our hardest, and that's a God-like quality worthy of becoming as such. Also, if people "lived the right way" but had the wrong motivation or reasoning, then they will be rooted out and judged accordingly."
They also believe that God indeed did 'give birth' to other Gods. Our spirits were children of God, who would grow into becoming a God as well if we passed the tests required to prove ourselves worthy of the honor. As I said, it does make sense.
But I agree, I don't believe it either. Anymore.
As for the forum discussion, I wouldn't have a major problem with making a seperate forum for this. What's the big deal, right? But I would have a problem if they did this and left those other awfully spammy threads alive. I understand the moderation team is working on a bit of a revamp or reorganization or something, but in any case I believe there is wiser moderation to behold in future times. I wouldn't leave the Compendium quite so fast, Josh.
-
I am impling that Christians believe that God defines the terms of their existance; what they should and should not do, what is a success, what is a failure, under what terms are they worthy of happiness, so in effect, yes. Adult children should love and respect parents who were good parents. I was lucky; I had good parents whom I love and respect, but I certainly undesrtand why someone wouldn't love or respect their parents if their parents were miserable parents.
God defines the terms on which someone should live. And there is a problem with this? I don't see how someone could say this is a bad thing unless you are implying that the way God says people should live is wrong or unjust, etc etc. People should try and live a good, moral life regardless.
Now time for the monster of a post Josh made... Forgive me if I skim through it.
And you’re saying, Sentenal, that living for God is the ultimate life we can live…that “touching” God is the apex of our potential. You’re saying there is nothing within us that is great, if it does not somehow embrace God. In so many words, we are nothing and God is everything. And not only is this true today, but forever. So that no matter what we may ever accomplish, in all the centuries, howsoever magnificent by our mundane comprehension, it is meaningless before the glory of God. We are trash whose only redemption is to serve our purpose, and our only purpose is to accept God. And you’re saying it is no shame for us to be God’s trash, because we’re God’s trash.
This is why I called you arrogant a few posts back. Because it really sounds like you don't like this part of Christianity because you cannot supress God. Being second best to the creator of the entire universe does NOT make you trash. God does not see you as trash. He saw you so valuable to sent his only son to die so that you may save yourself from your own damnation.
So you see, Sentenal, the problem I have with Christianity’s doctrine on the nature of humanity is that the message is something of a contradiction in terms. We are supposed to accept Jesus Christ into our lives as our lord and savior. Fair enough. But the physical world in which we live is the gateway through which this choice must be reached, and standing in our way are no end of obstacles—which God himself designed—that make it difficult or impossible for us to fulfill our purpose. It is one thing to build character by winning a hard victory. It is another thing entirely to play a game that cannot be won at all. Just as a carton of milk can choose not to spoil, and then spoil anyway because it has no power over the factors that control its spoilage, so too with us is it meaningless by itself that we have the choice to accept God, for the reason that in many cases our world and our very own nature—all under God’s control—will prevent us from making that choice successfully, or even from making it at all.
Lots of stuff... Impossible? No. Its actually pretty simple to accept Jesus as your lord and savior. Just because you do this doesn't mean you are now not allowed to sin, otherwise your not saved; Everyone makes mistakes. Its just that acceptance of Jesus now give you a medium to attain God's forgiveness through repentance. With this in mind, I fail to see the "game" being impossible to win.
Can you see the contradiction yet? Salvation is like getting a royal flush. We want it ever so badly, but we have no power. God is the one who’s dealing the cards, and most of the time we get junk. And somehow it’s our fault…because we’re the ones paying with our souls. I draw a conclusion from this: We cannot make a divine choice without divine power.
No. God isn't sitting up in heaven, saying "Hmm, what sort of shit can I through at Josh today to make him screw up?" There are tests of faith that God can put people through, but most of the time, God is not activly trying to screw people over.
...in order to open ourselves to God and have that loving relationship—to embrace Christ as our lord—we must have not only the freedom to make that choice, but the power to exercise it as well...
Maybe your getting the wrong idea. Becoming Christian is an easy consept. You accept Jesus as your lord and savior. And wahla! If you TRUELY did it, your saved.
It all begins in moments like these, where we debate human nature and therein give meaning to our existence. Some Christians believe that accepting God is the pass-or-fail mark of salvation, and that a true believer is saved no matter what else he or she does in life. Obviously this causes great controversy within the religious community, because it implies that we can commit the most horrible deeds in this world without suffering any penalty in the hereafter.
I'm tired of that arguement... Listen, here is the great thing about Christianity: It offers FORGIVENESS. If someone is a Christian (and I mean in more than just title), they WILL NOT commit atrosities. God loves all his children, even the "bad" ones. A good parent should. A good parent should accept truthful repentance. BTW, this is biblical FACT, any Christian that argues otherwise needs to learn their faith better.
-
Look at what you said is logic.
First "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."
And then "the reason we are in the state we are is because we had to be, because Adam and Eve had to do what they did, or we would never be born."
Basically, they don't believe that men will be punished for Adam's sin, yet it is because of Adam's sin that we are in the situation were in (being punished).
The underlying problem is that it isn't contradicting in the least.
-
We are judged by our thoughts, not our deeds. But see, Islam says we will get rewards for not doing a bad deed, when we really wanted to the bad deed. Not having suffering leads to pride and arrogance, something only God has a right to.
Lord J would say: Oh, so we aren't allowed to have rights to emotions where God is? Blah
Yes...Because he is god...And we were given emotions that aren't good to tempt us, and to see if we can avoid things. What is the use of Hell if there is no bad? How can we be generous if there is no suffering? See, God said that there are enough resources (money, food etc.) to supply the whole population, if people gave their zakat (obligitory paying of 2.5% of saving and goods, or 2.5% of all gold) to the poor. Lord J, just say this. I do not like Christianity or Islam because i dont believe in God or the Hereafter.
-
Sentenal, how do you reconcile your belief that we are all God's children with your belief that Jesus is God's only son? That's clearly a contradiction.
-
God wants us to love him like a father, not that he is biologically(spelling?) ours. And Jesus was supposed to be a human, with gods spirit(Christ) in him (and the spirit prolly left before jesus died, thats why he said something like "Why have u forsaken me", at least i think)
-
god created everything? so before then there was nothing? how could something like a god exist from nothingness?
-
Okay, I'm pretty sure I know what the response to this is going to be, but I'm going to give you the chance anyway.
To all those who believe strongly in some religion, can you convince me of it? I don't mean religion in general even, but your particular religion. With all the religions out there, how does a leap of faith towards one constitute more than a guess?
-
Okay, I'm pretty sure I know what the response to this is going to be, but I'm going to give you the chance anyway.
To all those who believe strongly in some religion, can you convince me of it? I don't mean religion in general even, but your particular religion. With all the religions out there, how does a leap of faith towards one constitute more than a guess?
Leebot, considering your avatar is an image of Citan, I imagine you have taken Xenogears to heart. :)
-
Sentenal, how do you reconcile your belief that we are all God's children with your belief that Jesus is God's only son? That's clearly a contradiction.
Humans are figurativly God's sons. Bring something better than a semantical issue up.
@EVirus: How bout you explain the universe's origin? You believe the big bang started it up? Well, where did the matter that exploded come from? How did it explode? Things don't blow up for no reason. This same comment works just as good agianst your camp.
-
Sentenal, how do you reconcile your belief that we are all God's children with your belief that Jesus is God's only son? That's clearly a contradiction.
Humans are figurativly God's sons. Bring something better than a semantical issue up.
@EVirus: How bout you explain the universe's origin? You believe the big bang started it up? Well, where did the matter that exploded come from? How did it explode? Things don't blow up for no reason. This same comment works just as good agianst your camp.
look up the membrane theory, the big bang orignated from colliding universes, looking from out side, the universe appears as a membrane or a shell, something of that nature, thats part of the membrane theory...
"theres tons of religions out there, some of them must be wrong, and dosnt that make all of them wrong?"
-
I've heard of the membrain theory before, but that just brings up "Where did those universes come from."
-
Sentenal, how do you reconcile your belief that we are all God's children with your belief that Jesus is God's only son? That's clearly a contradiction.
Humans are figurativly God's sons. Bring something better than a semantical issue up.
That was an honest question. It's something I've never understood about Christianity. Sorry if the way I worded it made it sound like an attack.
-
I've heard of the membrain theory before, but that just brings up "Where did those universes come from."
Well, theoretically, they (or something) has always been there. And before you point out any problem with this, note that the same problems arise when considering either where a god came from, or how s/he could have always been there.
-
I've heard of the membrain theory before, but that just brings up "Where did those universes come from."
Well, theoretically, they (or something) has always been there. And before you point out any problem with this, note that the same problems arise when considering either where a god came from, or how s/he could have always been there.
Exactly. If one side gets to say that something has always been there, why can I not answer "God has always been there"?
-
Well, theoretically, they (or something) has always been there. And before you point out any problem with this, note that the same problems arise when considering either where a god came from, or how s/he could have always been there.
Exactly. If one side gets to say that something has always been there, why can I not answer "God has always been there"?
It's an interesting thought process. Our human minds cannot comprehend the idea of no boundaries, because we're surrounded by it, it's how our lives are run and everything seems to be oriented in this plane of existence. We begin living, we end living. Things start and end, that's how we know everything. We mentally cannot comprehend the actual reality of no beginning and no end, no start and no finish, no boundaries. We can only believe that such a concept is true, but with a certain assurance we're not completely off our rockers.
-
I've heard of the membrain theory before, but that just brings up "Where did those universes come from."
We don't know. That doesn't mean the answer is unknowable, or that the universe was created by a supernatural entity. It only means we have to keep searching for the answer.
Also, there doesn't have be by any "beginning" of the universe. Time is just another dimension. How many edges does a ball have?
-
But see, the beginning of the universe timewise, is also the beginning spacewise, because the universe is...
CHILDREN: TIME AND SPACE!!!!
Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing Christianity says about universe creation is "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" Whereas we say stuff like, and I'm paraphrasing, "then Allah cast a speck of dust asunder and created the universe"...or something like that. And guess what, this is from a religion 1400 years ago!
-
Well, theoretically, they (or something) has always been there. And before you point out any problem with this, note that the same problems arise when considering either where a god came from, or how s/he could have always been there.
Exactly. If one side gets to say that something has always been there, why can I not answer "God has always been there"?[/quote]
I'm not arguing with your right to that argument. Granted, it has no evidence (outside of hear-say) to back it up, but I see no reason it can't be true. Of course, this doesn't mean it is true, either.
-
There is no 'magic' God. The scriptures exactly say to not believe in any sorcellery so why does Man go up making up bullshit like a bearded man in the clouds. As for a superior being, yes, there are much more things going in that direction than the opposite. Even Stephen Hawking and many other astrophysicians come to that conclusion, ALL is logic around us, all is mathematical, therefore there has to be an 'architect' somewhere behind it all. The same thing for man, as I wrote in another thread, the ancient civilisations all credit the apparition of mankind (as Homo Sapiens, suddenly being logic compared to animals who only continue doing what theyre 'programmed' for) to a superior being in our own solar system on top of that. All is logic around us. It's like Socrates himself said and questioned himself. We saw 'use our Logic', but how is it OURS in Nature? If it were completely ours we could also explain from where it comes from, the gift of being logic and seeing things logically. If you cant, then it means something from the exterior gave us that gift, which is why Socrates in the end had to come to the conclusion that 'gods' (superior beings) gave us that gift. The same way in the scriptures it is written to ask God, in other words meaning 'asking/using Logic' to solve problems. Which is why for example in the past during wars, those who won then claimed 'God is with us', in other words the ones who more Logic won the battle. God does not exist as some boogieman hidden in the clouds or anything like that, Man invented that. There is nothing in the scriptures which is illogic. The only way people perceive and make up illogism (false gods, boogieman in the clouds, explaining natural phenomenons under 'magic') is because of the fact of not being advanced technologically enough to fully comprehend the natural phenomenon through logic. Which comes down to the ancient gods all socities talked about. Men with wings (angels), serpent man with wings (Quezacotl), the egyptians gods, etc, etc all of which are symbolic of certain 'beings' which can fly but without having enough technology, we imaine themselves with what we know of that present time. Like for example imagine seeing somebody come out of a vessel in -4000BC, youd say that guy is a magician, he can fly, he does magic, but in reality no, since today as we can see, we can all fly and we dont call that a 'miracle'. Yes, God exists (in the original hebrew bible, itself descended from sumerian knowledge, it even clearly says that God, or Elohim, is a PLURAL term, superior beings in other words, not ONE boogieman), just not as how man tries to 'imagine' it. Man as a whole is quick to build itself its own magical gods based on something which at the base is very true (only not comprehended fully due to the technology available at the time), and in the end basing itself on its own fake gods it erected then goes to conclude that the false gods dont exist therefore God (or Gods) dont exist. Illogisme or ignorance only brings more ignorance. Complete illogic bullshit. The universe is inifinite, there is life on Earth, therefore there are infinite chances of there being life elsewhere right? And the sumeriens themselves even point out that there is a intelligent civilisaiton inside our very solar system on a planet which has not been discovered as of now with an orbt of 3600 years. Too many things are pointing in that direction. Those who say they are atheists and dont believe in any superior beings existing are the ones going against what science (the original religion, religion being a way of life and way of thought) itself is going towards as it discovers new things. Atheists are the ones believing in false gods they erected, themselves, as being unique to the universe with no reason and no logic.
-
Dude...seperate your thoughts into paragraphs...I can't read one big honkin' paragraph like that o_O
-
Good grief, Capo. I didn't think it was possible, but you seem to have created a position on the subject that no one could possibly agree with! What is your motivation for this, exactly?
-
Life is contradictory. There is life, and there is death. When someone dies, another is born. That is the evidence of God.
-
Life is contradictory. There is life, and there is death. When someone dies, another is born. That is the evidence of God.
Allow me to say: WHAT!? First of all, although some people die and some people are born every day, the two events are not connected. One death doesn't imply one birth, and neither does one birth imply one death. If it were that simple, the population would be perfectly static.
Now, how the hell does that link to there being a god, anyway?
...ALL is logic around us, all is mathematical, therefore there has to be an 'architect' somewhere behind it all.
Nope, invalid argument here. Let's suppose that both "logical" and "illogical" universes could exist.
Now, let's analyze what might happen in an illogical universe, where mathematics doesn't perfectly hold (for instance, with the rest of our mathematical rules holding, 2+2 curiously equals 5). If you try to apply this rule to a universe, it very rapidly descends into a chaos of "what-ifs." You can say, "Okay, I've got two down quarks in this neutron, and two down quarks in that neutron. Wait, now I've got 5 total. Where did the fifth one come from, which neutron is it in, and what the hell happened to conservation of energy?" Ironically, an illogical universe such as this would require a god to keep everything in line, if even a god could.
Okay, let's go onto a logical universe which pops up. Mathematics and logic hold perfectly. But, we have yet to define any physical laws, so we get two possibilities:
1) The universe doesn't allow for sentient organisms to develop. Therefore, they never do, and are never there to wonder whether a god designed this universe.
2) The universe does allow for sentient organisms to develop. This breaks down into two more possibilities:
2a) Despite the possibility, sentient life never does develop in this universe, so there's no one around to wonder where it came from.
2b) Sentient life does develop, and they wonder where the universe came from. They come up with theories that since it seems so impossible a universe this perfect could come to be, and that the dice would be thrown right for them to develop in the universe, there must be some creator.
Okay, so if there's only one "universe" (using the term somewhat incorrectly, but you know what I mean), then the fact that we exist in it would seem to give strong credence to a belief in a creator.
But, what if there are many universes created? What if the number is even infinite over the course of time? Even if the probability of a given universe developing sentient life is one in a googleplex (10^(10^100)), over infinite trials, at least one (infinitely many, as a matter of fact) will develop sentient life.
Strong Anthropic Principle, my friend. The scientist's answer to Intelligent Design. If you can't fight it, you can't prove that a god must exist.
-
Another great book I suggest reading is The Lucifer Principle from Howard Bloom. That guy's a genius, apparently the 'next' Stephen Hawking. And he goes even deeper to explain how Mankind as a whole is 'programmed' (genetically, psychologically, logically) to go towards a Global Mind. Check it out. http://www.howardbloom.net/
Now to the guy above who wrote a lot of stuff even going to 'supposing out of nowhere' the existence of an illogical universe and first of all claiming invalid argument based on his 'imagination of an illogical universe out of nowhere', all of the greatest (logic) astrophysicians today claim that all 'probabilities' (since all being mathematical, we have to use 'probabilities' to find a path) go towards the idea that a bigger entity, source of Logic existing. And you finish by saying, you can't 'prove' a 'God' exists in the end. That's a bullshit conclusion. Seeing is believing (final proof), that's true, above all for the idiot who keeps his eyes closed blindly and not looking at all the hints around him to try and find his path until Truth/Logic itself imposes itself in his face when he becomes a lil too illogical. hahaha I'll ask the same question worth as much, can you 'prove' me a God doesn't exist? No? Then we both have to see what probabilities (which stay logical) go towards, like you yourself said but then jumped again 'supposing out of nowhere' multiple universes exist which are illogical based on nothing'. Since there is One Truth, truth being affirmed using Logic and it's good for everybody since it's all in our Nature, let's check out the probabilities.
Ok, then please explain me the source of this logic around us? Explain the Logic behind logic (since we live in a logic world right now and use science as a path to find our way)? Including from where you got your own 'gift' of being able to see and understanding this logic around us and not animals like the rest on this planet. We don't live in an illogical universe, the proof, go ahead and do complete illogical stuff and you'll end up dead/sick/whatever quickly enough. Rule of survival, not a rule we ourselves put in place but is PART of our logical Universe imposed on us and all around. So how can you then, being a logical body yourself just like everything around, go and theorize on the existence of a logical universe when you're not even part of one?
There is One Truth, One Logic. When we say something is true, it is because Logic (out of where?) tells us it is and it is the same for anybody who uses that Logic. It's in our Nature. Those who are illogical are naturally eliminated by the 'universe'. Then maybe it's probable (since we always stick to probabilities which stay in the realm of Logic to find answers) that Logic is not completely in our nature, therefore not being able to say from where it's from with certainty, but 'part' of the universe around us because the source of Logic (the higher Logic) itself is out of this universe, a bigger entity. Only pure blinded atheists (not believing in anything else but themselves as source of logic by ignorance) are the ones being dogmatic and refusing all the 'probabilities' that go toward the existence of a being existence. At the present, atheists are acting more illogical than those who believe (judging from the amount of probabilities using Logic) in a bigger entity.
Does God Play Dice?
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
-
I read that article you linked, and it just confirmed what I'd known for a while: That there is no such thing as fate. Pray tell, how does that imply that there is a god of any sort? Professor Hawking refers to God playing dice, but that is in reference to the Einstein quote he mentions. He is not saying that there is, in fact, any god or gods.
Also, I fail to see how science is logically leading us to the belief in a god. You seem to understand the concept of "The god of the gaps"; that is, the belief that whatever we cannot explain, must be caused by a divinity. As you also seem to know, this is a fallacy, because as we learn more about the universe, these "gaps" fill in, leaving less and less places for the god of the gaps to be present. So if anything, logic tells us that, even if there is a god or gods, the universe operates completely independantly of their influence.
-
Wow. I've read about four of your posts, Capo, and you've already proven yourself beyond help. If you can't understand the simple practice of a thought experiment or a hypothetical construct for the purpose of an argument (granted, most won't immediately figure it out from that term, but they understand the concept), I really don't know what I can do to help you. All I can say is try not to screw the rest of the world up too badly.
-
Capo, though I did agree with some of your points, can you please summarise your views in one clear concise sentence. Here is mine: God exists, so does science.
Wooaaaahhh!!!!
-
I'm catholic so yes, I believe in god. Some things bug me out, and religion sort of explains it, however, there is only one god, although there are hundreds of religions. In my family, we have plenty of catholics, and muslims, jews, and like two atheists, so I'm only speaking my perspective.
