Religion....

[Syn7]

OK, SR, rock on wit ya bad self.... A more appropriate heading for the subject.

If the mods aren't too lazy maybe you can take the 30 seconds and put the last few religion posts from the evolution thread into here.


Yes religion is fun to argue and can shed important light on who we are and how we came to be such, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the evolution thread.


Maybe the bible is right or maybe it really was aliens, the reality is that we do NOT know.

That is a very agnostic thing to say for a christian. Has your faith wavered or do you believe that knowing what you wrote has nothing to do with faith? I think faith to me and faith to you are two very different things.

I have faith in Drake continuing to have sand in his vijayjay because I am familiar with how he is on kfm, especially when his beloved are called into question. I have faith that tomorrow the sun will rise because it has always been this way for me and nothing has ever shown me otherwise.

What I don't have faith in is that there is a god of any kind that is not only significantly greater than us, but is also our creator. That is not to say that a greater being did not create us, who knows, whether that be aliens or god(who would technically be an alien, no?)
I don't think any of us are really in an HONEST position to know any of this.

I can get down with believing for no reason other than sheer desire for that to be the truth, but then most christians get super offended by that analysis.

[bawang]

when you live inside a sterilized box in the western world, you are isolated from the natural world. when you truly live, you will feel the call of whatever spirits or gods your ancestors believed in.

[Syn7]

Only if you were raised by somebody who has those beliefs. Most of us are locked in long before we ever have any sort of original thought of our own. Very VERY few ever break away from that.

[bawang]

do you know what old world cultures described as paradise? as the lives of gods?
endless sex and endless alcohol and endless partying and revelry. the western world has become mount olympus, and westernized nations live as defacto GODS.


white america does not need a spiritual paradise, because white america is a physical paradise. white america does not need god because the white man is god.


looking at starving african orphans and AIDs patients like pathetic things, like insignificant insects under you, an afterthought. bombing villages from gunships, raining fiery vengeance like zeus himself. are ye not gods?

yet prometheus stole the fire from the gods and gave it to mankind.

[Drake]

do you know what old world cultures described as paradise? as the lives of gods?
endless sex and endless alcohol and endless partying and revelry. the western world has become mount olympus, and westernized nations live as defacto GODS.


white america does not need a spiritual paradise, because white america is a physical paradise. white america does not need god because the white man is god.


looking at starving african orphans and AIDs patients like pathetic things, like insignificant insects under you, an afterthought. bombing villages from gunships, raining fiery vengeance like zeus himself. are ye not gods?

yet prometheus stole the fire from the gods and gave it to mankind.

Only when we pull out the nukes. Then yeah... we're ****ing gods!

[bawang]

Only when we pull out the nukes. Then yeah... we're ****ing gods!

you already did twice.

*demon voice

THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS NO GOOD AND NO EVIL. ONLY TRONG AND WEEK. ONLY THE TRONG SHALL SURVIVE

[Drake]

you already did twice.

*demon voice

THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS NO GOOD AND NO EVIL. ONLY TRONG AND WEEK. ONLY THE TRONG SHALL SURVIVE

And Japan immediately surrendered and turned docile.

You don't **** with gods.

[bawang]

And Japan immediately surrendered and turned docile.

You don't **** with gods.

their women are eager to be gang raped by our fierce warriors.

[Syn7]

I don't see anything godly about nuclear technology. It's simply a product of thousands of years of compounded information. Given the laws of physics are what they are whether we know them or not, it was even inevitable. I don't see how that could be considered godly in any way, shape or form. Even as some tongue in cheek on some "I was just joking" bullsh1t, it still doesn't make sense. Godly is creating something from nothing, LITERALLY. As of today I have seen no evidence of that ever occurring, and certainly not with any nuclear technology.


Genesis maybe, but it isn't exactly a reliable source for scientific analysis. If anyone actually believs otherwise, this would be the thread for it though... SANJURO RONIN!!!!:D

[wenshu]

their women are eager to be gang raped by our fierce warriors.

Can't rape the willing.

[Syn7]

wanna bet!!! :mad::eek:;):o:(:cool:



You guys hear bout that guy who pretended to be his wife online and found some guy in a rape fantasy chat and gave the address and time to come and said don't stop even when I resist then the woman got the drop on the guy and held him at gunpoint till po pos arrived. CRAZY story.

She's lucky she had a roscoe handy. Gun advocates, run with that. Had the gun been unloaded with a trigger lock and the clip and ammo in a separate location it would never have been useful to her. Nothing more useless than an unloaded gun.


Or maybe she just had an angel on her shoulder ay!

[Bacon]

I don't see anything godly about nuclear technology. It's simply a product of thousands of years of compounded information. Given the laws of physics are what they are whether we know them or not, it was even inevitable. I don't see how that could be considered godly in any way, shape or form. Even as some tongue in cheek on some "I was just joking" bullsh1t, it still doesn't make sense. Godly is creating something from nothing, LITERALLY. As of today I have seen no evidence of that ever occurring, and certainly not with any nuclear technology.


Genesis maybe, but it isn't exactly a reliable source for scientific analysis. If anyone actually believs otherwise, this would be the thread for it though... SANJURO RONIN!!!!:D

Clarke's third laws states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[sanjuro_ronin]

OK, SR, rock on wit ya bad self.... A more appropriate heading for the subject.

If the mods aren't too lazy maybe you can take the 30 seconds and put the last few religion posts from the evolution thread into here.


Yes religion is fun to argue and can shed important light on who we are and how we came to be such, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the evolution thread.



That is a very agnostic thing to say for a christian. Has your faith wavered or do you believe that knowing what you wrote has nothing to do with faith? I think faith to me and faith to you are two very different things.

I have faith in Drake continuing to have sand in his vijayjay because I am familiar with how he is on kfm, especially when his beloved are called into question. I have faith that tomorrow the sun will rise because it has always been this way for me and nothing has ever shown me otherwise.

What I don't have faith in is that there is a god of any kind that is not only significantly greater than us, but is also our creator. That is not to say that a greater being did not create us, who knows, whether that be aliens or god(who would technically be an alien, no?)
I don't think any of us are really in an HONEST position to know any of this.

I can get down with believing for no reason other than sheer desire for that to be the truth, but then most christians get super offended by that analysis.

First of, NO, we are NOT in any position to KNOW for sure if God exists OR Not.
We just have no proof and evidence is NOT proof ( in either way).
Yet, humans are creatures of belief, faith and altruism and we really have no reason to be that way.
There is no real reason for us to have issue with "fairness" or with "right and wrong" or any reason for us to try to understand the universe, none at all.
Yet...
There are some the believe because they have had personal experience ( revelation), much like our faith in the love of those we know love us or our faith in any other "intangible" belief.
But personal revelation is not evidence, much less proof.
There are many views in regards to existence of God, from the Anthropic view, to the "no greater thing can be conceived" view, to that absolute morals view and so forth.

Is there one in particular you wanna discuss?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't see anything godly about nuclear technology. It's simply a product of thousands of years of compounded information. Given the laws of physics are what they are whether we know them or not, it was even inevitable. I don't see how that could be considered godly in any way, shape or form. Even as some tongue in cheek on some "I was just joking" bullsh1t, it still doesn't make sense. Godly is creating something from nothing, LITERALLY. As of today I have seen no evidence of that ever occurring, and certainly not with any nuclear technology.


Genesis maybe, but it isn't exactly a reliable source for scientific analysis. If anyone actually believs otherwise, this would be the thread for it though... SANJURO RONIN!!!!:D

Genesis is NOT a science book !!
LMAO !!

I will say this though, in terms of ancient literature dealing with "where did all this come from", it was far closer to what science is discovering than the other religious views of it's time.

[David Jamieson]

I think it is erroneous to be making blanket statements about humanity in regards to this subject.

I find it harder and harder to say "most people are x or y"

In matters of religion, it's only fair that I speak from "I Think" or "My viewpoints are..."

Otherwise I'll get way far down in the weeds with supposition etc.
Faith just is. I can't argue with a person and tell them to not have faith in whatever construct it is that s/he has that faith in because it is in conflict with my belief.

That's a personal thing.

We can argue proof. We can argue historical validity and we can even argue philosophy for better living vs religious tenets. But we can't argue what is intangible to start with.

Frankly, I'd rather argue about who makes better heavy bags than religion. People are entitled to believe whatever they like from my viewpoint. I only stipulate that they, as an individual bring no undue harm to another because of that belief that is their own.

Belief is not necessarily truth and truth can be unbelievable. I find this to be true more and more as I move along.

[Syn7]

Genesis is NOT a science book !!
LMAO !!