-
One God, One Religion (Judaism and Christianity are pretty much the same as Islam)
-
Well, I only truly believe in God as in Christianity because its the one thing ive always known: I was brought up in a Christian family and im in a Christian school, so the teachings that God is here have been preached to me for years. It's kinda something you cant escape, yet I dont want to escape it at all! Ive seen and heard of miracle healins, that I think comes down to faith, continual believing, and no matter if u think that there is a God but no faith, you are wrong, just knowing that there is a God and repeatadly telling ppl there is one is a sign that u have faith and would not turn away from God. I would never turn away from God. Ive read too much in the Bible and heard too much to not belive in God.
And I basically think that all other religions are generally based around God, but they use the different forms of God, such as Zeus and Ra and Odin and such, they are all just a form of God but drawn into a culture and language.
-
Well, I only truly believe in God as in Christianity because its the one thing ive always known: I was brought up in a Christian family and im in a Christian school, so the teachings that God is here have been preached to me for years. ... And I basically think that all other religions are generally based around God, but they use the different forms of God, such as Zeus and Ra and Odin and such, they are all just a form of God but drawn into a culture and language.
If you believe that all other religions are generally based around the same divine figure, then the possibility remains that certain religions, which shall not be named, have corrupted this common image for their own gain. Who's to say which those religions might be? Maybe none of 'em. Maybe all. Maybe yours.
Ah, but what am I saying? As long as you're voting Democrat and not oppressing women, I don't care what your religion is. =)
-
Firstly, and most importantly, lets not get into political preferences; it can get nasty.
Secondly, Odin, Zeus and Ra do not apply to this facet of the debate because the 'one' god that we are talking about is the figurehead in our monotheistic culture of today.
Odin, Zeus, Ra, Neptune, and so on and so forth are all parts of polytheistic religions which have been dormant for over a thousand years. At one time, I will add, although it's unrelatedm the 'Pagans' (non-christians) and polyteistic cultures of the past were the majority and christians were driven underground and hated, until of course the roman empire became christian.
-
I don't care what your religion is. =)
Well, I dont really care what religion any ones is to tell you the truth. As long as that religion doesnt interrupt friendships, I truly dont give a damn who is in what religion!
Odin, Zeus, Ra, Neptune, and so on and so forth are all parts of polytheistic religions which have been dormant for over a thousand years. At one time, I will add, although it's unrelatedm the 'Pagans' (non-christians) and polyteistic cultures of the past were the majority and christians were driven underground and hated, until of course the roman empire became christian.
Ah, so basically your saying that these Gods aren't even really related to God in the way that I said it in my last post?
EDIT: And the poll says do you believe in Supernatural Entity(s) not necessarily God, even if the title of this thread is.
-
I try to keep most debates in the current time unless the issue defines otherwise, any other way and they can sometimes be silly.
That's not my main motive really, though, mostly it is the fact that people are talking about the modern religions anyway. It's a bit weird to suddenly jump out of context and a thousand years into the past.
I'm not saying your views arent valid, im just saying that there wasnt sufficient build up to that point.
The contrast between our current 'god' and these others metioned is that the curent one is omnipotent and omniscient as well as being pure and heavenly.
These polytheistic ones has powers limited to thier place and representaion, as well as having flaws and vices.
Personally I think it is a far cry from what this debate is about and too far gone in the past to be of any relevance; does anybody believe in them to a point of worship anymore?
Lordchander said:
EDIT: And the poll says do you believe in Supernatural Entity(s) not necessarily God, even if the title of this thread is.
I believe that is to cover any other being or beings that may or may not have created us that are not god, as such, becuase they are not related, slandered if you will, by religion or the consequences of said religion.
This is why oneof the main philosophical creation of the universe theories is called intelligent design instead of creationism (which is one relating to god, the other that I can remember is the bing bang/crunch theory.).
-
I've discovered I'm agnostic. Meaning I've declared myself a religious pin-cushion, I suppose ;)
-
This is why oneof the main philosophical creation of the universe theories is called intelligent design instead of creationism (which is one relating to god, the other that I can remember is the bing bang/crunch theory.).
Intelligent design is creationism. They both state that life was created by an outside force. Since the only outside force would need to be a divinity, intelligent design is just an attempt to give scientific legitamacy to creationism.
-
To a certain degree I agree with you, but there were people in the philosophical establishment who tried to differentiate it from religion. This is why it is called Intelligent design.
-
To a certain degree I agree with you, but there were people in the philosophical establishment who tried to differentiate it from religion. This is why it is called Intelligent design.
They are trying to differentiate it, but only to try to masquerade it as science. It's political, is the real heart of the matter. Creationists are upset that evolution is being taught in classrooms, so they come up with a way to make creationism more psuedo-scientific, and seperate it from a particular religion. That doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support it, and it still requires the beleif in a divinity to work, thus: religion.
-
To a certain degree I agree with you, but there were people in the philosophical establishment who tried to differentiate it from religion. This is why it is called Intelligent design.
They are trying to differentiate it, but only to try to masquerade it as science. It's political, is the real heart of the matter. Creationists are upset that evolution is being taught in classrooms, so they come up with a way to make creationism more psuedo-scientific, and seperate it from a particular religion. That doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support it, and it still requires the beleif in a divinity to work, thus: religion.
I don't think you understand the religion in its origin WAS science. Religion = science. Which is why all along History all major religious (since all religions come from the same source, Sumeria) civilisations were so advanced scientifically except for Europe which was ruled by illogic popes going against scientists and Logic (why? bc they were illogic in believing their own status is the incarnation of Logic itself, and belive thee logic in their own illogisms, its a spiral and all mankind is susceptible to it). If you see that science was hand in hand with ALL religions (Mayas, Buddhism, Islam, etc etc except those 'sects' which were elminiated by those big religions that bore fruit and converted so many people in those times for a reason, seeing is believing, when it works for real you follow that scientific way instead of callling on a 'fire god' that never comes), it means science was there in the beginning, to not say that what was in its origin WAS science. It's only ignorance of mankind with its own illogisms that made believe that religion and science is two different things and that its a solid fact when History itself proves that it's wrong.
The biggest trick the Devil (Illogism) ever did was to make believe people he never existed. And on that same hit making people believe God (Logic) doesnt exist. People who are illogic, believe their own illogisms are logic like a spiral. All the 'divinities' the ancient people asked are founded since everything still holds together in Logic, it's a science in itself and based on real things. Just like the knowledge they knew about the stars (without telescopes, the 'gods' told them they affirm), all rules of society, all medicinal knowledge, EVERYTHING we use today in society is based off what the Sumerians knew, EVERYTHING (Mathematics, Science, Astronomy, they knew the earth was round,etc) and if they say that they didnt just make it up or discover it themselves but it was 'gods' that told them, then they probably mean something by that or else they wouldnt have said that. I don't see how youre in a position to refute them with your illogisms.
Most atheists who think God are bullshit are themselves caught in the same illogic dogmas many blind christians or fundamentalists believe, only atheists believe the opposite. When they think 'God' they imagine a boogyman just the same, only theyre on the opposite side, same old bullshit dogmas. haha The existence of a 'God' (higher entities) IS proven mathematically. Just check what all astrophysicians who changed our perception of the universe around us have in comon, they see the existence of a 'God' (higher plural entities) as being completely possible and all goes in that sense. Using Logic, following Nature, IS following God's path.
The 4th dimension being time and space and that is mathematically proven, higher entities having attained that level of technology can have an affect on 3D (us) without us really noticing their presence only from time to time. To travel in time you have to reach the speed of light (in other words BECOME energy), its mathematically proven (Logic holds together) just like teleportation (point A become point B instead point A to B) is also proven. The existence of anti-matter also, the whole principle of dualities, the ying and the yang, using anti-matter to bend gravity traveling through time becomes possible only you need an extreme amount of level of Logic and technology before its possible. Once you reach that level though (Logic decides you have reached it), you are then allowed to travel in space and time, in other words go from the 3rd dimension to the 4th.
Oh and God has always been a PLURAL term. Even in the Hebrew texts. For example in the creation of man, 'God' says 'Let US make man in OUR image'. God is an entity, but a plural one. Those who made up a monotheistic one are the illogic ones continuing to believe in something 'made up' of humans. The ten commandments say, you will only have one God, in other words you will only follow what Logic tells you when you reason things fully. But the 'God' of creation is a plural term, it has always been polytheism only of the same entity. The gods in Greek (themselves taken from Persian society, greek poets have written it that all greek society is based in ancient persian society) are all FOUNDED on something. There's no imaginary illogic bullshit here. It's for you to STUDY logically.
Once again I suggest you go read Zecharia Stichin's book 'The 12th Planet' after having deciphered sumerian tablets (the origins of all religions of mankind, the Deluge, all bible and all religion texts have their source there) and also Immanuel Velikovsky (he was a close friend of Einstein) who also affirmed similar things after researching ancient texts which logically show many things thet HOLD together.
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/
http://www.sitchin.com/
http://xfacts.com/planetx_search.html
-
Ow. That was painful to read. Do you have any idea what actually constitutes proof? Put simply, it works this way: A is proven to be true if an argument is established in which there is no way A can be false if it's supporting premises are true, and if all of these supporting premises are either also proven to be true, definitions, or trivially accepted hypotheses.
The interesting thing with this is that, outside of mathematics, there's absolutely no way to prove anything of any consequence. We can be extremely certain of certain things--for instance, I'm extremely certain that I'm sitting in front of a computer right now--but if you trace it back to all the supporting premises, you always hit a snag. In this case, a major snag is my perception. I can't know that I'm not hallucinating, and that I'm completely sane. It's possible--albeit unlikely--that I'm actually wearing a straight-jacket in some insane asylum, and this is all some wierd fantasy in my head.
Alright, so while it is impossible to prove that a god exists (hey, even if I "see" him appear with my own eyes, it's still possible that I'm hallucinating, so still not proof), you still might be able to give an argument to a high likelihood that a god should exist. Let's zoom in on your argument that a god exists:
The existence of a 'God' (higher entities) IS proven mathematically. Just check what all astrophysicians who changed our perception of the universe around us have in comon, they see the existence of a 'God' (higher plural entities) as being completely possible and all goes in that sense.
To boil it down to argument form:
1. All "astrophysicians" (I think you mean pharmacists from space here) believe it is possible that a god or multiple gods exist.
Therefore,
2. The existence of God as being multiple entities is proven mathematically.
Frankly, this is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. "It's possible, therefore it's true." Right. Just as it's possible that God doesn't exist, therefore that's true as well.
Now, let's go on to your argument that religion is science.
I don't think you understand the religion in its origin WAS science. Religion = science. Which is why all along History all major religious (since all religions come from the same source, Sumeria) civilisations were so advanced scientifically.... If you see that science was hand in hand with ALL religions..., it means science was there in the beginning, to not say that what was in its origin WAS science. It's only ignorance of mankind with its own illogisms that made believe that religion and science is two different things and that its a solid fact when History itself proves that it's wrong.
Boiled down:
1. Many religious cultures were also scientifically advanced.
Therefore,
2. Science was hand in hand with all religions.
Therefore,
3. Science and religion are the same thing.
Simple counterproof here, via an argument ad absurdum.
1. Many cultures that had lots of men also had lots of women.
Therefore,
2. Men went hand in hand with women.
Therefore,
3. Men and women are the same thing.
Nope, sorry. Just because two things often exist simultaneously does not mean they are the same thing. In the case of religion vs. science, they in fact have existed at odds in many cases. If you look closer at the history of these religious cultures, you will see a period of scientific development, but after that, you will see a period of scientific stagnation. It is at this point that religion and science are at odds. Religion either starts to contradict scientific findings, causing those who pursue science to be condemned as heretics, or religious rules prevent certain experiments that would advance science (such as the current ban on stem-cell research).
I could go on, but it's not worth my energy. It's much easier to utter bullshit than it is to debunk it, and most of your statements aren't worth the effort of thoroughly debunking. If you wish to gain my regard as a serious intellectual contributor here rather than some wacko, please attempt to defend these points you've made here.
-
Nice counter Leebot. I'm glad I'm not convinced I'm the same as a woman. ;) j/k
-
Another example is Galileo Galilei, who was excommunicated i think for his heretical practises.
I do believe, though, that what he (Capo) is trying to say with the point of 'It's possible, therefore it's true' is that it is so overwhelmingly probably that it's nearly impossible; a few examples would have helped him along his way in this respect.
For instance, according to someone's theory (I cant remember who) the amount of things to store information in on a chip would double approximately every eight months, and thus the power of our chipsets would follow this trend. So far this prediction has been accurate. The next part of my example, based on the above theory, goes that in the future, we would have computers so powerful, that they could completely recreate worlds, universes even, down to the subatomic scale, and people would make them to experiment and simply because such computers would only be made for simulations of this calibre anyway (unless Peter molyneux got his hands on it, and made a completely true to life computer game that would force people to buy these computers). Anyway ,because of civilisations within computers making such computers themselves, and other dimensions being taken into account etc. There would be such a large amount of these computer civilisations compared to 'real' ones, that we are almost definately in one of the computer universes.
Thus, the 'plural gods' are the technicians that created the computer simulation (Iin whatever simulation or universe. Multiple per insance).
I think that is how the theory basically goes, but dont trust me on that; I haven't exactly researched it.
Also, I have decided to kind of backflip.
First, I was thinking about religion and how alot of the whole theory of 'God' is to explain the unexplainable, the misunderstood or the unknown.
It was then that I realised that that is exactly what philosophers are trying to do: explain all that. Therefore philosophy is a religion of sorts, not a dogmatic and impractical organisation of 'believers', but a group of people trying to comprehend how exactly the world works, how it got here, and how we got on it.
I now believe that it is silly and misguided to differentiate the two, religion and philosophy, to the extent that I did. I think that it is just another scripture, albeit an altogether more analytical one. So basically, alot of my previous comments are discredited.
I am sorry for taking up posting space. ;)
EDIT:
Mystik3eb:
What are you talking about? You ARE a woman. And a man too. Or since there is no differentiation, I should say you are a person. Aha! He has freed women and given equal rights to everybody, as well as making the world bland and (un) pleasurable.
AFTEREDIT: I just realised, and I dont know why it came to me, that capo is officer in latin. and it's one letter away from caupo which means innkeeper. So I will be calling him by the name official innkeeper.
That was one of those weird bits of stuff that just pop out and wont go away. The sort that you dont know why they happen.
-
I do believe, though, that what he (Capo) is trying to say with the point of 'It's possible, therefore it's true' is that it is so overwhelmingly probably that it's nearly impossible; a few examples would have helped him along his way in this respect.
Yes, I see what you're getting at here, and how that interpretation could be inferred from what Capo said (see the drawback to bad grammar here: hard to know what you mean sometimes, but I'm guessing he's not a native English speaker, so I'll let it slide). But the problem with this is, as you mentioned, a complete lack of evidence. Especially since what I've heard from astrophysicists is nothing of the sort, and since the strong anthropic principle works just as well as any creationism argument.
-
Ow. That was painful to read. Do you have any idea what actually constitutes proof? Put simply, it works this way: A is proven to be true if an argument is established in which there is no way A can be false if it's supporting premises are true, and if all of these supporting premises are either also proven to be true, definitions, or trivially accepted hypotheses.
Proof is shown to you by Logic. Where does Logic come from? If you know the answer to that you'll be more logical than Socrates/Descartes/Einstein/Hawkins/etcetcetc (even Nietzche haha what did he follow to build up his own theory trying to prove God doesnt exist, he tried using Logic, the same damn thing, God = source of Logic) who in the end has to come to the logical conclusion and very live possibility (more so than the opposite where there is no 'higher entities') that Logic itself is not IN us but of a higher origin. It is was IN us we would know where it comes from, since we don't know and we don't FULLY posess it, it either means its origins are exterior and having an effect on us or that we are PART of Logic. I know what proof is. It's the principle of Zenon, to build down anothers arguments down to being laughable. Like if I say water is not watery, and you show me dead on that water is watery than it FULLY contradicts what I said. The same thing most 'atheists' say as a supposedly proof to why God doesn't exist. Can you prove me God does exist? I can ask the same equivalent question, Can you prove me in full contradiction that God doesn't exist? No? Therefore the possibility is still very much alive. What we then have to see are the facts that are in our face to demistify the reality of the world surrounding us ans using what as a guide? Logic, mathematics, which is why EVERYTHING around us is mathematical, everything, including the planets which were discovered first of all mathematically and not VISUALLY. Logic is the 3rd eye in a sense. Seeing is believing (acknowledging it's true) for the idiots who haven't used their Logic.
The interesting thing with this is that, outside of mathematics, there's absolutely no way to prove anything of any consequence. We can be extremely certain of certain things--for instance, I'm extremely certain that I'm sitting in front of a computer right now--but if you trace it back to all the supporting premises, you always hit a snag. In this case, a major snag is my perception. I can't know that I'm not hallucinating, and that I'm completely sane. It's possible--albeit unlikely--that I'm actually wearing a straight-jacket in some insane asylum, and this is all some wierd fantasy in my head.
The interesting thing is that outside of mathematics blablabla. You just fucked up. EVERYTHING is mathematical which is why there are SCIENCES. Are you the one believing in magic out of nowhere now? EVERYTHING is proven mathematically therefore there is absolutely no way outside of mathematically you can prove whatsoever. As for your 'possibilites', you're right about that, everything being mathematical around us each 'discovery' is statistical, just like 'intuitions'. 'Intuitions' are your Logic finding a lot of statistics around you and like whispering to your ear, hey look here, somethings strange there are many 'coincidences' around here, there's MAY (having more chances than elsewhere) be something interesting to be discovered here. That is science, and using Logic you find a path, slowly but surely. If you think yourself it's a whole fantasy in your head without continuing to be logical and asking Logic for answers, that's your own problem and it's a mental sickness in our world.
Alright, so while it is impossible to prove that a god exists (hey, even if I "see" him appear with my own eyes, it's still possible that I'm hallucinating, so still not proof), you still might be able to give an argument to a high likelihood that a god should exist. Let's zoom in on your argument that a god exists:
Your own eyes are a perception of the world around you, period. Just like years ago they didnt believe atoms existed, it was discovered ('fully seen') using mathematics and then telescopes with technology (using mathematics also). Just the same with quantum maths or the whole theory of relativity of Einstein, it revolutioned how we 'perceive' (with our eyes) the world us because the Logic still holds together therefore now our eyes can see atoms and things ages ago with less Logic we didn't 'know'. To know if something is TRUE, you use Logic, in other words mathematics, sciences, etc. That's no proof in itself that a God doesn't exist. In no way have you fully contradicted what I stated up to now. And even by debating wiht me, you also are using Logic to try and understand. And again I ask you so you remember, from where does that Logic come from? Ok, let's zoom in.
The existence of a 'God' (higher entities) IS proven mathematically. Just check what all astrophysicians who changed our perception of the universe around us have in comon, they see the existence of a 'God' (higher plural entities) as being completely possible and all goes in that sense.
Yes, I said that, but it's not a proof in itself, it's more like an advice like hey, why don't you look at what THEYRE saying that goes in the sense that a God (plural superior entities) DO exist. It's an advice for the wise who want to really research and not sit on their ass and in other words saying theyre the own representation of Logic therefore you don't need to research using Logic? When the wiseman points to the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.
To boil it down to argument form:
1. All "astrophysicians" (I think you mean pharmacists from space here) believe it is possible that a god or multiple gods exist.
Therefore,
2. The existence of God as being multiple entities is proven mathematically.
Frankly, this is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. "It's possible, therefore it's true." Right. Just as it's possible that God doesn't exist, therefore that's true as well.
Now, let's go on to your argument that religion is science.
First off that's false, your first pont. I said astrophysicians, NOT pharmacists form space so you have no logical reason to tihnk that, I said what I said. Like I said, the astrophysicians who work with Logic night and day to advance what WE (as a humanity) perceive of the world around us all say that the possibility of something existing is very much alive even that with each astrophysical discovery it goes in that sense. It's for YOU to read what they're saying about it and use your own Logic to see what they mean. If they're logic in their maths, I dont see how theyre a nutcase in what they say as well. You think therefore you are. Like I said again, always research, that's what the scriptures say, always ask 'God' (in other words the origin of Logic) for your logical answers. Something you seem to be not ready to do? Before knowledge comes acceptance, always.