I will say this though, in terms of ancient literature dealing with "where did all this come from", it was far closer to what science is discovering than the other religious views of it's time.

I dunno, there are tons of hindu texts that got closer to what physists believe today than anything else I know of.

I'm a baptized Catholic, I am familiar with what Genesis is and isn't.

[Syn7]

First of, NO, we are NOT in any position to KNOW for sure if God exists OR Not.
We just have no proof and evidence is NOT proof ( in either way).
Yet, humans are creatures of belief, faith and altruism and we really have no reason to be that way.
There is no real reason for us to have issue with "fairness" or with "right and wrong" or any reason for us to try to understand the universe, none at all.
Yet...
There are some the believe because they have had personal experience ( revelation), much like our faith in the love of those we know love us or our faith in any other "intangible" belief.
But personal revelation is not evidence, much less proof.
There are many views in regards to existence of God, from the Anthropic view, to the "no greater thing can be conceived" view, to that absolute morals view and so forth.

Is there one in particular you wanna discuss?

God is a weak explanation for our sense of morality. Most likely living communally forced us to agree to a few ground rules that evolved into what we see today. Religion, to me, is simply a step in the evolution of that thinking.

But, no, there is none I care to discuss in particular. I only made this thread to seperate the two topics. Personally, I believe they are the same topic, but I find it easier to compartmentalize the mojors away from the sciences. When dealing with more esoteric and out the box thinking that line becomes a dull grey, and the spiritual and the physical merge. As far as the Big 3 though, this is not the case and I prefer to keep them seperate to, for example, keep god talk out of physics talks. That was the only reason I made the thread. I have tons to say on all these subjects, but I have no desire to get into it in any sort of meaningful depth.

[David Jamieson]

I dunno, there are tons of hindu texts that got closer to what physists believe today than anything else I know of.

I'm a baptized Catholic, I am familiar with what Genesis is and isn't.

What texts? What passages of the mists of time reveal a knowledge comparable to today scientifically? Hindu texts constantly get referred to with the tales of vimanas etc etc but that is all mythology too. it is allegory and metaphor for that which was not scientifically understood, the same as all religious texts.

Greek mythology for instance. The Gods = the planets. The wars amongst themselves are their movements through space and the perturbations that are perceived when aligned or effecting the path of others. IN a very small understanding. And yet, you have network TV channels with self appointed experts who take that allegory and metaphor and try to sort it on a human level replacing the mythos around the planets with a face of men doing deeds.

Ridiculous.

One could take any metaphor and allegory in religious texts of any bent and make some kind of match up to an event in everyday life be it a physical process taking place, like a tree growing or the interaction of humans in their standard behaviors.

Genesis is a vague memory of humanity becoming aware and application of myth to otherwise unknown physical processes. For instance, you can't make night and day and then make the sun and the moon. the moon is not a radiating light, it is reflective and so on and so forth demolishing the construct with fact.

Lets not forget that the whole of all religious texts in all cultures were penned by men and their understanding of the world around them. And they claim or had claimed on their behalf divine inspiration for their efforts.

This bronze-iron age reckoning of things is no longer acceptable to a critical educated mind and hence the difficulty of the religious organizations to garner more advocates of their belief.

I believe in god. I do think religious institutions have run their course and can be done away with as far as their commerce model goes. They have in fact undermined themselves by seeking worldly power. That very thing that most of their books say should be avoided is embraced by the priesthoods.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I dunno, there are tons of hindu texts that got closer to what physists believe today than anything else I know of.

I'm a baptized Catholic, I am familiar with what Genesis is and isn't.

Which Hindu texts?
As an RC you know that the RCC has NOT always view Genesis as a literal and concrete account of creation, right?
As per St Augustine:
Augustine

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

[sanjuro_ronin]

God is a weak explanation for our sense of morality. Most likely living communally forced us to agree to a few ground rules that evolved into what we see today. Religion, to me, is simply a step in the evolution of that thinking.

But, no, there is none I care to discuss in particular. I only made this thread to seperate the two topics. Personally, I believe they are the same topic, but I find it easier to compartmentalize the mojors away from the sciences. When dealing with more esoteric and out the box thinking that line becomes a dull grey, and the spiritual and the physical merge. As far as the Big 3 though, this is not the case and I prefer to keep them seperate to, for example, keep god talk out of physics talks. That was the only reason I made the thread. I have tons to say on all these subjects, but I have no desire to get into it in any sort of meaningful depth.

Many people hold the view that without an "absolute moral", all morals are relative or subjective.
The great "sez who" argument.

The history of science is filled with Christians ( and other religious people of course) that were driven by their faith in God, a god that made the universe in a created order and made man with the ability to understand that order,

While religion and science are not and should not be viewed as "the same thing", they are NOT opposites and can/should be complimentary.

[Empty_Cup]

...

While religion and science are not and should not be viewed as "the same thing", they are NOT opposites and can/should be complimentary.

They are separate but not overlapping in my opinion.

Science is based on evidence supporting theory/hypothesis, whereas religion is generally based on faith. Faith is, by definition, a "strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence."

What commonly happens is that when science can't explain something yet due to limitations on observation, religion and philosophy fill the void to offer explanations. The rub occurs when religious and philosophical beliefs seek to replace scientific method and theory.

I am perfectly ok with religion and philosophy attempting to understand the unknown. However I am adamant against these beliefs replacing scientific theory that's based on proof.

[wenshu]

What is god's greatest gift to man?

(Hint: it's the only thing man can do that god can not.)

[David Jamieson]

What is god's greatest gift to man?

(Hint: it's the only thing man can do that god can not.)

really?

:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

They are separate but not overlapping in my opinion.

Science is based on evidence supporting theory/hypothesis, whereas religion is generally based on faith. Faith is, by definition, a "strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence."

What commonly happens is that when science can't explain something yet due to limitations on observation, religion and philosophy fill the void to offer explanations. The rub occurs when religious and philosophical beliefs seek to replace scientific method and theory.

I am perfectly ok with religion and philosophy attempting to understand the unknown. However I am adamant against these beliefs replacing scientific theory that's based on proof.

Science seeks to explain the natural observable world and HOW it is so.
Religion seeks to understand WHY it is so.
Religion is not and never will be, nor should it be, a "science" or replace science at what science is best at.

Religion is NOT about filling in the gaps of what science can't answer at the time, it is about trying to understand the WHYS of what IS.

[Drake]

Science seeks to explain the natural observable world and HOW it is so.
Religion seeks to understand WHY it is so.
Religion is not and never will be, nor should it be, a "science" or replace science at what science is best at.

Religion is NOT about filling in the gaps of what science can't answer at the time, it is about trying to understand the WHYS of what IS.

Except that one uses rigorous, peer-reviewed testing. The other us based off of believing what some dudes conjured up thousands if years ago.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Except that one uses rigorous, peer-reviewed testing. The other us based off of believing what some dudes conjured up thousands if years ago.

You say that as if it was a bad thing !
LOL !

On a serious note though, it isn't JUST that.
I can't speak for other religions of course and yes, every religions has a very strong element of faith BUT faith is NOT blind faith, at least not to me.

[Hebrew Hammer]

What is god's greatest gift to man?

(Hint: it's the only thing man can do that god can not.)

Internet porn? or Going blind through vigorous amounts of self abuse?

Interesting thread...

[Syn7]

Which Hindu texts?
As an RC you know that the RCC has NOT always view Genesis as a literal and concrete account of creation, right?
As per St Augustine:
Augustine

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

I'm no bible scholar and have no desire to be. They taught genesis at my sunday school. I am somewhat familiar with what other christians believe, but I have never been involved in any formal studies on other sects or even the one I was born into. Again, I have no desire to do any such thing. I'm not into that kind of thinking and I am totally okay with that. Like I said before, I reserve the right to change my mind and views at any time given new evidence or experience. In that respect I am totally open to any and all schools of thought, but I ain't lookin' for it. Thats me.... and friend, I have absolutely no desire to trade scripture. Just over viewing your post took the p1ss out of any desire I had to debate religion, period. But thanx for bringing it over to this thread, I appreciate that.


As for the Hindu texts, it's all over the Vedas. Like I said before, I don't have any desire to trade scripture. If you are genuinely interested I can help you find a good place to start your own research tho. Like any religious theory it is all highly subjective and open to interpretation, but I feel that eastern mysticism in general has come much closer to the truth than any of the major creationists. There are tons of essays, journals books thesis etc on the subject, you should have no trouble researching any of this. You should have a decent grasp on quantum mechanics and general relativity before you even attempt to dive in tho. I dunno what you know, you seem like you got the other end covered tho. Do you do religious study, christian study or philosophical studies on a broader level?