As for your other point, just look at all the religions (mainly logical way of lives including dieties, or in other word superior beings in the origins and now, omniscient, out of time affecting the 3D) of the world up to now, including the first of which all come from that we know of. It was polytheist, just because you call for example a grape a grape, doesn't mean a grape holds one raisin. A grape is a WHOLE, a concept of multiple things. Just like there is one God, there are also 'gods'. But that's not the only example, like I said I don't want to rewrite the whole books I suggested here. The book is there for you to read and you use your Logic to sort what is true from false. I myself am not the incarnation of Logic, everyone has that gift.
Boiled down:
1. Many religious cultures were also scientifically advanced.
Therefore,
2. Science was hand in hand with all religions.
Therefore,
3. Science and religion are the same thing.
Maybe I got misunderstood here. Look, if during all History, if in almost all religions (except the illogic ones which are themselves even following illogically what is written in the scriptures), science went hand in hand in their socities. Those societies venered their scientists and they were greatly admired and encouraged, opposite from the Vatican for example who claimed to be themselves the incarnation of Logic and forbade writing and reading for 1200 years among many other 'stupid' (illogical) things. If in a big majority of the religions science went hand in hand ( and thats INCLUDING the origin of religions as we know it today, Sumeria), that means science must've been there at the origin of what we call religion today. If you follow a way of life with a way of thought outside of science (Logic), I see NO WAY how during History science then becomes part of religion (your way of life). If you're illogic you stay illogic and even get worst just like the retarded Middle Ages in Europe. Which is why most major religions (Logical ones with real 'out of this world and time for that time' founders) then converted plenty of other people in their days seeing that calling a fire god 5 times doesnt cure sickness but a certain plant does. What makes sense (logically) always makes sense (logically) and people naturally (logically) go towards Logic (source of goodness). Which is why so many converted, if it works, IT WORKS. Therefore science was there at the beginning of religion, which is also why the medicinal knowledge, mathematics, architecture, ALL comes from those ancient days and that is was even more advanced than ours today (pyramids from America to China, Mayan Calendar for their time, Babylonian battery with electrolites, the list goes on, it's 'out of their time' but still logical to use today but still not completely). And if those Logical (in every aspect of their society) people (Sumerians, origin of all modern religion and oldest and origin of society we know of as today) themselves claimed that that knowledge they were given came from real live Gods and not themselves, I don't see how 'logically' they could of been lying.
Just for example, the zodiac constellations in space come from Sumeria which then emrged into Babylon after 6000 years. When you KNOW the Logic of the zodiac constellation (which really exist), first off you have to know that the Earth is round and not flat. To know that the Earth is round you have to fully understand the Logic (mathematics) of why the Earth is really round and is a planet in space with stars. Therefore, how can you logically explain that after several thousand years, people started believing that the Earth was flat but still kept the zodiac signs as being very 'real' if they were supposed to have themselves discovered ('fully understood') that the Earth was round in the past. What I see as a STRONG possibility, is that they were told but not fully explained bc they just simply didnt have enough Logic at that time which is why they wrote down what 'somebody' (somebodies) told them but didn't understood WHY and HOW they exist.
The same thing if for example I tell a 'magic believing' (illogical) person, don't eat that poisonous plant it'll kill you. You fully understand that that plant has toxins etc, you know all of its composition (with science) to be sure of yourself that that plant is poisonous. That other ignorant person doesnt fully understood though but trusts you nevertheless. If that same person sees someone around them go eat that plant and die. Without knowing the full Logic of the toxins inside that plant, it's still going to realize that what I had told him is true (plant is poisonous and can kill you) but by not having yourself fully understoof the Logic of the fact and discovered it yourself, it's always (and a very STRONG one too) possible for you to go into 'illogical' reasons ('God's malediction, the boogieman caught you blablabla = which just really scientifcally means a logic error occrued and killed you) added to what I said to try and explain why that plant is possible. What I said is still true, but the 'theories' (coating) surrounding WHY what I said is true can still be false. Nevertheless, if you follow Logic, with time you'll discover why what I said back then was really true. Back to the zodiac constellations for example (which is a SMALL example of what logic and smart archeologists know of the precision of their knowledge of Space including the existence of another 'inhabited' planet in our solar system with loud and clear (AND ALWAYS POSSIBLE) explanations which go in the sense that what science is discovering today. Planet X.). If the discoveries were made by those people themselves, there would be no reason as to why they (we as humanity) later fell into illogisms but still keept the 'reality' of the facts (zodiac constellations in space and seen from a round Earth).
As for the counterproof, I read it. it's bullshit. Maybe because I got misunderstood or that you yourself are illogic ut I agree that it's bullshit what you wrote in your counterprood. That's not what I'm saying at all.
Nope, sorry. Just because two things often exist simultaneously does not mean they are the same thing. In the case of religion vs. science, they in fact have existed at odds in many cases. If you look closer at the history of these religious cultures, you will see a period of scientific development, but after that, you will see a period of scientific stagnation. It is at this point that religion and science are at odds. Religion either starts to contradict scientific findings, causing those who pursue science to be condemned as heretics, or religious rules prevent certain experiments that would advance science (such as the current ban on stem-cell research).
Like I said before, the whole counterproof you wrote is bullshit (but you already know that too I supposed, it's sarcasm). Throughout history religion and science were at odds because illogic people for an illogical reason perceived both to be two separate things when in its origin science WAS religion (way of life) and the religion (way of life) WAS science (using Logic and mathematics). You know, the greatest trick the devil (source ofIllogism) ever pulled was making people believe he didn't exist and at the same time making people believe at the same time God (source of Logic) didn't exist. Why? Because it's illogic and people who are illogic truly believe (thinking it's logic) that their own illogisms are logic. You see it everyday, people who believe they are the very incarnation of Logic and that others know nothing, that is true close mindedness. I never said in History there were PERFECT religions, but almost all religions followed Logic in how they could and the scientific advances were made until they reached a certain stagnation. Just like it was before Einstein came and revolutionez everything (still Logically) and science continued to advance. Just like at how much we have advanced in the last 50 years and we are barely touching the 4th dimension (time and space, gravity, quantum maths, teleportation is very real) already. There is NOTHING perfect INSIDE Logic i in our 3D world. The perfection is ABOVE the 3rd dimension but affecting our world which is why Nature for example is all in harmony and only man (who can either go logically or illogically) can fuck up or better that balance. Religions who contradict scientific discoveries with 'magic' are wrong (the scriptures forbid magic), but just like many scientists today believe in dogmas ('magic', cemented proofs without Logic proofs) themselves. Just look at how many 'scientists' thought Copernic was a nutcase and had him burnt. Just look at Immanuel Velikovsky (who was a cloes friend of Einstein), who not only was treated like a loony also but years after his death science found out that his mathematical theories about the planet Venus WERE right. In this case, Velikovsky WAS Logic and as for the 'scientists' who judged him illogically remain illogicaly and they'll be forgotten in time. He also wrote theories almost exatcly like Stichin found separate about another planet existing but (for an unkown reason) THAT is still called loony even in all his other theories he was proven right. As for the stem-cell research, you're right, 'fundamentalism' was NEVER right (just look at how Jesus, son of 'God', in other words 'out of his time' literally, was harsh with the fundementalist that followed the Torah to the letter without using their own Logic which is where the scriptures themselves come from). But on the same note, being that we are not the origin of our origin nor of what is around you, like I said, it is ILLOGICAL to think you yourself are source of Logic therefore you are allowed to play with Nature (harmony also part of higher Logic). You have no right. You can USE Nature to your benefit and technology is just the Logical expansion for the body to perfect itself, but playing 'God' and CHANGING things in Nature is sure to fuck you up since you are part of the same world on which you play with your 'experiments'. But most people today really believe they are the source of Logic, which is why the world is getting more and more fucked up. No, it's not a coincidence. It's logical because people ARE becoming illogical.
I could go on, but it's not worth my energy. It's much easier to utter bullshit than it is to debunk it, and most of your statements aren't worth the effort of thoroughly debunking. If you wish to gain my regard as a serious intellectual contributor here rather than some wacko, please attempt to defend these points you've made here.
Oh ok, so now you also know the worth of everything and you have no time to 'waste'. Hahaha I'm sorry for you that time doesn't bend itself to you also. I am trying to defend these points, but I'm also suggesting scientific reads where their 'writers' who have (logical) credibility you can learn more. I think you're seeing me as an opponent more than anything. The one in front of you is not 'necessarily' an opponent. Remember that. There is ONE Logic, if it is good for you logically, it is good for everyone. Anyways, I pointed in the direction of where I can suggest to look for interesting scientific reads, after that, it's up to YOU to use that same Logic to see what is logically true or false. I'm not 'God' (incarnation of Logivc) even if you subconsciously may think that I am. :P It's so easy falling for illogism and raising yourself your own 'Gold Calf' today and either venering it blindly or being against it blindly thinking the gold calf is the real explanation. Everybody seems to be doing, it's the newest trend in town..
-
I believe you should be using "astrophysicist" instead of "astrophysician", Capo. A physician practices medicine, while a physicist practices physics. (Can't pass up a chance to poke fun at physicists. :P )
I can't respond to most of your arguments because I can't get past all the rhetoric, and to me that is usually a sign that the argument is a poor one.
From the little I understand, you seem to think very highly of logic. However, pure logic alone is very unlikely to bring us to the absolute truth you speak of because of the bias inherent from each individual's perspective. The assumptions I have made based on my experience and learning are obviously quite different from yours, as we have come to two very different conclusions about things.
This probably won't be as good as Leebot's, but here's my attempt at an example ad absurdum:
- Girls require time and money.
- Time is money.
- Money is the root of all evil.
- Therefore, by logic and mathematics, girls are :twisted: .
Of course, the direct evidence to support my hypothesis that girls are evil is at best incomplete. Perhaps only the girls I've met are evil, or that the girls I've met are neither evil nor good. And that's just assuming "evil" is an absolute concept, which is unlikely. Something I think is evil might be good to someone else. And if I know from observation that girls are, in fact, NOT evil, well then I've really got problems.
So you see, logical deductions mean nothing without empirical observations to back them up. Indeed, observation with an open mind may be the best way to learn. That said, Capo, you have yet to provide empirical evidence that places your argument as the only possibility, or even the most likely one. Without that, your logic means very little.
-
What are you talking about. There are not two Logics, there is only ONE Logic. One Truth, there are not many truths, what is all this bullshit. 1+1 = 2. In what fucking (illogic) world are you living to think 1+1 can also = 4,5,6. And about my rhetoric, if you want to really argument back, you have to fully understand what I mean because if you don't fully understand what I'm saying in the first place, with who are you 'debating' with. If there's anything you don't understand in what I said, you know, asking questions to what you dont understand about what I said is still possible and even strongly suggested in a logical society. :roll: Before knowledge must come acceptance.
As for that counter argument once again you're off track to what I'm saying.
The proof is written in the existence itself of History (including OURS at the present time since we are still part of History, the flow of time still has an effect on us last time I checked my watch) that religious societies closest to what the the original scriptures said (the 'originals' being in Sumeria and all the other 'religions', way of lives, evolving from there) held science in high regards. Most of the sciences (THE basis for all our science, maths, alphabet, pi, medicines, whatever which still holds society together) we even have today are there because we 'took' from religious societies (and then to claim it as our own 'out of nowhere??' no, it came from THOSE societies for a reason). If religious societies revered sciences (Logic and mathematics) it means from the origin Logic was part of religion, if not that IN the beginning of religion, science WAS religion. But the reason it became distorted is because that knowledge was TOLD and NOT discovered my mankind itself because if it had discovered all that knowledge itself there would've been NO REASONS for mankind to then fall in the Middle Ages or make up dogmas and magic (example of keeping the zodiac constellations as truth but believing in a flat Earth, complete contradiction if you really fully discovered the concept by yourself).
Man, what is it you don't understand to what I'm saying? You think somebody who's stupid (illogic) from the beginning is all of a sudden out of nowhere in time adopt an intelligent (logic) explanation for things? By working with illogisms (2+2=7, 2x3=220, whatever the fuck thats illogic), one day, by your explanation youre gonna find a way to understand that 1+1=2 and that's the only truth. What the fuck? Ok, let's say if I program a program filled with bugs and glitches (illogisms), by your explanation it's still somehow gonna work and hold together without thousands of error messages popping up and the program crashing. No, for somebody to be Logic, he has to stay Logic, Logic (Pure Knowledge) has to survive through time to still be existent in the present. Take away all knowledge (Logic), burn down the libraries, stop ALL the people from going to schools to learn using Logic, eliminate ALL sciences (have all the world believe in magic and calling voodoo boogiemans to heal all our sicknesses instead of real medicine), and welcome to the Middle Ages, even WORST because at least in the Middle Ages they had the least bit of knowledge of what to eat and not to eat and social structure, etc all talked about in the scriptures (which are logical since we are still here even though the Middle Ages was hell of rough for a reason = big illogisms that were present but Logic helped us survive).
All during history, sciences evolved FROM (sciences had their birth from religious societies, you cant change that fact in the past, you can only redefine the present how you want to, and that includes fucking it up now with illogisms if thats what people want also) real religious societies who had as their basis of way of life scriptures of the past. Just because we 'took' that knowledge and then claimed it came from wherever other than these socities doesn't prove that they weren't following Logic in the first place (it's WRITTEN in History, IN the past itself! Think! Man your whole ad absurdum as you call it is completely off track to what I'm saying. Anyway, I (in my own person) don't OWN all the answers to your questions. Maybe some of you here even think that but I'nm not saying I know ALL because I don't. I only know I know nothing Socrates said. Why? Because the fact that I'm speaking now with words doesn't mean I created the alphabet myself and the Logic of building sentences. The reason I'm alive right now is because I know what to eat but it doesn't mean I myself found what to eat and what not to eat myself. ALL THE KNOWLEDGE we presently are using COME from religious societies, you come up with your own conclusions (still using teh same Logic) to why that is so.
You have to follow Logic (same logic as everyone, same ONE Nature, 1+1=2 because it is TRUE for all) to come to your own conclusions. Which is why I suggested you these books. If you want to blind your own 'perceptions' from possibilities of knowledge from great 'astrophysicists' of our time INCLUDING the great Einstein (if you judge he's not credible for an illogic reason and deserve NOT to be read, i don't even wanna know about it), that's not MY problem, it's YOURS. Immanuel Velikovsky, Zecharia Stichin (who in the past has met with NASA astronomers who confirmed that effectively NOTHING that we know today contradicts the knowledge that the sumerians knew (they themselves said, they were TOLD of that knowledge, think what you want) of space, NOTHING contradicts up to now. Even more interesting is that in 2003 an italian astronomer in France calculated judging from gravtitational pulls he noticed in space the VERY REAL possibility of such a planet existing in our solar system. It's in the Science & Vie february 2003 version.
(http://www.sitchin.com/imagesB/nibiru1.jpg)
And this is Stichin schematic he had drawn after deciphering the sumerian tablets and that he included in his book in 1976
(http://www.sitchin.com/imagesB/nibiru2.jpg)
Coincidence? AGAIN another coincidence? Damn, keep on believing in dogmas just like past scientists who rejected what logical people such as Copernic discovered with mathematics just because he seemed loony or whatever illogic bullshit they based themselves on. If you don't judge that there just might be more than a simple 'coincidence' in all this, fine by YOUR 'logic' (2 logics not being possible = illogic).
Any aspect of sciences today are discovering EXACTLY what the sumerians had already written down. DId you know the human body has 223 genes that somehow appeared during evolution but cannot be attributed solely to evolution? This means, YES, evolution did exist, but in ours and only OUR evolution, 'something' or 'somebodies' messed up and 'unnaturally' made us acquire 223 genes which again (coincidence? again!) are being discovered to have high psychological traits which would explain why we're so different from other 'animals', because we are NOT solely animals, we can THINK, we can SEE Logic if you follow and use it.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_01/Gene_transfer.shtml
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/079bact_gene/
Stichin's (according what the sumerian tablets speak about the 'creation of man' with more details than in the Bible): http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
It's not ONLY called Intelligent Design by some of you dogmatics that like to build your own close mindedness. Evolution (the following of a Logic) DOES exist, but in OUR Evolution, there is something 'strange' that scientists ARE discovering. The missing link still exists as to what I know. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, go inform yourselves on what science is discovering. It's only PROVING (since it's from the same Logic) that what the ancients knew, WAS TRUE and is STILL TRUE. Go inform yourselves instead of being so close minded. Once again, before knowledge (understanding using Logic) must come acceptance (benefit of doubt for no reason but for solely the 'just maybe'). Which is exactly why Jesus (son of Light (beings in the light form after having reached the 4th dimension, something we are barely starting to do wiht quantum maths), Light being the speed of light, energy, traveling in time, just one of the many 'out of time' guides that affected humanity in the past with messages that STILL hold together completely) once said, all men have already sinned (committed logical errors) in the past to the eyes of God (source of Logic, time & space having an effect on us too, in the 4th dimension). To follow Logic in our 3D material dimension which is affected from things in the higher 4th dimension (time & space), you first off have to give the benefit of doubt for no reason but for the 'just maybe' (illogism) to then right after acquiring what the other person said whoever that person is you can switch your Logic back on immediately and analyse it to check using Logic what that guy said is TRUE from the FALSE. But before that's possible, ALL people have to fall into an illogism for even less than 1 second, but it's still there. Before knowledge must come acceptance.
Somebody can give a fish (knowledge) to an ignorant (without knowledge) person all his life, but if that 'Somebody' stops giving you a fish (knowledge) and you don't know HOW to fish or have a way to discover how to fish, too bad for you. Law of survival and natural evolution in itself.
Another book I strongly suggest is Howard Bloom's (called the 'next' Stephen Hawking) book called The Lucifer Principle. It's being praised in all astrophysicist circles and once goes in the same direction of superior entities existing. Real good food for the brain.
http://www.howardbloom.net/
-
You have made a poor assumption, Capo. You see, the first time you posted - a few weeks ago, I believe - I made an effort to investigate this Mr. Sitchin of yours, because I wanted to understand your perspective. In an effort to get the whole story, I visited both his website and several less biased ones. Unfortunately, I discovered his ideas to be problematic. The link below summarizes my opinion quite nicely I think.
As counterprogramming to Capo's pro-Sitchin links, I suggest the Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/sitchin.html), which has an entry on Sitchin that I found kind of amusing. And for a (hopefully) more neutral source, try Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin).
Man, what is it you don't understand to what I'm saying? You think somebody who's stupid (illogic) from the beginning is all of a sudden out of nowhere in time adopt an intelligent (logic) explanation for things?
Of course not. I think that intelligence could have evolved over time due to natural selection favoring smarter individuals, with possibly a little help from genetic drift, gene flow, and a mutation here or there. You think that intelligence could not have evolved, and so believe that intelligence was given to humans by some exterior event. From my vantage point, there is far more evidence for the former than for the latter.
You are right in saying that science is making strange and amazing discoveries every day, and has been for the last 500 years. That's what's so great about science! And the best part is that the scientific method allows good scientists to maintain an open mind, and consider the illogical. But an open mind isn't good enough; you must also have a critical mind in order to distinguish truth from fantasy. I assure you that I make an effort to consider the validity of everything I come across, so please don't suggest otherwise.
-
And about my rhetoric, if you want to really argument back, you have to fully understand what I mean because if you don't fully understand what I'm saying in the first place, with who are you 'debating' with.
Agreed. Go practice your English until you're fluent, then come back. This is originally an English-speaking community, so the onus is on you to make yourself intelligible to us.
Once you've done that, try formulating your argument in this manner:
1. Start at nothing. Use no assumptions whatsoever. Mathematics and classical logic (not the religious interpretation of logic you're using, but forms such as Boolean Logic and Categorical Syllogism) may be used as you wish.
2. Present empirical evidence. Be aware of possible flaws or observer biases in your sources. (Also note that a large amount of studies does not make up for poor quality, so be careful what you choose.) Know that if and when your argument is debated, the quality of evidence you cite is fair game.
3. Make a logical argument towards your conclusion using this evidence. (In the investigatory mode, you should instead have no conclusion planned, and should use the evidence to come up with one.)
4. For the argument to be perfectly valid, there should be no way for your conclusion to be false if all of the evidence you've given is correct. In this case, the conclusion still may be false if the evidence you've given is faulty.