[bawang]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ByIYt_Wp4I

[Syn7]

Many people hold the view that without an "absolute moral", all morals are relative or subjective.
The great "sez who" argument.

The history of science is filled with Christians ( and other religious people of course) that were driven by their faith in God, a god that made the universe in a created order and made man with the ability to understand that order,

While religion and science are not and should not be viewed as "the same thing", they are NOT opposites and can/should be complimentary.

There are no limits to inspiration for scientific progression. Like I said before, religion is just a step in that evolution as far as I'm concerned. Who said they were opposites? I don't hear that much anymore, at least not in the circle I roll in.

As for why we have morals, I said what I think and I am so not in to that debate. By now you know me well enough to know I love to argue and take up causes just for the practice, but to me this has been done to death. I have had this argument so many times and it isn't like anyone is gonna learn anything new here, we'll just end in being like those talking heads who just wanna prove how smart they are to an audience who won't remember any of it tomorrow. Nah bruh, I am so done with that convo, sorry, I am just not the one.

[Bacon]

Faith is belief without evidence

Religion is spoon feeding morality to primitive humans who didn't or don't have sufficient capacity for reasoning on their own and had/have to resort to some higher deity to justify their actions.

It's the same things cults do. The only real differences between a cult and a religion is cults are generally more immediately destructive as opposed to being destructive in the long term, and religions are more widely practiced and accepted.

[bawang]

you say this because you no longer have humanity. the machines have leeched your humanity from you. you are a machine animal.

[Bacon]

you say this because you no longer have humanity. the machines have leeched your humanity from you. you are a machine animal.

Not sure if stupid or English is second language.

Basing decisions on reason and well founded conclusions isn't machinistic or inhuman in any way.

Basing decisions upon the wild guesses made in religions is quite stupid.

[Syn7]

What texts? What passages of the mists of time reveal a knowledge comparable to today scientifically? Hindu texts constantly get referred to with the tales of vimanas etc etc but that is all mythology too. it is allegory and metaphor for that which was not scientifically understood, the same as all religious texts.

Greek mythology for instance. The Gods = the planets. The wars amongst themselves are their movements through space and the perturbations that are perceived when aligned or effecting the path of others. IN a very small understanding. And yet, you have network TV channels with self appointed experts who take that allegory and metaphor and try to sort it on a human level replacing the mythos around the planets with a face of men doing deeds.

Ridiculous.

One could take any metaphor and allegory in religious texts of any bent and make some kind of match up to an event in everyday life be it a physical process taking place, like a tree growing or the interaction of humans in their standard behaviors.

Genesis is a vague memory of humanity becoming aware and application of myth to otherwise unknown physical processes. For instance, you can't make night and day and then make the sun and the moon. the moon is not a radiating light, it is reflective and so on and so forth demolishing the construct with fact.

Lets not forget that the whole of all religious texts in all cultures were penned by men and their understanding of the world around them. And they claim or had claimed on their behalf divine inspiration for their efforts.

This bronze-iron age reckoning of things is no longer acceptable to a critical educated mind and hence the difficulty of the religious organizations to garner more advocates of their belief.

I believe in god. I do think religious institutions have run their course and can be done away with as far as their commerce model goes. They have in fact undermined themselves by seeking worldly power. That very thing that most of their books say should be avoided is embraced by the priesthoods.

Man, you have this consistent habit for reading one word and then completely changing the meaning of the original when you paraphrase. At no time did I say there were ANY religious texts, new or old, that "reveal a knowledge comparable to today scientifically". Basically everything you wrote was to disprove a position that as far as I can see nobody took. WTF david? Why even bother man? Did you actually get anything out of all that? I hope so, for your sake.

Ridiculous.


All I said was that they seem, to me anyways, to have come closer than any other religion and especially when it comes to the creationists. I never specified as to how close. I didn't think it necessary to explain how subjective and open to interpretation religious texts can be. I figure if some cat doesn't already know that they aren't capable of keeping up in this convo anyways. I am a bit confused as to why you felt the need to get into it though.

[Syn7]

I am perfectly ok with religion and philosophy attempting to understand the unknown. However I am adamant against these beliefs replacing scientific theory that's based on proof.

Word.........

[bawang]

Not sure if stupid or English is second language.

Basing decisions on reason and well founded conclusions isn't machinistic or inhuman in any way.

Basing decisions upon the wild guesses made in religions is quite stupid.

go live in china, the largest atheist nation, and have a taste of rationality.

evil is more efficient than good. there is no logical reason to be a moral person. religion is irrational, so it emphasizes good over evil. science is rational, so it favours evil over good.


you as a westerner is subconsciously influenced by humanism and feminism. they belong to fields of arts and humanity and are irrational. a society of pure logic, reason, and efficiency is much different than your fantasy socialist paradise.

[Syn7]

Science seeks to explain the natural observable world and HOW it is so.
Religion seeks to understand WHY it is so.
Religion is not and never will be, nor should it be, a "science" or replace science at what science is best at.

Religion is NOT about filling in the gaps of what science can't answer at the time, it is about trying to understand the WHYS of what IS.

Word, and when the WHY is sought from an IS that is based on false assumption you get further and further into the abyss. In my experience most religious people are not willing to backpedal, instead they will hold onto the original hypothesis with, quite often, a very negative zeal. I understand that isn't how everyone is, but the simple truth of this is that the majority of religious believers(real believers, not lip servicers) act in this manner when having traveled down an obviously false path. Like the dinosaur 10,000 year argument. Sure some of the science involved can and should be questioned and in some cases is even questionable itself, but the sheer amount of evidence is intensely overwhelming in against these Christian claims, yet we are still being bombarded when this debate should be over. I have no issue with it taking new directions and offering new evidence, but it's always the same old sh1t.

[Syn7]

You say that as if it was a bad thing !
LOL !

On a serious note though, it isn't JUST that.
I can't speak for other religions of course and yes, every religions has a very strong element of faith BUT faith is NOT blind faith, at least not to me.

Maybe not, but it is commonly preached in ALL christian sects as far as I know. I could be wrong but I haven't seen anything to make me believe otherwise. A few cats say their faith is not blind because it's based on personal revelation that they contend to be quite real and valuable therefore proving to the self that it is on the right path. That is still blind faith.

Just out of curiosity, and I have no desire to get too far into this, but why do you feel your faith is not blind. What relate-able(key word that I can't remember to to spell) experiences have you had that would suggest it isn't a blind faith? Is any belief in something that can not be substantiated not blind? Maybe we just have different definitions of blind faith, you should prolly start with that. I'll give it a few minutes thought as to what that means to me and whether it is something that should even be viewed as credible considering its highly subjective nature.

[Bacon]

go live in china, the largest atheist nation, and have a taste of rationality.

What the government of China does is not because of logic or reason in its truest sense but out of need for political control.

evil is more efficient than good. there is no logical reason to be a moral person. religion is irrational, so it emphasizes good over evil. science is rational, so it favours evil over good.

Good and evil are very subjective concepts and not very useful in discussion of morality. And actually there is good reason to be virtuous. Social harmony is good for the society and the individual and if you mean the society as a whole there's good reason to be virtuous there. Unfortunately the better angels of our nature do not always win out and this is a very complex subject. I could recommend some reading on the subject by some well known and respected philosopher or you could continue to wallow in ignorance. Your choice.


a society of pure logic, reason, and efficiency is much different than your fantasy socialist paradise.
I'm not talking politics here. I'm arguing for reason over blind guessing.

[Syn7]

Not sure if stupid or English is second language.

Basing decisions on reason and well founded conclusions isn't machinistic or inhuman in any way.

Basing decisions upon the wild guesses made in religions is quite stupid.

Man, don't even get him started. It won't go anywhere for you, trust me, just drop it and converse with people who aren't retarded.

[bawang]

What the government of China does is not because of logic or reason in its truest sense but out of need for political control.



its reasonable and logical for the government of china to behave in its way because human rights makes the society inefficient and wastes time and resources.


Man, don't even get him started. It won't go anywhere for you, trust me, just drop it and converse with people who aren't retarded.

you fear what you dont understand. you are just as primitive and barbaric as the cowering catholic nun kneeling before a piece of wood.

your doctrine, rhetoric and political allegiance is different from the religious, but your nature has not changed. your new god is no-god.


I could recommend some reading on the subject by some well known and respected philosopher or you could continue to wallow in ignorance. Your choice.



i have lived in the reality of poverty and oppression most of my life and i have observed that your fantasy of elitist intellectualism has not, cannot, and will never be able to be applied to the masses.