In practice, however, we can't always expect a perfectly valid argument. In these cases, try to give an argument that confirms your conclusion to a high degree of probability. As a rule of thumb, the degree is high enough if the average person would be extremely surprised to discover your conclusion is false if all your evidence is still true. If the evidence you've given is not enough to support your conclusion to this degree, this is your cue to run an experiment to further test it.
I encourage anyone else here reading this to try to present their argument in this form as well. I'm interested in seeing what some of the more religious types (and atheists, too) might use as reasoning for their beliefs.
Me? I'm a scientific agnostic. This means that, since I don't believe I can even trust my own eyes with 100% certainty, there's no way I can be this certain of any divinity or lack thereof.
I do have an opinion, however, of what seems most likely. To me, it's atheism. The reason this is so is because, when I start from nothing, I see no reason other than hearsay to believe in any religion. Additionally, when I look into most religions, I find contradictions, corruption in the organization, and a lack of evidence almost as a rule.
The other problem I see with religion is the issue of faith. Why do we know faith is good? Because the religion tells us faith is good. Why do we trust the religion in this? Because we have faith in it. Why do we have faith in it? Because faith is good, so we should have faith in it. Why do we know faith is good?... This is known as begging the question, or circular logic. There needs to be some outside motive to enter the circle.
Since Intelligent Design has been brought up here, and it at least tries to be scientific, I'll give it some coverage and refutation now.
The basic claim of ID is that:
there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.
Alright, fair enough. So, what natural systems are they talking about, and how are natural forces inadequate in explaining them?
Irreducible Complexity
"a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Examples given: Flagellum of the E. Coli bacterium, blood clotting, cilia, and the adaptive immune system."
Easy counter-argument here. This theory assumes that these systems were always intended to perform this function. Alternative explanations include that the pieces developed independantly from mutations and stuck around because they were advantageous. Then, an emergent phenomenon arose when multiple pieces happened to work together in a hugely beneficial way.
Take wings for example (sticking to insect wings for now). They can't be used for flight unless they're fully-formed, so how could they have evolved? The key here was when biologists found a certain type of insect that used its wings to propel itself along the surface of water. When they clipped its wings, they still helped, but not as much. With this observation, the line of evolution becomes obvious:
No wings, little chance to escape predators -> Short stubs, better chance to escape -> Longer stubs -> Wings incapable of flight -> Wings capable of flight
Alright, next argument. I don't have much to add on my own, so I'll just quote the entire Wikipedia entry on it here (feel free to dispute claims there, if you wish).
Specified complexity
The intelligent design concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski claims that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.
Dembski defines a probability of 1 in 10^150 as the "universal probability bound." Its value corresponds to the inverse of the upper limit of "the total number of [possible] specified events throughout cosmic history," as calculated by Dembski. He defines complex specified information (CSI) as specified information with a probability less than this limit. (The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangeably.) He argues that CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose information, but do not produce it, and chance can produce complex unspecified information, or non-complex specified information, but not CSI; he provides a mathematical analysis that he claims demonstrates that law and chance working together cannot generate CSI, either. Dembski and other proponents of intelligent design argue that CSI is best explained as being due to an intelligent cause and is therefore a reliable indicator of design.
Criticism
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by critics of intelligent design. First, critics maintain that Dembski confuses the issue by using "complex" as most people would use "improbable." He defines CSI as anything with a less than 1 in 10^150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics claim that this renders the argument a tautology: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. They claim that Dembski does not attempt to demonstrate this, but instead simply takes the existence of CSI as a given, and then proceeds to argue that it is a reliable indicator of design.
Another criticism of specified complexity refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes." For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact." Critics also note that there is much redundant information in the genome, which makes its content much lower than the number of base pairs used.
Furthermore, it is not sound to assume that various biological processes and structure arose all together in their current form by chance; instead, one must understand that any biological system is made up of numerous smaller and more basic systems working symbiotically to create a larger structure. On this scale it is easier to assume that simpler and thus more likely reactions occurred that would procure the material needed for larger and more complex structures. The hypothesis also ignores the actual relative chance in terms of the universe; for example, there are an estimated 125 billion or more galaxies in the universe with roughly 100 billion stars in each. Stars then have a chance for the presence of terrestrial planets, and given the scope of a planet and the various elements existent in the universe multiplied by the previous statement concerning the amount of stars, it is easy to assume that the chance of a set of circumstances leading to life is perceivable. One must also take into account all the possible and by-chance chemical reactions that have occurred over the history of the universe.
Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, argues that "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."
John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions of design.
The final argument ID advocates use is that of a fine-tuned universe. Basically, they say that all the physical constants of our universe have to be tuned so precisely for our form of life to arise, that there must have been a creator.
There are quite a few problems with this theory.
1) Who's to say that if the universe were tuned differently, life couldn't evolve, if in a different form? This is like the lottery problem mentioned above. It may be unlikely that this form of life comes about, but the chance that some form of life comes about could be much more likely. So, in the end, one form will come about, unlikely as that particular form might be.
2) We don't know that all of these physical constants are truly independant. There could be a lot of links we don't know about, making this particular tuning a bit more likely. (For instance, take out a calculator and a constant sheet a calculate the quantity 1/(epsilon-naught*c^2*4pi) (epsilon-naught is the permittivity of free space). The result? Precisely 1X10^-7 N/A^2. Coincidence or link?
3) The third alternative is the multiverse theory as I've discussed previously in this thread. If we allow for many creations, with many different physical laws and constants, the creation of a universe like this is not only likely, but certain.[/quote]
-
If human beings are so unique, if our place on this Earth is so special, why is that chimps are more genetically similar to humans than to gorillas? Don't let your eyes fool you, at a genetic level, chimps have more in common than us with gorillas. Some special species we turned out to be, with our somehow different evolution. Chimps are logical animals as well; we are not alone in our ability to use logic.
What seperates us from other animals is generativity. We can out abstract, out induce, and out conceptualize any other creature on the planet.
-
Official innkeeper, while alot of Physics is mathematical, most Science is not.
Indeed, your example of the planets being found mathematically is wrong becasue they were originally found by looking at the sky through telescopes.
The truth is that most science is just observaation, recording data, and logical extrapolation. While the planets were charted and thier place in the sky at a given tiime can be mathematically found, it is not true that ALL science is mathematical.
Your argument that God created logic, therefore he exists is equally flawed.
Logically prove to us that god exists and that he created logic without going to such extremes and piling on all the usless crap. Please just set out your points neatly and concisely and back them up with some well-researched logical evidence.
The order of argumet goes like this:
Point-->Example-->Link.
Afterwards sum up your argument in a paragraph if necessary.
With your rebuttal, do much the same thing:
Thier point-->Why it is flawed-->Why your point X is better.
Right now you are hard to understand and your posts need not be so long.
Please consider this.
-
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm
Strangly enough, Galileo DIDN'T invent the telescope...
There are apes because somewhere in the Quran God said that he has created a creature for every single...thing. Like amphibians, and apes, and fish and etc.
-
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm
Strangly enough, Galileo DIDN'T invent the telescope...
There are apes because somewhere in the Quran God said that he has created a creature for every single...thing. Like amphibians, and apes, and fish and etc.
There was a time when the Middle East was a spring of scientific discovery. I forget exactly why things went to shit, perhaps Daniel Krispin would know, but I believe it was after the Ottoman Empire invaded.
I'm not sure what your comment about apes is referring to. Is that a response to my comment about the relationship between chimps and humans? Or is it Leebot's dismantling of intelligent design?
-
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm
Strangly enough, Galileo DIDN'T invent the telescope...
There are apes because somewhere in the Quran God said that he has created a creature for every single...thing. Like amphibians, and apes, and fish and etc.
I believe it was after the Ottoman Empire invaded.
Sounds about right. A shame Constantinople fell...
-
Sounds about right. A shame Constantinople fell...
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople...
-
The amount of pseudo-science and sheer whoppers in this thread of late is amazing, to the point of being overwhelming. I commend those who even bothered to muster a response to this Capo fellow. Your patience, in this case, far exceeds mine. As for me, it boggles the mind to see post after Capoean post wrought of Lord Jesqian length, yet each more nothingful than the last.
I have a little piece of advice I would like to offer to anyone, and everyone, who might be interested: You can't think your way into scientific knowledge. As someone who deals in real science every day, it pains me when people who do not know what they are talking about (but believe they do) spew junk science as though it were even remotely true, and others flock to it as though it were holy wisdom. Science should not be the pawn of philosophy any more than the pawn of religion.
Were it not for the hearty responses of some of you guys--you know who you are--I might feel compelled to address this nonsense myself. I am quite grateful that I shall not have to take such trouble after all.
-
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople...
That is such an awesome song. Who was that by, again?
Suffice to say, I'm very impressed with Leebot as of late. His depth and complexities have set the scale since I first read his stuff, but now even more so. I believe his step-by-step method to logically come to a conclusion should be put in science/philosophy textbooks. Seriously. Applause to you.
Really though, Capo could use a hint of Josh's excellent grip on the English language, that much is agreed. I will say this in his favor: he would be a very successful priest. I can see him standing on a pulpit, in a church in a southern swamp, praising God and condemning sinners to hellfire and damnation, glorifying the teachings of Christ, and being very convincing to those people who just want their answers given to them, instead of learned, via Leebot's logical sense.
-
I have a little piece of advice I would like to offer to anyone, and everyone, who might be interested: You can't think your way into scientific knowledge. As someone who deals in real science every day, it pains me when people who do not know what they are talking about (but believe they do) spew junk science as though it were even remotely true, and others flock to it as though it were holy wisdom. Science should not be the pawn of philosophy any more than the pawn of religion.
That was kind of what I was trying to say, except I didnt say it quite so concisely as you.
Interestingly, science has been the pawn of both religion AND philosophy.
I would give proof, but right now I cant be bothered. Maybe later. *yawn*
-
Suffice to say, I'm very impressed with Leebot as of late. His depth and complexities have set the scale since I first read his stuff, but now even more so. I believe his step-by-step method to logically come to a conclusion should be put in science/philosophy textbooks. Seriously. Applause to you.
First of all, thank you for the praise. Secondly, I'd be seriously surprised if that approach to scientific knowledge isn't already in some textbooks, at least in some form.
That is such an awesome song. Who was that by, again?
A Google search on the lyrics shows me that it's been covered a lot over the years. As far as I can tell, it looks like it was written by Jimmy Kennedy and Nat Simon, and the most popular version was done by They Might be Giants.
-
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm
Strangly enough, Galileo DIDN'T invent the telescope...
There are apes because somewhere in the Quran God said that he has created a creature for every single...thing. Like amphibians, and apes, and fish and etc.
I believe it was after the Ottoman Empire invaded.
Sounds about right. A shame Constantinople fell...
Why? If it didn't fall the merge of Asian, European and at an extent African ideas wouldn't of met.
-
It feels good to see people here continuing to question themselves instead of just being close mindedness, that's THE path, accepting (benefit of doubt) always comes before knowledge. Love Logic, question EVERYTHING, why? Exactly because there IS an answer EXISTING to every question.
I see many of you guys theorizing about time here since Chrono trigger/Cross is about time but you can't seem to apply the very same logical theories you talk about in our own very 3rd dimension which is still under the effect of the 4th (time and space) above us. But not from the point of view where some people in the future though coming back in our own past and things like that (like 'Chronopolis' and things like that), but beings from the universe (not from our planet) themselves being able to travel in time and molding our own own world (on Earth).
The 4th dimension is VERY real (just as the 5th is on another level but before you can reach it you have to pass through the 4th obviously) and if it exists it therefore means there are things/beings/whatever in them or else it just wouldn't be. It is what it is, let me repeat, IT is what IT (another higher above ) is. Just like logically at our level in the 3rd dimension we have discovered that bending time (literally TOUCHING the 4th dimension and emerging out of the 3rd) is possible with acquiring the speed of light (literally becoming energy with technology, and technologiy itself being part of naturla evolution because it weren't, it just wouldn't exist).
Here's something interesting I found for those of you interested about the ALWAYS existant link between science and religion because since the BEGINNING both were there, not to say that they were the SAME. Even Charles Darwin himself the supposedly 'founder' of evolution stated he NEVER straight out denied a God existing. hahaha
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/god&bb1.html
Also remark, the answer was right in front of us all this time. In the very beignning of the Bible (itself coming from the ancient scriptures of Sumeria), it is written,
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
What we call Logic in other words, IS God. The Logos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
And on another note, which single person in all History of humanity claimed being 'God' (Logic) incarnated and left his very present mark which endured time itself so that everybody knows who he is if you say his name even today 'about 2000' years later, all while fulfilling the prohecies of a Messiah written 800 years before his coming, a very wise (actually as wise as can be) being literally out of TIME? Jesus, Isa, Yeshua, no matter his name, you know who I'm talking about. He arrived in that time in the past to leave his mark and push people to start using Logic more (reason why he blasted the priests themselves even if they were following by the letter what was written without themselves THINKING for example). And he will return in the future definitely because he is OUTSIDE of time. And what do ALL the prophecies push towards? Mayas and Hopi end their mathematical calendar on December 21st, 2012. The prophecies about the popes ('given by an angel/vision outside of time, seeing past present future) put the present pope as before last the next is supposed to be 'bad' and final. Nostradamus, coincides to our time also. Revelations, the same thing. Just go read them for yourselves, what is the probability that ALL of them coincide. You said it.
But let me just remind you guys, God is not SINGULAR, saying God is just like if I were saying a grape, and a grape has multiple raisins which are part of itself, just like 'God' consists of multiple beings. Just like it is written in the creation 'Let US make man in OUR image, it is a singular concept consisting of PLURAL entities.
You can call it aliens/UFOs capable of going at light speed (travelling time), light beings (becoming literally energy to travel in time) which also fits as to why 'God' let the rainbow to remind Noa that never again he would consider destroying humanity after the flood, Light consists of MULTIPLE rays. Just because you say UFOs does not mean it equals to Raelism in itself or any other bullshit gourouism hahaha. The Truth, Logic, exists inside everyone (becaue everyone is PART of a higher Logic) so as long as somebody stays 100% Logic, you'll find the answer. UFOs exist since the beginning, wether in ancient Indian drawings, European drawings, it's EVERYWHERE in History.
http://xfacts.com/old/index.html
Even the people themselves from the past who we attribute to them MARVELS (pyramids from China to America, Babylonia, Sphinx, etc etc) themselves logically said listen, we didnt make these, the 'gods' made these which is why that 'knowledge' is literally out of its time! Hahaha Same thing with the Olmecs having been in America before the Aztecs, the Olmecs were CLEARLY black skinned people. They started the cult of Quezacotl, they said Quezacotl had brought them from a far away land. And in Egypt at the same time, the people were saying that the god Thoth (and BOTH have the same mathematical number associated to them, what a coincidence...) had gone into exile bringing with him people from Egypt...
Add to that the scientific finds of Stichin deciphering the sumerian tablets that show the existence of that 10th planet (in reality 12thconsidering the Sun and our own Moon are really planets of their own) in our own solar system. Add to that the NASA findings that push towards Planet X, the 2003 discovery of the astronomer in France drawing the exact same schema from HIS own discoveries with the telescope....nothing is still contradicting itself.
-
scientific finds of Stichin deciphering the sumerian tablets
There is absolutely nothing scientific about reading ancient texts! We cannot know their accuracy, legitimacy, or even if we're reading them right. The results are neither reproducible nor falsifiable. Therefore they are inadmissable as scientific evidence.
The reason we don't apply theories about time in Chrono Trigger to our own existence is that Chrono Trigger is a video game. It's fiction.
-
There is absolutely nothing scientific about reading ancient texts! We cannot know their accuracy, legitimacy, or even if we're reading them right. The results are neither reproducible nor falsifiable. Therefore they are inadmissable as scientific evidence.
You said it. Therefore it's for you yourself to logically judge for yourself. But if you haven't read them yourself how can you say they're wrong with certainty? ;) You're not certain of your own certainty? As for if they're reproducible, well up to now the Bible HAS been credited with historical truths which fully coincide with archeologists so I don't know from where you say they're absolutely NOT verifiable. ALL that we know are either distorted memories or clear memories, but nevertheless they remain MEMORIES (based on SOMETHING). Go check out Plato's 'Allegory Of The Cave'.
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html
The reason we don't apply theories about time in Chrono Trigger to our own existence is that Chrono Trigger is a video game. It's fiction.
And? Your theories still hold together because they're logical. If they weren't logical and if you couldn't build from them so all can comprehend together, the discussion would end before it even started, literally. Nobody would have nothing to say, period. I don't know what you wanted to 'prove' with that affirmation but it exactly does that, it proves NOTHING against what I said. Time is VERY real and VERY mathematical (4th dimension), even if you may 'magically believe' and illogically want it to remain fiction.
-
(in reality 12thconsidering the Sun and our own Moon are really planets of their own)
Okay, before I slam my head into the table one more time, what's your justification for this claim?
Now, about the tenth planet, go and check on what the measurements of Voyager 2 showed. Basically, they showed that what we though were anomalies were just inaccurate measurements. There in fact are no perterbations of planetary orbits that would necessitate a tenth planet to explain them.
And now, to prove you haven't actually been paying attention to science or the news media in the last year. Early this year, while scouring images taken back in 2003 (give these guys a break, they've got a lot to work on), astronomers were astonished to find an object in the Kuiper Belt, orbiting our sun, which is larger than Pluto. We may have to redefine the term "planet," but if Pluto is a planet, this object (referenced as 2003 UB313 and nicknamed "Xena") would have to be a planet as well.
But remember that it doesn't fit into any of your claims about the tenth planet.
Now, onto the more religious point:
Also remark, the answer was right in front of us all this time. In the very beignning of the Bible (itself coming from the ancient scriptures of Sumeria), it is written,
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
What we call Logic in other words, IS God. The Logos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
And on another note, which single person in all History of humanity claimed being 'God' (Logic) incarnated and left his very present mark which endured time itself so that everybody knows who he is if you say his name even today 'about 2000' years later, all while fulfilling the prohecies of a Messiah written 800 years before his coming, a very wise (actually as wise as can be) being literally out of TIME? Jesus, Isa, Yeshua, no matter his name, you know who I'm talking about. He arrived in that time in the past to leave his mark and push people to start using Logic more (reason why he blasted the priests themselves even if they were following by the letter what was written without themselves THINKING for example). And he will return in the future definitely because he is OUTSIDE of time. And what do ALL the prophecies push towards? Mayas and Hopi end their mathematical calendar on December 21st, 2012. The prophecies about the popes ('given by an angel/vision outside of time, seeing past present future) put the present pope as before last the next is supposed to be 'bad' and final. Nostradamus, coincides to our time also. Revelations, the same thing. Just go read them for yourselves, what is the probability that ALL of them coincide. You said it.
"The Bible says so" is not proof. It's not even evidence. It's hearsay at best, myth at worst. Give me an empirical reason to believe this, or else your pleas for faith will fall on secular ears.
Now, as for the prophecies you referenced, very few of them actually give a definitive time that scholars agree upon (rough translations and cryptic writing, you know). Also, a lot of scheduled dates for the apocalypse have already passed eventless.
Now, have you ever heard of the multiple endpoints theorem? Basically, it says that if you look for something specific, you have a low chance of finding it. But if you look for something general, you have a high chance of finding it. How this applies is if you were to pick four doomsday prophecies at random, and see if they all agree on the exact time of doomsday, it would be a significant finding. But if you scour every prediction ever made and find four that give roughly the same time, it means nothing. You had a good chance of finding that from the get-go.
I'd like to specifically address your comment about Revelations, as this is the only one I know about already. The fact about this is that Revelations gives no time estimate whatsoever for when the apocalypse will take place. There is a reference in the Bible, however, to around the year 2000 being the end of an era and the beginning of the age of Aquarius (sorry, I forget what it was before. Whatever comes right before on the Zodiac calendar). The previous era was one with the philosophy that humanity needed to be led. This era is one where humanity has to think for itself and make its own way. Ironically, if this is true, it actually could be an end to religion in the world.
-
Some famous guy from history (I forgot his name but I saw it in a documentary, it was either galaleo or some famous guy to do with gravity, or space in the 16th century), who did alchemy to find out "God's code" said that revelations pointed towards the apocalypse being in 2060. I think it was Newton.
-
Some famous guy from history (I forgot his name but I saw it in a documentary, it was either galaleo or some famous guy to do with gravity, or space in the 16th century), who did alchemy to find out "God's code" said that revelations pointed towards the apocalypse being in 2060. I think it was Newton.
When I was religious, I personally believed the Second Coming/Apocalypse would be sometime between 2030-2070. So I suppose I would've agreed with him.
-
Zaperking:
It was, in fact, Newton who said that.
Leebot:
A planet is widely defined as a major body orbiting a solar body, as you stated, there is no real definition of how large a major body IS. I just wanted to clarify what a planet is.
We cant go defining any old satellite (the moon) as a planet, because it would be unscientific. The moon is actually just that: A moon.
Likewise, the sun cannot be a planet because it is a sun: that which planets have to orbit around to BE planets.
I object to your categorical denial that there is an iota of truth in the Bible.
While i agree with you here, I feel that that was over generalisation. Even if that was fantasy, and that most of the bible is, I believe that there is some truth in it.
And lastly to the official inkeeper on jesus teaching logic:
The bible says that jesus taught people to love eachother, to be friends, to not kill eachother, and that there would be a kingdom of heaven coming, there is nothing to say that jesus taught the people to use logic more.
Your continued association of logic with god is horribly flawed in that the church has opposed science every step of the way (contraception, the earth being round, all sorts of heretical ideas regarding physics, etc.).
Also on this topic, you said there was first logos and god and logos are the same. logos (greek), while mainly meaning word, but also meaning reason, logic and various other things, can be taken literally as you have or it can be more dynamic. I believe (as do many others)that religion, although I am not religious myself, must have meaning taken from it, not to be literally used. Only in this way can religion be useful and all the rhetoric and persuasia (i just oined a new term!) discarded. Thus logos could be defined as the holy spirit; First there was the holy spirit (an entity capable of reasoning, logical thought and speech). Then there was god. God IS the holy spirit. This is better than: first there was logic, then god. god is logic.
But then, the point is rather moot anyway. Who are we to say that that part is true? Why is IT right and all the other relgions wrong? If you ask a person who is religious they will probably say something along the lines of, 'Becasue our god is the one true god! all the others suck!'
-
I object to your categorical denial that there is an iota of truth in the Bible.
Whoa there, hold on. I never said that there wasn't any truth in it, I'm just saying that it on its own doesn't count as any form of evidence. We know from other historical evidence that there actually was a man named Jesus Christ (although Yeshua is closer to how he was named at the time). So, the Bible had something right there. What the Bible leaves out is that he was married to Mary Magdalene (who was not a prostitute), and they actually had at least one child. (Not relevent here, really, just a neat point.)
On the other hand, the Bible has a ton of stories in it that are most likely fiction. Some of them fly right in the face of known science, without it even being a miracle from God/Jesus. They were just wrong about how science worked, and used their incorrect assumption in writing some of the stories.
-
Okay, before I slam my head into the table one more time, what's your justification for this claim?
Go ahead and slam your head on the table Mr Know-It-All haha, here's my justification. You better catch up on what you 'think' or blindly 'believe' is true.
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonpr1.htm
If it comes from this planet and has a core, it's considered as a 'planet.
As for the Sun....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
Do you know what is considered a planet 100%?
Much like "continent", "planet" is a word without a precise definition, with history and culture playing as much of a role as geology and astrophysics. Recent definitions have been vague and imprecise; The American Heritage Dictionary, for instance, formerly defined a planet as:
A planet is any body in the solar system that is more massive than the total mass of all of the other bodies in a similar orbit
Which is why the anciens INCLUDED the Sun as a planet too.
Which is why the ancient considered the Sun as a planet too. Planet is a definition, people today don't even fully agree on a definition so who are you to say what the ancient considered as a planet and put in their very drawings AND writings talking about the sun itself. You have to put yourself in the concept that was agreed on at its time, and at its time, the sumerians considered the Sun as a planet also, as for the moon well you already saw, it CAN be considered as a planet of its own orbiting the Earth and the sumerians knew that very well.
Now, about the tenth planet, go and check on what the measurements of Voyager 2 showed. Basically, they showed that what we though were anomalies were just inaccurate measurements. There in fact are no perterbations of planetary orbits that would necessitate a tenth planet to explain them.
There ARE anomalies or else why do you think an astronomer in 2003 would be theorizing and making a schematic on his very real calculations and observations, it's HIS job and HE knows how to do it.. What the hell are you talking about? You seem so certain of your uncertainty, you should've become an astronomer maybe? Then I'd be more willing to accept what you sya as if it's your job.
And now, to prove you haven't actually been paying attention to science or the news media in the last year. Early this year, while scouring images taken back in 2003 (give these guys a break, they've got a lot to work on), astronomers were astonished to find an object in the Kuiper Belt, orbiting our sun, which is larger than Pluto. We may have to redefine the term "planet," but if Pluto is a planet, this object (referenced as 2003 UB313 and nicknamed "Xena") would have to be a planet as well.
But remember that it doesn't fit into any of your claims about the tenth planet.
It WASN'T Xena they were talking about because Xena DOESN'T have the orbit that the astronomer in France had found from his own calculations.
(http://www.sitchin.com/imagesB/nibiru1.jpg)
You're mixing just about ANYTHING in there to justify exactly that, anything. :roll: Yes, Xena DOES exist but from the astronomer calculations and from NASA's own reports there IS something further than Plato. Stichin had even met NASA astronomer Dr. Richard Harrington and both their deparate discoveries completed eachother WITHOUT contradicting anything. Even Immanuel Velikovsky, the same guy who got proved RIGHT many times about his calculations about Venus talked exactly about that a not yet discovered planet existing in our solar system. Go read it before you judge on it, because ifyou're just doing that, you're wasting ALL of our time.
http://xfacts.com/planetx_search.html
Yes Xena exists. So? You get on with the recent discoveries of NASA And what Dr. Harrington himself had found. Including that July discovery that the rocks in the asteroid belt have the EXACT composants as the composants Earth has. Even the Sumerians had the answer to that and it holds together up to now...
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=108404
http://www.sitchin.com/
"The Bible says so" is not proof. It's not even evidence. It's hearsay at best, myth at worst. Give me an empirical reason to believe this, or else your pleas for faith will fall on secular ears.
Empirical reason, WTF? Science itself is based on never being sure of what you know so that science can advance, benefit of doubt. You're contradicting your veyr self. If science had ALWAYS been sure of it's discoveries we would be still sitting on our asses right now thinking the Earth is flat while still having the zodiac symbols from the past.. You can judge yourself, are there things the Bible has written which up to now we know are true and real, yes, historically and naturally. Are there also things we still don't know? Of course! It even says itself WE arent supposed to know everything until the very end. As for are there falsities, up to now, NONE. None as if the Bible had written something completely false like water is not liqiud and where we wouldve discovered water IS liquid. There are NO contradictions up to now. Science IS always playing with probabilities and advancing in a sphere of Logic. Has the Bible been outwright wrong up to now, NO. It's for you to judge, if YOU want to 'magically' believe that everything is false without the benefit of doubt sitll existing for many reasons which do exist (truths, archeological and all that we have found up to now), that's up to YOU and only YOU. YOU are the one to 'magically' believe all is false without reasons.
Now, as for the prophecies you referenced, very few of them actually give a definitive time that scholars agree upon (rough translations and cryptic writing, you know). Also, a lot of scheduled dates for the apocalypse have already passed eventless.
Very few of them give a definitve time, comon, you know how to recognize things and judge from the very amount of 'coincidences' that make it fit together. How much 'coincidence' can you have when the Mayan calendar and Hopi (two tribes very far apart) both have the end of their very strong mathematical calendar on the date of December 2012, the pope prophecies putting this pope as before last, Nostradamus.... Comon, it's just luck again for you? All is luck then? It's also luck you're talking to me? Luck that you're in front of a pc? Cant you judge yourself when things fit in on MANY things, what are the probabilities on that?
Now, have you ever heard of the multiple endpoints theorem? Basically, it says that if you look for something specific, you have a low chance of finding it. But if you look for something general, you have a high chance of finding it. How this applies is if you were to pick four doomsday prophecies at random, and see if they all agree on the exact time of doomsday, it would be a significant finding. But if you scour every prediction ever made and find four that give roughly the same time, it means nothing. You had a good chance of finding that from the get-go.
You don't understand. The Mayan and Hopi tribe, have their VERY strong mathematical calendar (even for our time) with the end date on 2012 and they fit in on EVERYTHING wether it is Zodiac signs, new Ages, seasons, the way stars are placed at several times, ALL. Then you got the other prophecies about the pope which have been KNOW for centuries and which place OUR pope NOW as the before last and all of the past popes also fit. Nostradamus also fitting it with our time. Comon, did you even go and read them for yourself? Tell me how much probabilities you have of all of that fitting together? You understand that after 2012, both the Mayan, Hopis, St Malachy (since the next pope will not be coming so far, he's the NEXT and final), Revelations, would be over. After 2012, it there's nothing true, they're ALL untrue... You judge from the probabilities of all of them fitting together. You think the Mayans didnt know mathematically what they were doing? Why? Are you basing yourself on anything?
I'd like to specifically address your comment about Revelations, as this is the only one I know about already. The fact about this is that Revelations gives no time estimate whatsoever for when the apocalypse will take place. There is a reference in the Bible, however, to around the year 2000 being the end of an era and the beginning of the age of Aquarius (sorry, I forget what it was before. Whatever comes right before on the Zodiac calendar). The previous era was one with the philosophy that humanity needed to be led. This era is one where humanity has to think for itself and make its own way. Ironically, if this is true, it actually could be an end to religion in the world.
You said it, just like the Mayans, Hopis prophecisez, the next age is a Golden one for all the prophecies. Religion wont have to blindly exist because EVERYBODY in it will just KNOW who 'God' is. If you've got 'God' in front of you, you dont need to maybe think, is it true, is it not true, it just IS. You're right about that part, all the prophecies say the same thing that religion as we know today will end but it will BE. As for why that date is in the Mayan Calendar, it is EXACTLY because the start of the Age of Aquarius is on December 21, 2012. I'm not the one inventing it. It's known everywhere. Again, why does it fit? You realize that this is a ONCE in a thousand years opportunity, what are the probabilities that all of these fit...
http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/maya.htm
-
Whoa there, hold on. I never said that there wasn't any truth in it, I'm just saying that it on its own doesn't count as any form of evidence. We know from other historical evidence that there actually was a man named Jesus Christ (although Yeshua is closer to how he was named at the time). So, the Bible had something right there. What the Bible leaves out is that he was married to Mary Magdalene (who was not a prostitute), and they actually had at least one child. (Not relevent here, really, just a neat point.)
Historical evidence on Jesus being married and both of them having a child? I give you the benefit of doubt, but I tried doing some research and this is what I found:
Karen Leigh King, a Harvard professor who is the world’s leading authority on early Christian texts about Mary Magdalene, gives “The DaVinci Code” a thumbs-up--but only as fiction. (“It’s a good read but historically way off.”)
Where's your 'evidence' for this as the apostles never talked about any child, nobody 'remembers' as a social memory Jesus associated with having had a child and I don't see how Jesus would've had anything to hide if you gave exactly that (EVERYTHING) in the end with no secrets.. I'ts a neat point if you say so, but NOTHING shows me it's right except only you saying it..
On the other hand, the Bible has a ton of stories in it that are most likely fiction. Some of them fly right in the face of known science, without it even being a miracle from God/Jesus. They were just wrong about how science worked, and used their incorrect assumption in writing some of the stories.
Most likely fiction? You don't seem sure of your own judgement. Maybe you mean, it's MAYBE fiction? Then I might as well also say MAYBE it IS real? About the 'they' you are saying, you're right, those who wrote about his 'miracles' didnt know how to interpret them because it was OUT of their Logic, out of their grasp of knowledge, which is why Jesus was LITERALLY, OUT OF HIS TIME. With time you can discover what his miracles were, but there are some which are still unexplainable but since EVERYTHING is explainable, someday they will be. God IS Logic, the Logos and in that sense Jesus/Yeshua/Isa, was the son of Logic itself, the Logic of our universe as we perceive it in the 3d which explains why he had SO MUCH knowledge for his time, he had THE knowledge.
-
When I was religious, I personally believed the Second Coming/Apocalypse would be sometime between 2030-2070. So I suppose I would've agreed with him.
Enough said. You don't incarnate Logic by your own Nature.
-
I disagree. The Bible does contain statements that are factually and verifiably false.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
This is incorrect, the coney and the hare are not ruminants; they do not chew their cud.
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
...
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Bat are not birds, they are mammals, yet the Bible lists them as birds. There are others, but I think this should show that the Bible has indeed made statements that were discovered to be false.
-
["Leviticus"]11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
This is incorrect, the coney and the hare are not ruminants; they do not chew their cud.
And this comes from the Hebrew version or just a manly translated version of it with the change of words coming in it also? It is 100% sure as being trustable that it is EXACTLY as what the original itself meant? Maybe you think it is 100% sure NOBODY could've been wrong translating things? Just like they did with Nefilim translating the term into Giant while the hebrew word literally means 'beings fallen from the sky'. Are you 100% sure yourself of what you're putting your trust into as being the truth and only but THE truth?
["Leviticus"]11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
...
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Bat are not birds, they are mammals, yet the Bible lists them as birds. There are others, but I think this should show that the Bible has indeed made statements that were discovered to be false.[/quote]
Same thing, I said. It's not EVEN the original. So how the hell can you say ALL the scriptures are false. You usually have to go read EVERY (or the mainly BIG and popular and agreed on) versions of the Bible to put a judgment on it. Now you just picked ONe and say, look, it's ALL false because of this one. :roll: Comon.
-
It is 100% sure as being trustable that it is EXACTLY as what the original itself meant? Maybe you think it is 100% sure NOBODY could've been wrong translating things?
This is funny coming from you, Capo. In the above statement you have admitted that translations of ancient texts can be erroneous. Why, then, should I believe Sitchin's translations of the Sumerian tablets?
-
To address your points, I researched the hare claim. The original Hebrew does refer to hares chewing their cud. Whether in modern English or ancient Hebrew, hares do not chew their cud. This is factually incorrect in the original text of the Bible. I am not saying, however, that everything in the Bible is factually incorrect. I am saying that not everything in the Bible is factually correct. Big difference.
-
Ah the horrors of simplification and vandalism to works of great literature and knowledge.
You're on your own here Capo. I've had enough of a beef with Lord J.
-
Okay, I've officially reached the point where Capo is spewing out BS faster than I can debunk it, so I'll just make one stupid point here.
Luck that you're in front of a pc?
It's a laptop, not a PC. PWNED!
But anyways, a few points, more for the benefit of others than you. The chance of everything being precisely the way it is? 1/infinity, or virtually zero. The chance of it being someway (given that something does exist)? 100%. The chance of any particular way? 1/infinity. You see what I'm getting at here? Just because it's improbably doesn't mean it's surprising.
If I take out my calculator and have it generate a random number between 1 and 1 trillion, would you be surprised if it generated 943597402493 (which it just did)? What if it generated 1? 1 trillion? Then you might be surprised, even though it's the same probability. However, if I generate a random number one trillion times, there's a ~63.2% chance I'll generate 1 at least once, so then it isn't surprising.
Now, onto the specifics of what you said. I checked, and the Hopi prophecy gives 2011, not 2012. Close, but no cigar. Even if it were the same day, there's a simple explanation: It's the date of an extremely rare astrological event, when the sun crosses the intersection of the ecliptic and the dark rift. The Mayans obviously calculated this, so it's plausible other cultures could as well. That's irrelevent though, as if it were really true, you'd expect more than one culture to hit the exact date.
Now, about planetary classifications, I checked the links you gave, and it in fact does turn out that they confirm what I said. A planet, in the broadest sense, is a spherical body that directly orbits a star and is not a star itself. So, the moon is out as it doesn't directly orbit the sun, and the sun is out because it's a star itself.
Now, about Planet X. Not every scientist is completely up to date with everything in their field, and it's saddeningly common for some to simply ignore data that doesn't coincide with their views. Just read this: http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#planetx and come back. There have been a ton of theories and calculations for where the tenth (or ninth way back when) planet would be, but they were all wrong. I'm not sure what this French guy is doing wrong, as I'm not an astronomer myself and haven't studied all the data, but he's likely just using outdated data.
-
It is 100% sure as being trustable that it is EXACTLY as what the original itself meant? Maybe you think it is 100% sure NOBODY could've been wrong translating things?
This is funny coming from you, Capo. In the above statement you have admitted that translations of ancient texts can be erroneous. Why, then, should I believe Sitchin's translations of the Sumerian tablets?
Was I right, or was I right? About translation things, I mean.
When I was religious, I personally believed the Second Coming/Apocalypse would be sometime between 2030-2070. So I suppose I would've agreed with him.
Enough said. You don't incarnate Logic by your own Nature.
...er...what? Since when did Faith = Logic? That's my biggest problem with all your arguments. You're trying to tell us that your faith is logically correct...when it's not. It's not logically incorrect, but there is no proof, or we'd have far fewer athiests today. Notice that most athiests are very educated people. Sure, maybe it's simply that they become too caught up in the pride of them being smart enough to decide things on their own and not based on...whatever. But if there was a logical explanation for religious beliefs, than the number of people leaving religion for athiestic beliefs would not be increasing at an accelerated rate each year.
As a result, your religious beliefs are overall not logical. At least not yet.
-
I do believe in God. but some things that are said to happen when you do some things never happen. Like breaking a ten commandment should get God pissd at you but I have seen any signs of anger yet. And I believe that there is no "right religion". But my belief is that if you are from a religion that believes in many gods and you don't know any better (believing in the one true god) when you die, god will send you to the heaven or eternal life that you believe in. If you believe that you will live with all the gods and serve them when you die, my god is kind enouh to not punish you for not knowing any better so he just makes your religion a reality. Got it?
-
(Looks up) I believe in many things. . .& respect everyone's beliefs & ways.
"Where their are endings. . .their are new beginnings. ."
- D r e a m
-
In this age of information, there is no excuse for people living in the West to not be informed about religion, and to make an informed decision.
Unless you don't have the net, but hopefully people will follow suit and join Telestra's plan for world domination! (http://www.telstra.com/nextg)
-
Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory)
Big bang, people. Big bang.
-
"Big Bang" reminds me of Final Fantasy...
I think I'm gonna replace "God" with something else in my vocabulary...like... "Oh my holy devil" haha
-
Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory)
Big bang, people. Big bang.
The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.
-
The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.
I think you're right, from Belgium of something.
The Big Bang is the most accurate theory from the creation of the universe. There had to have been some sort of atomic explosion to cause over trillions and trillions of neutrinos to be flying around in space. I don't believe they pinpointed any origin yet. After billions and billions of years until now, it might be a little hard to pin point it . . . :)
-
Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory)
Big bang, people. Big bang.
The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.
That implies neither theism nor deism.
-
Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory)
Big bang, people. Big bang.
The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.
That implies neither theism nor deism.
It just implies that priests aren't stupid, thoughtless idiots.
-
Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory)
Big bang, people. Big bang.
The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.
That implies neither theism nor deism.
It just implies that priests aren't stupid, thoughtless idiots.
No, it implies that they are smart, thoughtful geniuses.
-
Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory)
Big bang, people. Big bang.
The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.
That implies neither theism nor deism.
It just implies that priests aren't stupid, thoughtless idiots.
No, it implies that they are smart, thoughtful geniuses.
You are both wrong. It implies nothing about priests or the universe in general.
-
What it implies is that the Big Bang and religion are not two opposing viewpoints. You can say 'maybe the priest wasn't religious anymore', but that is a minority assumption. If he is a priest, it is most likely that he was religious. That is the simplest view. And if he is, it shows that religion and science have not always been, nor needn't always be, opposed (in fact, that 'opposition' is just a construct of the last 100 years. After all, some of the deepest thinkers of history, say in ancient Greece, were deeply religious, even while they questioned religion itself.)
The reason I said that is because someone said, instead of believing in God, that they believe in the Big Bang. But that means nothing. I believe in God, but also in the Big Bang.
-
I can't believe there's no gaia/enitity option.
-
I can't believe there's no gaia/enitity option.
That falls under the supernatural entities... or, I suppose, natural entities, but for all purposes is supernatural.
-
What it implies is that the Big Bang and religion are not two opposing viewpoints. You can say 'maybe the priest wasn't religious anymore', but that is a minority assumption. If he is a priest, it is most likely that he was religious. That is the simplest view. And if he is, it shows that religion and science have not always been, nor needn't always be, opposed (in fact, that 'opposition' is just a construct of the last 100 years. After all, some of the deepest thinkers of history, say in ancient Greece, were deeply religious, even while they questioned religion itself.)
The reason I said that is because someone said, instead of believing in God, that they believe in the Big Bang. But that means nothing. I believe in God, but also in the Big Bang.
You can't do stuff like that without opening a big can of worms. When you start picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to take literally, and which parts you want to construe as figurative, a big logical gap opens up: The Bible itself does not provide for such freedom of interpretation, so on whose authority do you declare parts of it to be literal and others not?
If the creation story is not literal, then what about Christ's virginal birth? What about his resurrection? What about the sun standing still in the sky? The five loaves of bread and two fish? Healing the sick? Heaven and Hell? The Trinity itself?
Reasonable minds would look at this book and see all sorts of fibs and make-believe. But the devout cannot give in to that temptation, at least not very much, because it undermines their own worldview. And so good people like you tend to get caught in between...compelled to be reasonable, yet bound not to be.
So, even though religious figures have always been capable of making scientific discoveries, such as was discussed above, they are always constrained in the end. The Big Bang theory, to the extent that it does tread upon Scripture--and it does, unless you are willing to take a big plunge about the Bible's literal veracity--this theory is irreconcilable with the creation story. That the main reason why these scientific fields like cosmology and biology are controversial at all.
-
Hm, maybe it would of been better if god put in brackets what was literal and what was figurative after every line :P
-
Hm, maybe it would of been better if god put in brackets what was literal and what was figurative after every line :P
That's blasphemy.
-
Nah, I don't believe in gawd. The idea of a big bearded dude deciding to make a world one day just cracks me up. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory)
Big bang, people. Big bang.
The the Big Bang theory, unless I'm confused, was thought up by a priest.
That implies neither theism nor deism.
It just implies that priests aren't stupid, thoughtless idiots.
No, it implies that they are smart, thoughtful geniuses.
You are both wrong. It implies nothing about priests or the universe in general.
You are all right and wrong. It implies everything about nothing, nothing about everything, everything about everything and nothing about nothing.
-
What it implies is that the Big Bang and religion are not two opposing viewpoints. You can say 'maybe the priest wasn't religious anymore', but that is a minority assumption. If he is a priest, it is most likely that he was religious. That is the simplest view. And if he is, it shows that religion and science have not always been, nor needn't always be, opposed (in fact, that 'opposition' is just a construct of the last 100 years. After all, some of the deepest thinkers of history, say in ancient Greece, were deeply religious, even while they questioned religion itself.)
The reason I said that is because someone said, instead of believing in God, that they believe in the Big Bang. But that means nothing. I believe in God, but also in the Big Bang.
You can't do stuff like that without opening a big can of worms. When you start picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to take literally, and which parts you want to construe as figurative, a big logical gap opens up: The Bible itself does not provide for such freedom of interpretation, so on whose authority do you declare parts of it to be literal and others not?
If the creation story is not literal, then what about Christ's virginal birth? What about his resurrection? What about the sun standing still in the sky? The five loaves of bread and two fish? Healing the sick? Heaven and Hell? The Trinity itself?
Reasonable minds would look at this book and see all sorts of fibs and make-believe. But the devout cannot give in to that temptation, at least not very much, because it undermines their own worldview. And so good people like you tend to get caught in between...compelled to be reasonable, yet bound not to be.
So, even though religious figures have always been capable of making scientific discoveries, such as was discussed above, they are always constrained in the end. The Big Bang theory, to the extent that it does tread upon Scripture--and it does, unless you are willing to take a big plunge about the Bible's literal veracity--this theory is irreconcilable with the creation story. That the main reason why these scientific fields like cosmology and biology are controversial at all.
The Bible has always allowed such interpretation. I suppose you're not familiar with its construction and origins, but its existance is due to selectivity.
It is irreconcilable in the same way that the Babylonian stories are irreconcilable as well. I know exactly where my beliefs come from. I know full well that the dogma I hold to has been picked and chosen by scholars and theologians througout the ages. Why don't we Lutherans have books 13 and 14 of Daniel, after all? Why not Esdras, or the Book of Jubilees? Maccabees? They DO exist, but were removed. And heck, why not the, oh, Book of the Nazarenes, and multiple other Gnostic works (the famous 'Book of Judas' was nothing new, after all. Those works have been around since the second century AD)? The construction of the Bible as it stands is a very long and convoluted story. Some people will in fact say that what now stands as orthodox Christianity is merely the heresy that won.
Yes, Lord J, the devout can give into that temptation of being discerning. In fact, I was talking the other day to a friend of my father who is a pastor (and a very devout one at that) about pre-history and all that, and he put on a serious face, imitating an old-fashioned preacher, saying 'young man, this isn't what the Bible says. If you start thinking like this, it is the path to paganism!' It was a joke, of course. In my circles, we're careful about what we take literally, in the same way that one must be careful about taking ANY literature literally. Why not, and how do you know what to trust? A perfectly good question. It is less what story, or what event to trust, rather than what meaning or intent to trust. This isn't anything new at all, though. Here I'm referring mainly to the Old Tesament (specifcially the Creation account and the like.)
You see, when Plato tells his stories, whether about Atlantis, or Socrates, or whatever, those aren't true. They're lies, when it comes right down to it. Atlantis never was, and likely as not that is not Socrates speaking, but Plato himself using Socrates as a figure (in the selfsame way that the book of Ecclesiastes uses Solomon as the proverbial wise teacher, though the books itself was written inter-testamentally, hundreds of years after his time.) Any philosopher or techer will tell lies (or better to name them stories) to get the point across. The logical or historical veracity of these stories in literature is meaningless. The intent of what it is saying is what we cling to, and where the importance lies. I can bring up countless examples from all of history and mythology. Say for example the contradictions between Sophocles and Homer on the points of the Theban saga: the former has the hero gouging out his eyes, the latter speaks of him dying in battle. But does this suddenly make Sophocles untrustworthy? Well, maybe on 'historical' grounds, but it was never meant to be a historical account. In fact, he varies the facts knowingly to suit the story, to bring across his point and idea. That is the exact same thing you must apply to the Bible. If you were to judge it like a history book, you are doing so out of ignorance, not dissimilar from the people who take it to be fact out of ignorance. Yeah, the sun stood still over the valley of whatever; and the sun went dark when Atreus killed his brother's children, too! Factuality aside, there's a powerful story and meaning in each.
And that is the mistake you are making. You are treating the Bible as a supposed 'handbook to history' (okay, so some Christians might take it as such, but they are mistaken.) But it isn't history at all. It's literature, and is as true as Hamlet is, as true as Oedipus is. If you would judge the Bible on its historical veracity, I would ask you to kindly apply the same measure, and thus the same scorn, to Homer, to Hesiod, and most every other work of literature that has 'lied' about the facts. The dilemma you have run into is looking at these things with a purely modern mind. You have it all out of context. Things in ancient days were not written to be 'factual accounts' as we have now. Our understanding of what makes history comes from the likes of Herodotos, from the Greeks, and our idea of 'truth being in the facts' is very modern. If you really want to understand the literature, you must look at it as it was written. Truth is not always in the facts. It can be in ideas. And THAT is what is at work there, and that is why things like the Big Bang do not contradict the Bible. Much of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, amounts to a truth of ideas; the Big Bang is the truth of fact and history.
Now, in all that there are certain things that I have chosen to believe that seem absurd to you. That orthodox dogma I know is one that is selective, but I know where it comes from, and know where it stands amongst other things. This is particularly to the New Testament, which has the virtue of being unconstrained by the more mythical and eastern styles that exist in the Old. The New has the virtue of being built off the Greek Hellenistic foundation which is inherently more rational than the eastern. It too, however, is in some measure a product of its times. Philisophically, Paul speaks much like a Stoic, after all. Many of the sketchy moralistic comments are, likewise, products of typical feeling of the era - whether Greek, or Roman. It was able to advance on a few (the advent of Christianity, for example, brought into disfavour the old Roman tradition of a woman who had been raped killing herself because of her shame), but could not be too radical on all fronts. I know precisely where my beleifs stand in the context of things, and know that I have conciously CHOSEN to believe certain things, which is a far cry from being blind.
However, I would still warn you against thinking yourself reasonable in the face of irrationality. 'Science' itself is not pure, and much of what you know is in fact taken on faith. Have you tested the speed of light yourself? How do you know it is constant: because Einstein said so? How about Evolution? Have you tested this? Have you proven what is and what is not yourself? Of course not! These things are a matter of faith. You place your trust in teachers (or, maybe, your ability to be systematic in approaching it; yet one can a systematic theologian as well.) It is not much different than what the religious believe when it comes right down to it. To stand by anything like that too strongly is religious zeal of a fashion. Because, as much as you might not like this, people cannot ever be wholly reasonable. Even science has its dogmas, and even you have your blind faiths. That is what it is to be human, Lord J. When you believe in the Big Bang, you believe in an event one hundred million lifetimes ago, that we can only barely see the echoes of - never the event itself, only the results. Is that not faith? And if the extrapolation backwards seems reasonable, remember the manifold theories that have seemed reasonable that have been disproven. There is very much less reason in the human mind than you think, and if it is dangerous to have blind faith in God, it is equally dangerous to have blind faith in ones self, or humanity.
Eyes always open.
-
I didn't mean to bring this topic back up and start another monster discussion.
-
What it implies is that the Big Bang and religion are not two opposing viewpoints. You can say 'maybe the priest wasn't religious anymore', but that is a minority assumption. If he is a priest, it is most likely that he was religious. That is the simplest view. And if he is, it shows that religion and science have not always been, nor needn't always be, opposed (in fact, that 'opposition' is just a construct of the last 100 years. After all, some of the deepest thinkers of history, say in ancient Greece, were deeply religious, even while they questioned religion itself.)
The reason I said that is because someone said, instead of believing in God, that they believe in the Big Bang. But that means nothing. I believe in God, but also in the Big Bang.
You can't do stuff like that without opening a big can of worms. When you start picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to take literally, and which parts you want to construe as figurative, a big logical gap opens up: The Bible itself does not provide for such freedom of interpretation, so on whose authority do you declare parts of it to be literal and others not?
If the creation story is not literal, then what about Christ's virginal birth? What about his resurrection? What about the sun standing still in the sky? The five loaves of bread and two fish? Healing the sick? Heaven and Hell? The Trinity itself?
Reasonable minds would look at this book and see all sorts of fibs and make-believe. But the devout cannot give in to that temptation, at least not very much, because it undermines their own worldview. And so good people like you tend to get caught in between...compelled to be reasonable, yet bound not to be.
So, even though religious figures have always been capable of making scientific discoveries, such as was discussed above, they are always constrained in the end. The Big Bang theory, to the extent that it does tread upon Scripture--and it does, unless you are willing to take a big plunge about the Bible's literal veracity--this theory is irreconcilable with the creation story. That the main reason why these scientific fields like cosmology and biology are controversial at all.
The Bible has always allowed such interpretation. I suppose you're not familiar with its construction and origins, but its existance is due to selectivity.
Ah…I didn’t realize you had replied to me. I missed it somehow; thanks for taking the time to write back and suggest I’m not familiar with the hostile religion that has hijacked my country.
I’m sure you didn’t mean that. You were simply consoling yourself with the hope that I have not-nice things to say about your good book simply because I don’t understand it properly.
You’re too good a man for my relentless attacks, Daniel. You used to argue so politely, and now you’re so much more cynical. I feel bad about that. Despite being genuinely misguided about this whole religious subscription of yours, you are obviously more sane and pragmatic about the intricacies of your faith than many Christians.
I stand by my original point—your reply did little to address it—but in goodwill I concede our argument.
In my circles, we're careful about what we take literally, in the same way that one must be careful about taking ANY literature literally. Why not, and how do you know what to trust? A perfectly good question. It is less what story, or what event to trust, rather than what meaning or intent to trust.
That is a remarkably cogent point, one that already places you firmly above the typical unthinking Christian. I hope you continue to ponder this perfectly good question in the years to come. But ponder this too: If the Bible is ours to interpret, then how do you know your interpretation has the mark of veracity? Maybe that’s a simple question on the surface, but underneath it is insidious. How do you really know?
And that is the mistake you are making. You are treating the Bible as a supposed 'handbook to history' (okay, so some Christians might take it as such, but they are mistaken.) But it isn't history at all. It's literature, and is as true as Hamlet is, as true as Oedipus is.
It is not my mistake. This folly belongs to those who profess a literal belief in the Holy Bible. If you doubt the vast numerical advantage of these Christians with respect to all Christians, then you are looking down at your feet rather than up and all around you.
If you refuse to stand on the ground that the Bible contains literal truths, then that is a prudent decision. But your alternative claim—that biblical authority derives from a proper interpretation of scripture’s intent—is a claim without support.
I know precisely where my beleifs stand in the context of things, and know that I have conciously CHOSEN to believe certain things, which is a far cry from being blind.
Mortal choice…it proves nothing of the divine. What makes your decision to believe any more credible than the decisions of belief by mentally ill occultists who perceive supernatural energies floating all around them? Only numbers. Your only credibility is the authority of the majority. That might work in democracy, but it doesn’t relate to the real truth of things. And you don’t even bother to waste your time appealing to such an authority. Your strict Lutheranism puts you almost as much at odds with most Christians as I am. As far as I can tell, your only credibility is your word.
As an engineer, and a student of ancient Greece, you should know better than that.
However, I would still warn you against thinking yourself reasonable in the face of irrationality. 'Science' itself is not pure, and much of what you know is in fact taken on faith. Have you tested the speed of light yourself? How do you know it is constant: because Einstein said so? How about Evolution? Have you tested this? Have you proven what is and what is not yourself? Of course not! These things are a matter of faith.
All of these red herrings comprise the most intellectually bankrupt flank attack I have ever seen you attempt. I know you don’t truly believe what the words you have spoken in that passage, and so I will overlook them.
Because, as much as you might not like this, people cannot ever be wholly reasonable.
Rather, human beings are not presently omnipresent. You are mistaking our subjective experience for a lack of rationality.
When you believe in the Big Bang, you believe in an event one hundred million lifetimes ago, that we can only barely see the echoes of - never the event itself, only the results.
I do not believe in the Big Bang. Belief is the currency of faith, and I don’t deal in that dirty money. When I speak, I speak of persuasiveness, conviction, principle, reason, logic, and empirical evidence. When it comes to absolute assertions you have perhaps noticed how rarely I ever make those. My confident remarks are typically in the spirit of discrediting the claims of other people. I know better than to make claims of my own—and when I do, they are often very narrow. I only have a handful of broad truths to my name, and they don’t come up very often in places like this.
Your mind, as you are a religionist, is biased in a way that perhaps obstructs you from understanding that belief and faith are not the only way to proceed in our pursuit of the truth. The only leap of faith required by a person like me is a belief in my own cognition. The rest follows.
-
Just wonder, what do you believe in, if not the Big Bang?
-
Must you always obstruct my replies to other people with throwaway lines? Give it a rest, my good man. The novelty of your inevitable retort wore out a long time ago.
-
Faith is unnecessary, obsolete. Faith leads one to believe that a determined event unfolded because of the influence of whatever entity, physical or metaphysical, one directs faith to, when in fact everything happens systematically through a chain of self-regulations that goes on constantly, naturally, innately, through the web of relationships that binds all of reality together.
Every thought, every action, every oscilation in the web of infinite potentials that people call universe, reality, life, are bound together and interdependant on each other. All is one and one is all.
You are your reality, regardless of beliefs, hopes, faiths. Faith serves as a comfort-giver for people who, for whatever reason, don't see that everything is their responsibility. When oneself is free of faith, he needs to feel superficially comfortable no more, for he achieves balance and is able to see that he is one with the universe and has always been, for indeed, one is all and all is one.
An that's Ching-Zhang Hua Tseng Lao Kung-fang quote on children who would piss inside his trash can.
-
On a related note, I recently picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". I haven't finished it yet, so I won't say much, but so far so good. To tide you over until I finish it and can make an informed statement on the work as a whole, here is a clip of Stephen Colbert interviewing Dawkins about the book on the Colbert Report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXpysYEhgA
-
Must you always obstruct my replies to other people with throwaway lines? Give it a rest, my good man. The novelty of your inevitable retort wore out a long time ago.
Yes, yes I must.
And judging by you ignoring my question completely, I'm assuming you believe the universe born out of your oh-so massive intellect and superiority.
Fuck you and your arrogance.
-
Must you always obstruct my replies to other people with throwaway lines? Give it a rest, my good man. The novelty of your inevitable retort wore out a long time ago.
Yes, yes I must.
And judging by you ignoring my question completely, I'm assuming you believe the universe born out of your oh-so massive intellect and superiority.
Fuck you and your arrogance.
Wait... you barely learned that Lord J has an ego now?
-
Must you always obstruct my replies to other people with throwaway lines? Give it a rest, my good man. The novelty of your inevitable retort wore out a long time ago.
Yes, yes I must.
And judging by you ignoring my question completely, I'm assuming you believe the universe born out of your oh-so massive intellect and superiority.
Fuck you and your arrogance.
Wait... you barely learned that Lord J has an ego now?
Must you always obstruct my replies to other people with throwaway lines? Give it a rest, my good man. The novelty of your inevitable retort wore out a long time ago.
Yes, yes I must.
And judging by you ignoring my question completely, I'm assuming you believe the universe born out of your oh-so massive intellect and superiority.
Fuck you and your arrogance.
Wait... you barely learned that Lord J has an ego now?
No, but I usually decided to brush it off.
-
Just wonder, what do you believe in, if not the Big Bang?
You missed the point, man. He doesn't believe in the Big Bang, he knows it happened because that's where the evidence leads. A lot of people probably believe that it happened, but couldn't tell you the first thing about how the scientific community came to that conclusion.
On a related note, I recently picked up a copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". I haven't finished it yet, so I won't say much, but so far so good. To tide you over until I finish it and can make an informed statement on the work as a whole, here is a clip of Stephen Colbert interviewing Dawkins about the book on the Colbert Report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXpysYEhgA
Pretty good "interview." Though I don't feel that it successfully encapsulated all of Dawkins' views on the subject. Obviously, we've got time constraints to worry about with a TV show, but the point of a large amount of his writings isn't simply that he doesn't believe in God. He believes that religion is an impediment to human progress and is destroying the fabric of society, even going so far as to support an evangelistic style of convincing people that atheism is correct. I think that this is entirely justifiable, if for no other reason than for fairness' sake; we've got evangelists from just about every other viewpoint out there, after all.
However, I don't know how well that can work at this juncture. Evangelism is like selling something, and speaking as someone whose job at this point is selling ads for the school paper, the only way to do that is to tell people what they want to hear. A lot of people aren't going to like hearing that they aren't going anywhere after they die, and that the universe doesn't care about anyone or anything, because there's no design to it. People want to feel special. But on the other hand, Western religion often comes packaged with suppression of personal freedoms; in exchange for an eternity of bliss, you get to spend your mortal life miserable because you don't get to smoke pot, fuck your hot astronomy TA, or basically do anything that's even remotely fun. If you're an atheist, you can. Though I'd be careful. Most of the natural science TAs I've seen are either ugly hoebags or dudes, and not cute ones, either.
There's also one thing that a lot of discussions on the subject fail to consider: lack of belief in a god doesn't make you a skeptic. There are fairies, elves, ghosts, demons, vampires, UFOs, and plenty of other unsubstantiated phenomena to believe in.
-
There's also one thing that a lot of discussions on the subject fail to consider: lack of belief in a god doesn't make you a skeptic. There are fairies, elves, ghosts, demons, vampires, UFOs, and plenty of other unsubstantiated phenomena to believe in.
But once you abandon religion for reason, it becomes more difficult to justify belief in any of those things, at least in the sense of the urban legend sense they usually take. Sure, there have been people throughout history who have consumed human blood, but they weren't killed by sunlight. And UFO are simply that: flying objects that are unidentified. There's no implicit origin.
Part of what Dawkins argues is that part of why religion is so destructive is because it is irrational and unreasonable. Once you overcome those stumbling blocks and escape religion, how do turn around and justify equally irrational beliefs, and what good comes of it if you do?
-
Must you always obstruct my replies to other people with throwaway lines? Give it a rest, my good man. The novelty of your inevitable retort wore out a long time ago.
Yes, yes I must.
And judging by you ignoring my question completely, I'm assuming you believe the universe born out of your oh-so massive intellect and superiority.
Fuck you and your arrogance.
He explained that he does not make "close-the-casket, we're done here" assertions. He may support the theory of the Big Bang, just as we all support the theory of gravity. But there are no utter ground beliefs in science. And that's a good thing, since science can adapt to new knowledge and approaches to old problems and ideas. It is open for debate and question; may the best logic win.
That was like his entire last paragraph. Missed it?
-
Part of what Dawkins argues is that part of why religion is so destructive is because it is irrational and unreasonable. Once you overcome those stumbling blocks and escape religion, how do turn around and justify equally irrational beliefs, and what good comes of it if you do?
That's the entire idea. Dawkins supports a naturalistic worldview, rather than a simple rejection of religion.
-
Must you always obstruct my replies to other people with throwaway lines? Give it a rest, my good man. The novelty of your inevitable retort wore out a long time ago.
Yes, yes I must.
And judging by you ignoring my question completely, I'm assuming you believe the universe born out of your oh-so massive intellect and superiority.
Fuck you and your arrogance.
He explained that he does not make "close-the-casket, we're done here" assertions. He may support the theory of the Big Bang, just as we all support the theory of gravity. But there are no utter ground beliefs in science. And that's a good thing, since science can adapt to new knowledge and approaches to old problems and ideas. It is open for debate and question; may the best logic win.
That was like his entire last paragraph. Missed it?
Obviously.
-
Alright, so I finished The God Delusion today. Really good book, and I quite recommend it. The book is divided in to 10 chapters, and each deals with a problem of religion and why religion is more problem than solution where the topic at hand is discussed.
Early on, he deals with the "God Hypothesis", and why it is a hypothesis about the universe, and should be analysed as skeptically and rationally as any other. Dawkins argues that religous beliefs are not special, and should be held up to rational scrutiny just like any other assertion. Next, Dawkins deconstructs the arguments in favor of a god, and then proceeds to put forth arguments showing that "there almost certainly is no God". The book continues with a look at the roots of religion before dealing with the myth that religion is needed, or even provides, for morality. The follow up to this is a discussion on why, beyond simply not being a source of morality, religion is actually bad for the world.
After that, Dawkins deals with religion as it relates to children. In this segment, his main point is that children should not be refered to as having their parents religion as they have not had a chance to critically consider the full implications of the faith and make a conclusion on their own as to what they believe.
...but if you hear anybody speak of a 'Catholic child', stop them and politely point out that children are too young to know where they stand on economics or politics...You can't say it too often. I'll say it again. That is not a Muslim child, but a child of Muslim parents. That child is too young to know whether it is a Muslim or not. There is no such thing as a Muslim child. There is no such thing as a Christian child.
The book is quite well writen, and makes compelling cases for most of the arguments presented. I recommend this book both to those that have already abandoned religion as well as believers. I should mention that Dawkins states in the preface that he hopes the book will help draw people away from religion. To those faithful that are reluctant to read the book (or any like it) for that reason, consider that if what you believe is true, then it should be trivial to dismiss the claims Dawkins puts forward. And even if it isn't trivial, you'll still have put your mind to work, and that's never a bad thing.
-
Saying it to a Muslim person wouldn't change a thing. They believe all babies are "Muslim", as they are clean of all sin.
-
Saying it to a Muslim person wouldn't change a thing. They believe all babies are "Muslim", as they are clean of all sin.
Believing a thing does not make it true. Or even sensible.
-
Saying it to a Muslim person wouldn't change a thing. They believe all babies are "Muslim", as they are clean of all sin.
Believing a thing does not make it true. Or even sensible.
But it makes it tasty. Hmmm.
Was it a metaphor? Think what you will.
-
Saying it to a Muslim person wouldn't change a thing. They believe all babies are "Muslim", as they are clean of all sin.
Believing a thing does not make it true. Or even sensible.
Yeah. I know...err...ok.
-
Saying it to a Muslim person wouldn't change a thing. They believe all babies are "Muslim", as they are clean of all sin.
Believing a thing does not make it true. Or even sensible.
Yeah. I know...err...ok.
So you understand why that mindset is problematic, yes? You understand why abandoning reason and just saying "it is because the voice in my head says so" is a dangerous and foolhardy way to go through life? If you understand this, and I think that you do, you understand why it is important to try; to not let statements like that stand uncontested.
-
All I was saying was that Muslims believe that. I wasn't trying to challenge anything.
-
All I was saying was that Muslims believe that. I wasn't trying to challenge anything.
Come come, now. Let's not generalize the beliefs of Muslims. I have it on good authority that that would be uncouth.
-
What about Satan? Do you believe in Satan or any other dark lord? (Clay's gonna flip...hehehe.)
(http://www.cryptoys.com/pics.movie/dr.satan.mask.2.jpg)
Dr. Satan
-
What about Satan? Do you believe in Satan or any other dark lord? (Clay's gonna flip...hehehe.)
I don't believe in any gods, demons, or devils. Ghosts... Now there's something of interest.
-
I'm not a devil worshiper. It's just interesting to learn about to give you a sense of awareness. In the Christian faith that is.
-
I'm not a devil worshiper. It's just interesting to learn about to give you a sense of awareness. In the Christian faith that is.
exactly. if you dont beleive in satan than you don't beleive in God. its a ssimple as that!
-
I'm not a devil worshiper. It's just interesting to learn about to give you a sense of awareness. In the Christian faith that is.
exactly. if you dont beleive in satan than you don't beleive in God. its a ssimple as that!
The existence of a god does not imply the existence of a devil. Likewise, the existence of a devil does not imply the existence of a god. It is wholy possible to believe in one but not the other.
-
If you believe in one but not the other, it means you are scared of which ever one it is.
-
Err...no. There's really no causal relationship between these things. Also, many people who believe in the devil also fear god.
-
You put it in a better way. That's what I was trying to say. If you believe in God, even though you fear him for his power can end your life in a snap, you don't want to believe in th devil because you are afraid of him.
-
I don't think you quite get it. Belief does not imply fear. Great power does not lead rationally to fear. Sharks can kill me, easy. But here, on dry land, their great power is useless against me. I'd be an irrational coward to fear sharks while on land.
-
I don't think you quite get it. Belief does not imply fear. Great power does not lead rationally to fear. Sharks can kill me, easy. But here, on dry land, their great power is useless against me. I'd be an irrational coward to fear sharks while on land.
Maybe he is thinking from an Abrahamic point of view.
-
I don't think you quite get it. Belief does not imply fear. Great power does not lead rationally to fear. Sharks can kill me, easy. But here, on dry land, their great power is useless against me. I'd be an irrational coward to fear sharks while on land.
Maybe he is thinking from an Abrahamic point of view.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting. But he's making assertions as though they are universal.
-
What I should've said was... If you do believe in God, you may not want to believe in the devil because you are probably scared. You can know, but may not believe.
-
How can you be scared of something you don't believe it exists? I know in horror films, you are sometimes scared, even though you don't believe it is real.
-
I'd rather say that fear leads to belief, not to disbelief.
Fear of seeing, feeling how the fate of everything in the universe hangs only in one's hands. Beliefs are masks one puts on everything in order to try and have the impression that one has limited power over reality, so that when things go fuck one be able to deceive himself in thinking that he has the choice of doing or not doing something/accepting or not accepting responsibility about it.
Why is it such a problem living without beliefs? Living and believing are different verbs.
:lee:
-
I'm going to resurrect this thread instead of cluttering Stuff You Love thread.
Of course, causality exists. But religious people say "everything happens for a reason" to mean that God has this incredibly intricate plan, and that every possible hardship, whether it's the death of your child or being paralyzed from the neck down, was done specifically to you for your spiritual wellbeing. "God won't send you any burdens you can't deal with," and that stupidity.
:lol: See it from my eyes, and even that makes sense, although subjectively rather than literally. Then again, forget how I see it, it's not important to you, except for this point: In the Eastern Philosophy, Everything happens for a reason idea is far more complex and realistic compared to that in America (although still referencing spiritualism) and encourages civilians to strive through the darkest hours until they find light (again, Sringtime Of Youth; you can't sit on your ass all day). Even the harshest tragedy is considered to be but one of the greatest trials of nature (don't say it's wrong, because even casualties are natural and sometimes inevitable). The idea is that the universe is incomplete without tragedies, and loss and sorrow will always hover above us. But these dark times strengthen humanity to evolve.
As for "God won't send burdens" bit, yes, that is bullshit. Because if a God does exist, he's more interested in being the Spiral King / Anti-Spiral, sending meteors (mass murders, WWII, extinction, etc.) towards our way just so we can stop being slackers and evolve, and subsequently pierce the heavens. You know, like a parent, or a military general.
I seem to have free will, even if an illusion, so I strive to exercise it until science nails it down completely.
I'm quoting this! :D
Sigh, I was having fun with the Stoics and still love a lot of the applied wisdom, but...after reading a couple books that explained the philosophy in-depth and traced its roots, it's obvious that it's all predicated on the assertion that humans have an ethereal soul; that people are just spirits dragging along corpses until separated. This is the basis of Stoic self-mastery; become spiritually virtuous, and everything else is selected in your interest according to nature and moderation.
:lol: Not surprising as majority of Buddhist philosophy was also influenced with Stoicism. You're smarter than an average Joe, so you can ignore the Spiritualism and only consider them from a subjective view, and try to deduce a more philosophical reasoning behind it. Even I was astounded when I did the same on certain texts; on the surface everything was ridiculous, but from a realistic standpoint it was ingenious. ....Yeah, I don't believe in Spiritualism either.
Let me ease it out for you (doing my best without references, since I don't know what you're reading):
The universe is a natural one = Indeed! But a mysterious one nonetheless. There are plenty of thing we haven't grasped yet.
"supernatural" is a self-defeating oxymoron = Perhaps this Supernatural could be forces beyond common people's comprehension, such as Gravitational-Fields, Event-Horizons and Bacteria?
Consciousness is an emergent phenomena of this incredible arrangement of matter = Eh... well, true.
There are no gods = I... won't get into that.
no heaven, no hell = They're all here! :D Earth.
and no soul = Consciousness; Individuality; Identity.
there is no divine plan for the universe = Quantum Physics
or any feint to trusting in divine will or fate = Yeah, you can most certainly ignore that.
There is matter, frailty, and humanity, and nothing more = And Chrono Trigger! Oh, and art! And Samosa.
It is impossible to completely detach physical sensations and emotions from the meaning and impressions we derive from them. Some may do it through psychoactive drugs, extreme asceticism, and other ways of bending the mind, but unfortunately, I'm already too aware of the scientific method and the truth that I'm thankful to know. I'll have to deal with being rational.
Yeah, I respect your choice, but I'd like to have an input here. While the texts often state things in simplistic and exaggerated terms (most texts do, even biographies, but philosophical texts also are forms of art thus they mix facts with legends), the TRUE Learned Ones (note the emphasis, since a lot of folks lie) knows the difference between reality and fantasy despite laying on spiritualism. Detachment of soul from the body wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place, rather a simple term that meant that a person needed to conquer himself before he stepped forth to conquer the world. Example: Anger might be productive, but is also addictive, and if you get swayed away by it you turn into an idiot; certain amount of training gives you judgement how to control your desires and learn how / where to and not to use. Basically, how to be a master yourself and take control of your nightmares, and subsequently, your life.
The analogy of the soul springs from Gurus asking their disciples to see the whole picture before their trivial matters (old story, I'll get back to that some other time), a practice useful to get people to be aware of their priorities. When you look at the world with an unbiased view you get a clearer picture.
-
It was quite enjoyable to reread this thread. I used to have such fun torpedoing mooks! Then somewhere along the line it started to get old.
What a shame the world doesn't grow up in step with me.
-
It was quite enjoyable to reread this thread. I used to have such fun torpedoing mooks! Then somewhere along the line it started to get old.
What a shame the world doesn't grow up in step with me.
xDDD You're really full of yourself today, aren't you?
-
Today?
-
Cthulhu fhtagn!
-
I believe in the Supreme Architect. I consider a creator intelligence to be the most rational explanation for the Universe.
-
Personally, I do not believe in a God - but many of my friends and people I also know on facebook have a very, and disturbingly "hard atheist" stance on the issue.
I define "Hard Atheist" as one who rejects the notion of a creator because scientific evidence lacks such a conclusion or that scientific evidence shows that a creator is not needed.
I place myself in the "Soft Atheist" category which I define as one who does not accept the notion of a creator because scientific evidence lacks such a conclusion or that scientific evidence shows that a creator is not needed.
They appear to be the same, but the difference is staggering, in my opinion. The hard atheist sees that the typical creator model does not appear to apply to our understanding of the universe, so it must be false.
The soft atheist sees that the typical creator model does not appear to apply to our understanding of the universe, so the existence of a creator has yet to be determined. This is different from an "agnostic" point of view because the soft atheist does not believe that a creator is possible, though not understood, nor does the soft atheist believe that a creator is possible simply for the sake of considering the possibility. I guess both the agnostic point of view and the soft atheist point of view seem so similar, but the nuance is totally different.
So my answer is no, but really it is: I don't know and maybe I'll know later - or not. =)
-
I generally dislike the "not needed" criteria because it presupposes that a creator could not exist who was capable of creating a universe that could function entirely on its own. Or, to put it another way, it claims that because an incompetent creator doesn't exist, no creator exists. It skips over the possibility of a competent creator.
I like to use the analogy of writing. A character is a well-crafted book will have no reason to suspect that the author exists, using any tool available to them. If the book is so poorly written than a character could figure out the existence of the author through science, then the book isn't worth your time. Basically, we know we aren't in a poorly written novel. Might still be in a grand epic fantasy, though.
... and yes, you could extend my analogy further and take it that Jesus is a Mary Sue.
The "lack of scientific evidence" is far more satisfying to me because it side steps the issue of creators entirely. It's internally consistent, as it were.
-
If the book is so poorly written than a character could figure out the existence of the author through science
If the author creates the character, he creates the world of that book. For example, if ice is hot and fire is cold when the world was created, we could still think that's nautural. The result is a different physical system. If all humans have only one eye, they will see one who has two eyes as a monster. So there's no "poorly" written book in this case, everyone is unique.
Maybe if the "book" is poorly written, it has only "poor" science, "poor" world, and "poor" characters who don't know how or never try to find the "poor" author.
Maybe we are those "poor" characters. :lol:
-
... and yes, you could extend my analogy further and take it that Jesus is a Mary Sue.
Strangely, in my cosmology, Jesus is hardly a Mary Sue. Instead, he stands to be one of the "pillars" of philosophy, encompassing others like himself (Gandhi, Buddha, Confucious, Krishna, etc.), symbolizing one extreme of humanity (Love, empathy and passiveness). The other pillars encompass other historical people with different attributes, some even being total opposites but not necessarily "evil". But of course, while I respect Jesus as a man of love, mercy and philosophy, I still don't accept him as "God" or "Son of God" simply because I haven't the necessary evidence to back up the claim. But at the same time, I find some of his philosophies legitimate and important in the growth of human civilization, as Gandhi was also influenced by it enough to aid his determination in helping India and the African untouchables gain independence.
Most of the "pillars" in my cosmology is strictly conceptual and psychological, and hence are placed accordingly. In this sense, the "God" I believe in is the Universe itself -- not quite an "intelligent architect" -- basically, a collection of such concepts, or even the confluence of infinite civilizations and natural forces that has ever existed. In this case, I also have the freedom to believe many things: God is not a person, God is a living organism, God is unknown, God exists in broad daylight, etc. It doesn't matter if the beliefs contradict each other, because in my cosmology these contradictions can co-exist. It's all a matter of perception and scientific / artistic inquiry.
And this is usually why I can get along with both the religious and the atheists (except for the dominionists, fundamentalists and extremists), especially since I can be classified in the Agnostic sector (even though I might not be), and that my beliefs are compatible with others. :) This gives me the freedom to believe what I want, do what I want, read into things what I want (both science and religious scriptures) without necessarily being a slave of cognitive disruptions and prejudice like most Hard Atheists (Anti-Theists?) and Fundamentalist Religious.
This is also because I relate to Syna's view: Playing the "Religious or no" game is outright boring and tedious. Life's too short, so let's just have fun and focus on self-development and social efficiency while we're at it. In this case, people's diverse worldviews help, because chances are they are incredibly good at their particular sector of humanity, and we need all the specialization that we can.
P.S.: If anyone's confused as to how contradictory concepts can co-exist in my worldview, it's simply the fact that I don't borrow into dualism, even though it does have "some" significance. Take this for instance: God (Universe) isn't intelligent because it doesn't have a brain, is not a living being, and hence cannot "think" and "process". However, God (Universe) contains many galaxies, that contain solar systems, that contain planets, and hence containing intelligent organisms that at and essentially bring about crucial change within the universe. Similarly, the collective living cellular organisms (or "civilization of cells") within the un-living human frame create the nervous system and other somatic and autonomous systems that essentially "breathe life" into the machine, i.e., the human "frame", making humans "intelligent". In this case, the collective "civilization of humans" create a part of a greater Solar Nerve Cluster in the universe that affect the outcome of the environs, breathing "life" into the universe. Essentially, Universe is also "Intelligent".
-
If the author creates the character, he creates the world of that book. For example, if ice is hot and fire is cold when the world was created, we could still think that's nautural. The result is a different physical system. If all humans have only one eye, they will see one who has two eyes as a monster. So there's no "poorly" written book in this case, everyone is unique.
To try to clarify briefly, I was specifically trying to reference stories where the world itself is self-contradictory, like ours would have to be if science and God were working at odds.
Equestria is an example of this: Pinkie Pie is the only one aware of the 4th wall, while all the others think it is perfectly natural that ponies have to tend entirely to nature (even to the point of changing seasons), while nature gets along perfectly fine everywhere else. Or, indeed, that somehow a complex civilization can be formed without opposable thumbs (I can understand the unicorns, at least, since their magic makes grasping appendages unnecessary). I love the show, but because it's hilarious, entertaining, has good lessons for children, and puts me in a good mood, not because the world makes sense. Though, to be fair, in this case it isn't because it's been poorly written, but because the nonsensical world is intentional.
And yes, I did just bring up "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" in a religious discussion.
-
I hope not. With all the porn I watched, he would burn me alive until dead. Then resurect and burn me alive again.
-
Well, I could definitely never accept organized religion, that's for sure. Not only for how illogical it is, but also for all the trauma it caused me.
I believe that the universe created itself, no God or anything. Whenever I say that, I always get the same response because it's oh-so-clever and thought-provoking: "How can the universe possibly create itself? God obviously created the universe!"
That really annoys me because it's just adding another step, and it's as stupid as me saying "How can God create himself? A blueberry pie obvioulsy created God!"
So no, to keep it short.
-
I believe that the universe created itself, no God or anything. Whenever I say that, I always get the same response because it's oh-so-clever and thought-provoking: "How can the universe possibly create itself? God obviously created the universe!"
Moderate religion is often better than organized religion, that's for sure. And whether god created the Universe is debatable (and who or what god is can also be debatable).
But how sure can you be that the universe created itself? Despite the countless theories supporting it, there's nothing that makes it factual. If anything, the belief that the universe created itself is just that -- a belief.
Now, that doesn't mean that the only alternative is that god created it (remember that in early religions 'God' was just a semaphore or personification of natural existence that could not yet be explained, so we don't know who or what it is), but there must have been an important event that triggered the creation of time.
This is what I call "Chrono Trigger". Har hur hur!
-
I've found that self-created religion (or a skewed personalization of an existing religion) rarely requires sacrifice. Without sacrifice, it feels like a cop-out and feels, ultimately, empty.
Just an observation based on my worldview.
-
I believe that the universe created itself, no God or anything. Whenever I say that, I always get the same response because it's oh-so-clever and thought-provoking: "How can the universe possibly create itself? God obviously created the universe!"
Moderate religion is often better than organized religion, that's for sure. And whether god created the Universe is debatable (and who or what god is can also be debatable).
But how sure can you be that the universe created itself? Despite the countless theories supporting it, there's nothing that makes it factual. If anything, the belief that the universe created itself is just that -- a belief.
Now, that doesn't mean that the only alternative is that god created it (remember that in early religions 'God' was just a semaphore or personification of natural existence that could not yet be explained, so we don't know who or what it is), but there must have been an important event that triggered the creation of time.
This is what I call "Chrono Trigger". Har hur hur!
I'm not positive that the universe created itself, but I like to think there was a big bang since it's the most plausible theory I can think of.
It's the same way I'm not 100% positive, say, that Bruno Hauptmann kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, but after seeing such evidence as the wood on the ladder previously being part of his house and him having most of the Lindbergh baby's ransom money, I've come to that conclusion and will stick by it unless presented with good opposing evidence.
-
To note, acceptance of the Big Bang Theory is not inherently at odds with a belief in a creationary deity.
In contrast, belief in a self-creating universe is actually at odds with science. Science functions because of the assumption that the effects we observe have a rational cause. Science assumes that everything in existence has a cause. A causeless start to the universe, then, is something entirely outside of science's experience and ability to comprehend. A theist saying that God created the universe is, at the very least, being internally consistent. A scientist saying that the universe created itself can't claim similar consistency.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the universe didn't create itself. Though few scientists hold the Big Bang as the start of it all (they go back earlier: perhaps our universe is the product of p-branes colliding, or the metacosmic equivalent to a bit of gristle in the multiversal gum, or the black hole to another universe, etc.), they all generally accept that, eventually, we'll just have to say "'cause that's the way things are."
-
To note, acceptance of the Big Bang Theory is not inherently at odds with a belief in a creationary deity.
In contrast, belief in a self-creating universe is actually at odds with science. Science functions because of the assumption that the effects we observe have a rational cause. Science assumes that everything in existence has a cause. A causeless start to the universe, then, is something entirely outside of science's experience and ability to comprehend. A theist saying that God created the universe is, at the very least, being internally consistent. A scientist saying that the universe created itself can't claim similar consistency.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the universe didn't create itself. Though few scientists hold the Big Bang as the start of it all (they go back earlier: perhaps our universe is the product of p-branes colliding, or the metacosmic equivalent to a bit of gristle in the multiversal gum, or the black hole to another universe, etc.), they all generally accept that, eventually, we'll just have to say "'cause that's the way things are."
Once again, I don't accept the big bang theory 100%, I just accept it more than any other theory I've heard of. Yes, it lacks a cause, but for all we know an exception to a rule such as that is not impossible.
Anyhow, the last line is pretty much how I feel at the end of the day. It's just the way things are, and so what if we found out the way the universe was created? What difference would it make? It's like discovering who Jack the Ripper was; sure you might feel the need to know, but in the end it makes no difference besides fulfilling our curiousity. His victims are still dead, we can't punish his descendants, the murders happened, and that's all there is to it.
-
Oh, no! Not again! The rebellious... demon... inside me wants to get out... again... BRACE YOURSELVES!
*Tushantin has transformed into Super Antagonistic Mook again!*
....so what if we found out the way the universe was created? What difference would it make?
That's exactly what Sherlock Holmes says: "You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
But ya know, I'm no Sherlock Holmes. If we find out how the universe was created, it would not only alter the paradigms of science and religion themselves, but also my entire direction of artistic endeavors. It would make our whole existence clearer, give us better means to design our evolution and development, understand the universe we live in even further, unlock the mysteries of the fabric of space and time itself that was created past the Singularity explosion (aka the Big Bang), etc.
And you know what else? We'll even have a freaking sitcom based on the new science theories! (Somebody, please kill me!)
It's like discovering who Jack the Ripper was; sure you might feel the need to know, but in the end it makes no difference besides fulfilling our curiousity. His victims are still dead, we can't punish his descendants, the murders happened, and that's all there is to it.
It's like when anecdotes go weird, and we're attacked by dinosaurs due to literary paradoxes. :lol:
Discovering who Jack the Ripper is (if you actually mean Jack to be a "metaphor" for mysteries of the past events) actually becomes the foundations of our very existence. They say that those who do not remember historical events would not learn from them, and hence are doomed to repeat it. And sometimes, the answer to the future always lie in the past (check: Chrono Trigger). And just to play with even more taglines / mottos, "Knowing is half the battle".
See, learning who Jack the Ripper was won't really bring back dead, nor does it give us the right to punish his descendants. But knowing who he was and how he did it will essentially am us against such "kinds" of criminals in the future too. If you don't recall, we've actually had plenty of Lambeth Poisoners, Adam Worths, Frank Abagnales, and the recent star Adam Lanza. But the only reason we don't have more than there were is because we uncovered the mystery, learned from it, and made sure it doesn't happen again.
On top of that, knowing the name of criminal doesn't just give the detective the means to have him arrested, but also unlocks a whole new world of tales that not many people would ever know about (think: Adam Lanza, the boy who was never known until he somehow "snapped" and went on a rampage). I'm not saying that such stories are entertaining (unless some artists seek some kind of inspiration for a new mystery / drama novel), but the more information we have the more we can revise and refine our methods to work better. A simple incident like that made a whole nation demand for banning assault rifles for good; but that's just the start of it many connections in fate that are about to happen.
Now (back to objective point of view), how would Jack the Ripper's identity affect us? Frankly, I haven't the foggiest. But that's the thing about the human intelligence: it rarely knows more than 1% of what the universe may allow, and we hardly know more the other 99% of the components that make the universe (categorized under Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or spectrums we haven't yet found means to detect, etc.), or how that may affect us in the first place. In essence, the only way to know what difference it makes is to actually know about it. Though, if there's one thing I do know, the knowledge about Jack the Ripper would finally make all those horrible (only horrible, not the "good" creative ones) works of fiction based on him entirely invalid.
So in a closing statement, I'll say this: "Knowledge is Powah!" (And no, don't fight this powah)
*Super Antagonistic Mook loses power, turns back into the dazed-out Tushantin*
Uhh... what happened? *looks into the mirror* Am I wearing a bow-tie?
-
You know tushantin, you make some very interesting and valid points. Perhaps I was being ignorant when I said knowledge of these things would make absolutely no difference. Hell, I was being about as ignorant as the people saying "God created the universe, end of story no discussion."
It certainly would help us understand the world around us better, and that's definitely useful information in one way or another. Kudos to you for opening my mind a bit, though I still believe humanity could do without that knowledge.
-
But ya know, I'm no Sherlock Holmes. If we find out how the universe was created, it would not only alter the paradigms of science and religion themselves, but also my entire direction of artistic endeavors. It would make our whole existence clearer, give us better means to design our evolution and development, understand the universe we live in even further, unlock the mysteries of the fabric of space and time itself that was created past the Singularity explosion (aka the Big Bang), etc.
Would it though? You're making a lot of assumptions about the creator/nature of creation in that statement. If the only thing we knew was that the universe was created, how does that provide us with better practical knowledge for guiding human development? What does that teach us about space and time, other than "They were created."?
"Created" is categorical knowledge. There are many different conceivable universe for which being created holds true, and they don't all imply the same, or even similar things.
-
But ya know, I'm no Sherlock Holmes. If we find out how the universe was created, it would not only alter the paradigms of science and religion themselves, but also my entire direction of artistic endeavors. It would make our whole existence clearer, give us better means to design our evolution and development, understand the universe we live in even further, unlock the mysteries of the fabric of space and time itself that was created past the Singularity explosion (aka the Big Bang), etc.
Would it though? You're making a lot of assumptions about the creator/nature of creation in that statement. If the only thing we knew was that the universe was created, how does that provide us with better practical knowledge for guiding human development? What does that teach us about space and time, other than "They were created."?
Then there's one thing you probably didn't appreciate about the presence of knowledge: There is no such thing as "the only thing we knew", because knowing one thing would relate to what we knew or would have known in so many countless connections conceivable that it's impossible to map them all with a single mind-map alone. An example would be "Chocolate was created in a factory with so and so substance, and here's the recipe", which sounds simple enough and hardly much to do with our everyday lives. But this STILL pertains to important effects to the whole eco-system in general. How much production? What are the production costs? How many resources are consumed? Where does the finance come from? What are the waste matters excreted? How is it distributed? Where do the resources come from? How does it affect the farmers who produce these resources? Are they getting sufficient finance, or is it all worth their effort? How will this system sustain the production of chocolate for a longer duration? Etcetera, etcetera. The "Sun burning and giving energy to the world" is simply not enough data, because the information also must encompass the amount of resources used in fusion, how it takes place, how much energy it expends to sustain itself, and how long it will sustain itself.
The virtue of scientific (and, though people don't admit it, "artistic") curiosity is a long and tedious process, and it never stops. The variable we reach is infinity, but that does not mean we should stop altogether, because our own sustainence and evolution depends on it (even if Humanity may be at its peek already). A single answer will explode into a million other questions, much like the Big Bang, all demanding their answers. In other words, even the theories of relativity wouldn't be enough.
As for your question "would it though", I'll simply be frank: I don't know, at least not until we have the answer. But tracing back through countless civilizations and to the oldest known cultures that strived back then, I do know that the lives of people, and as such their paradigms, did indeed change dramatically with their perception, which in turn correlated with the drastic changes of their "Creation Theories". We rely on "observable universe through limited boundaries", the tools to comprehend it were inferior back in the days and they simply used what was available to them (such as philosophies that gave rise to religion). As time passed, our understanding of the universe became more and more accurate, and currently we have better tools in science to actually give us a proper explaination -- we've been able to locate solar clusters, super clusters of galaxies, quasars, and even cosmic microwave background that give us clues to our own origin, and which essentially gave rise to the idea of increasing universal entropy that re-defines our very existence. Now, even then our tools will never give us a 100% accurate answer, and we're still stuck with approximates. But there's still hope, as we're getting better with each try.
"Created" is categorical knowledge. There are many different conceivable universe for which being created holds true, and they don't all imply the same, or even similar things.
And yet "Created" is a linguistically inconsistent term, making it one of the most general of terms in the English language. Here, I use "Created" for defining "Formation" -- as in, "Creating" omlette out of an Egg.
-
Allow my confused ass to weigh in on this topic.
Yes, I believe in a supernatural entity that created the universe.
Yes I believe in natural selection of weaker organisms.
However, as for what God actually created all of us, I have no idea anymore. I used to be a die-hard, dyed-in-the-wool Christian, but I'm just not sure anymore. I don't think that if there is a judgement day, whenever that happens, that any God will fault me for having doubts.
I know one thing. Christianity can make some really shitty people into good, upstanding citizens.
It can also turn otherwise good people into rabid, frothing heathens that hate just to hate. I believe that, as Christ taught, every person on this planet is an equal. You love your neighbor as you would love yourself, the Second Greatest Commandment.
There are other religions that work to make other people good, and that's great too! My best friend is a Buddhist. He is also one of the kindest people I have ever met.
Me having the faith that I do makes me the person I am. It makes me believe in and act out of kindness and goodness. So in other words, this isn't really a scientific debate so much as it is a philosophical and psychosemantic one in my opinion.
-
If the only thing we knew was that the universe was created, how does that provide us with better practical knowledge for guiding human development? What does that teach us about space and time, other than "They were created."?
Practical? Perhaps not, but practical knowledge is so... bleh. People have far too little respect, now-a-days, for more abstract knowledge. That's why the humanities are suffering, unfortunately, even though they tend to be the most important thing a person could study. Philosophy, history, literature, music: knowledge of these things is rarely practical, but oh so necessary!
Anywho, my academic laments aside, if the universe were created, that would necessitate that the universe itself isn't a closed system. Of course, being created doesn't mean created by a creator: could be two planks colliding, could be another universe expanding and branching our universe off, etc. Science is relatively happy with such possibilities, though that does mean that eventually science will probably have to throw its hands up in a very religious-like way and say that some things are the way they are "just because." As far as we are aware, we can only observe, and thus scientifically understand, things within our universe.
But if the universe were created by a creator being, then we can start applying certain assumptions based on what sort of being that might be. A "mad, blind god" should have produced chaos, an "idiot-god" would have produced something like the Discworld universe, a rational god something more, well, rational. Of course, science already makes the assumption that this is a rational world, but it would be nice is that wasn't just a necessary assumption but one backed up with umph.
-
I don't think that if there is a judgement day, whenever that happens, that any God will fault me for having doubts.
Just thought I'd mention, as a bit of a trivia: Most of the things mentioned about "Judgement Day" in the Bible have already happened in the past, and the book might actually be referencing them in imaginative terms as "how it might look like" (and Science does say that there will be more extinction events to come in the future, perhaps until 4 billion years or more, but don't know when).
It's not so much about "repenting for sins" as it's about "trying to have the best attributes necessary to survive" (as evolutions in the past have noted). Our current paradigm shift towards universal empathy might just help in some way.
Also, quite the majority of Christians don't know this, but scholars (and even mathematicians) believe that the Beast 666 was actually Nero Caesar]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkZqFtYtqaI]the Beast 666 was actually Nero Caesar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkZqFtYtqaI). And it seems to be a fairly logical assumption too!
I know one thing. Christianity can make some really shitty people into good, upstanding citizens.
It can also turn otherwise good people into rabid, frothing heathens that hate just to hate. I believe that, as Christ taught, every person on this planet is an equal. You love your neighbor as you would love yourself, the Second Greatest Commandment.
As much as I'd hate to say it, there's one thing that Gandhi says that really strikes true here: "I like Christ, but I don't like your Christians." It's largely accepted that Christ, along with other "pillars" of philosophies and reason, helped inspire Gandhi to war against sexism and make non-violence fashionable again.
Science is relatively happy with such possibilities, though that does mean that eventually science will probably have to throw its hands up in a very religious-like way and say that some things are the way they are "just because." As far as we are aware, we can only observe, and thus scientifically understand, things within our universe.
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,9588.msg216790.html#msg216790
But if the universe were created by a creator being, then we can start applying certain assumptions based on what sort of being that might be. A "mad, blind god" should have produced chaos, an "idiot-god" would have produced something like the Discworld universe, a rational god something more, well, rational. Of course, science already makes the assumption that this is a rational world, but it would be nice is that wasn't just a necessary assumption but one backed up with umph.
Now, here I'd like to ask an important question:
I've always believed that poets and artists often asked the most important questions and held "maybe" as artform, out of curiosity, that would eventually inspire logicians to seek out an answer in the most "technical" means available. This cycle may then be important so that scientists find actual truth to previous questions, replacing poet's versions of contemplation where the artists bring the concepts to the common people in accessible ways. Then the poet would take those resources to ask more questions, keeping the cycle going.
Now, Occam's Razor is one such important "assumption substitute", where the simplest answer would suffice until you get the actual one. Wouldn't it, then, make it sensible for ancient religions to use Occam's Razor (and add details because every author loves to play with surrealism, including me and Masato Kato) by first deeply contemplating on existence itself and sticking to the simplest explainations for the sake of cultural symbology and reference, especially when the Akkadians didn't exactly have a Hubble telescope to verify?
Ancient Religion: "How was the universe created, you say? Judging by how things are created by sculptures, I'd say someone created the universe too! Proof? Er... Look, cookie!"
New Science: "How was the universe created, you say? Judging by the theory that a Black Hole's mass reaches infinity, creating incomprehensible amount of gravity, I'd say the density focuses on a single point called 'singularity', and I believe that's where the universe formed, its own singularity, popping from nothing to something. After all, when you have nothing, only then you crave for something.... right? Proof, you ask? Er... Look through this telescope, it should be right there. Keep looking, while I.. er.. go get coffee... *runs away, doesn't return, because apparently the door is a scientist's event horizon*"
-
I know one thing. Christianity can make some really shitty people into good, upstanding citizens.
It can also turn otherwise good people into rabid, frothing heathens that hate just to hate. I believe that, as Christ taught, every person on this planet is an equal. You love your neighbor as you would love yourself, the Second Greatest Commandment.
As much as I'd hate to say it, there's one thing that Gandhi says that really strikes true here: "I like Christ, but I don't like your Christians." It's largely accepted that Christ, along with other "pillars" of philosophies and reason, helped inspire Gandhi to war against sexism and make non-violence fashionable again.
I, like him, love Christ. But I don't like some Christians.
The Westboro Baptist Church being a great example of shitty people in the Christian community.
-
It seems I need to clarify my statements.
tushantin: Of course there would be a big effect on culture if it were ever demonstrated that the universe was created. My objection is to the specifics you put forward. This is something that Thought touched on. When you claim certain outcomes from learning that the universe was created, you're making assumptions about the creator and/or creation. To borrow the chocolate factory analogy, it would be like claiming that if a factory was ever discovered, it would teach us about making food with almonds. That's an assumption; some chocolates have almonds in them, but not all of them do. The discovery of a chocolate factory MAY teach us something about almonds, but if all we know is that there exists a chocolate factory, it's simply not enough information with which to claim that we're liable to learn about almonds.
Thought: I have no objection to abstract knowledge, in fact, I'm quite the fan of it. I specifically asked for practical information as a result of tushantin's claim that the discovery of creation would "give us better means to design our evolution and development". That's a claim that a certain piece of abstract information would lead necessarily to a particular sort of practical knowledge. I don't think that's a fair leap to make, although you may disagree.
I'm not sold on your assertion that the universe, if created, could not be a closed system. Is it not in principle possible for a closed system to be created?
-
Pardon my delayed response. XD
Anywho, if we're taking analogies, do note that this is why I said "we don't know what will change", which is hardly an "assumption" -- if we find a chocolate factory, then knowing HOW almonds are used has a small percentage on how likely we are to find a factory that uses almonds and not, say, caramel. But, if by chance it uses caramels instead of almonds, then we find out how caramels are used instead. If mere chocolate -- dark or white -- are used, we'd found out that too. But because it's a factory, simply because it CREATES products, we are likely to find "something" that might benefit us with the knowledge of our environment, which we are pretty likely to use. And if we consider humanity as a single entity, and Me as the whole of Humanity, then I will CERTAINLY use it.
Almonds, caramels, cashews... it doesn't matter. SOMETHING connects us, something seems out of place, and we're finding it for the sake of curiosity. What we do after that all depends on what we find, and study further about it.
Another analogy: If we take your analogy of practicality, it would actually be similar to a child at school wondering "why Algebra is even important in the first place". They can't use all those means and square roots throughout their lives, and they don't know where to use those complex algorithms in the first place. Then what's the point of learning it all?
And guess what, you are not to blame on it. That's a perfectly logical question, a strange problem I've been scratching my head at for several years now.
But that doesn't mean that such mathematics would be entirely "useless" -- sure, you can't use it in your day to day lives, but for sheer scientific or mathematical endeavors of curiosity, based on how you were raised or what direction you choose to go, will aid your toolkit and forge a better future, enabling you to get answers for yourself and others, especially since Physics depends on mathematics (and for the new Quantum Gravity field, even more so). Based on the statistics, calculations and conclusions you arrive to a given problem, you also figure out relations to your own life, and find a better means of actually existing.
At the same time, I would also have to disagree with you when you say that abstract thinking does not lead to practicality, because nothing is further from the truth. Abstract information tends to largely influence on the decisions you take, and the practical approach you make, by simply "being there". Knowing that humanity is governed by Evolution, and not God, does not make a difference to its existence, BUT it does make a big difference to your "innate belief" and driving your neural systems in a specific way, such as knowing the "needs" of adaptation and flexibility as the essentials of survival not just for species but also individuals. In other words, abstract information "shapes" you sufficiently to influence your practical approach.
-
@RD, sorry for not making that clearer: that was just a rant directed at academics in general, not you in specific.
But for abstract leading to practical knowledge, again, if we know that the universe was created, and if we know it was created by a particular kind of being, that allows us to practically direct our own scientific inquiries based on reasonable inferences between the creator and the created.
As for if the universe/closed system issue: a closed system can't be acted upon by external forces. Creating it would have been an external force, therefore, even if the creator was subsequently entirely contained within the universe, the system wouldn't be closed. That said, upon further research, it looks like I am using a "classical mechanics" closed system definition, but a thermodynamic closed system would allow for external forces to be applied, as long as matter doesn't get exchanged.