[bawang]

Man, don't even get him started. It won't go anywhere for you, trust me, just drop it and converse with people who aren't retarded.

you complain about the nasty attitudes of nihilistic atheist chinese immigrants in canada, a product of TRUE AND ABSOLUTE ATHEISM, wiped away of culture and history and tradition and religion and societal norms, then turns around and proclaims the virtues of atheism.

you are nothing but a blabbering beast who welcomes his own slaughter and the annihilation of his own people.

[Bacon]

Man, don't even get him started. It won't go anywhere for you, trust me, just drop it and converse with people who aren't retarded.

Thanks for the advice. I see it was well founded.

Nothing else to do here.

[bawang]

there is no evidence for religion, but humans are genetically predisposed to believing in religion.



its easy for elitist, idle, and effeminate men with low testosterone to overcome their nature with graceful logic and reason. but when you try to push that on the masses, you are planning your own destruction.

and im fine with that.

[Syn7]

Aw, don't be offended squirt. Who cares what I think, right. You don't even know if I'm a real person or not. Weak sauce. If you want to be taken seriously then stop acting like 13 year old with a new hate on. You have too much pride, and all pride is ignorant.

By all means, rock on wit ya bad self, just don't expect me to get much more involved.

[bawang]

the honorable minister louis farrakhan was right about you. when the white man is losing a fight, he always retreats. he revels only in preying on the weak.

you enjoy insulting drake and disrespecting him, but when the slavemasters whip is turned upon himself, you run with your tail tucked between your legs.

[Bacon]

Hey Syn, think we could put him up for a Darwin award?

[Syn7]

Farrakahn is a fraud.

[bawang]

farrakhan is the bright darkhouse in the whiteness of this wicked, wicked world. he is the champion of colored people everywhere.

you fear religion because you fear the black man. religion makes the black man strong, verile, and powerful, so you want to take it away from him.

[Bacon]

farrakhan is the bright darkhouse in the whiteness of this wicked, wicked world. he is the champion of colored people everywhere.

you fear religion because you fear the black man. religion makes the black man strong, verile, and powerful, so you want to take it away from him.

I pity you.

[bawang]

the more you pity me, the more power and riches jesus christ bestows upon me to succeed in this life.

your soft femine gaze is not strong enough to break me.

[Drake]

In real life people are nice and courteous to me.

Only on the internet, hiding behind anonymity and distance, are they rude. I already know nobody would speak to me like this in real life.

[Syn7]

In real life people are nice and courteous to me.

Only on the internet, hiding behind anonymity and distance, are they rude. I already know nobody would speak to me like this in real life.

You are so hardcore. So what are you saying? That your demeanor and willingness to do harm prevent people from being honest about their thoughts and feelings when in person? That's some sad sh1t drake.

You act like I sit here and call you names for no reason, in fact I have barely called you any names at all. My complaints about you have been consistent and based on actual conversation between me and you. If you really feel the need, next time you hit up the northwest, PM me and we can talk about it in person. Like that Earth Dragon kid who was supposed to come teach me a lesson, I doubt it will ever happen. Infact if you did actually hit me up I would kinda feel sorry for you for needing to actually hash it out face to face.

I have never pretended to be a super nice guy or an as$hole, I am who I am and I`m totally cool with that. If you aren't, thats on you.

And bawang, you are in no position to b1tch about trolling. You ARE the resident troll and the only reason people tolerate you is because once in about every 30 or 40 posts you actually do say something worth reading or laughing at. I don`t dislike you, but I refuse to engage with you on anything but the most superficial of levels.

Drake, on the other hand, does add value to convos and I wish he would clean out his vijayjay and engage me in a civilized manner on topics that are clearly near and dear to his heart. Clearly he has been offended by my assessment of American foreign policy and how the military handles it's end. Why? Considering I am just some guy online, I have no idea...

[Drake]

Apparently I don't have to say anything. You just filled it all in for me. But no, you'd never behave like that face to face. Of course, you'll write here that that isn't true.

[Syn7]

Why? Should I be afraid? You would assault a stranger for having a different opinion? That is what you're implying, physical intimidation. You do know that's where mental midgets go when they reach the end of their intellectual capacity, right? Say it ain't so. Some hero... Or is there another reason why I wouldn't want to speak my mind? Why would I be afraid to speak what I believe?

I love martial arts. I even enjoy fighting more than I probably should, but I would never assault somebody for simply speaking unless hey were making threats I felt were credible in which case a preemptive attack may be called for. But never just for disagreeing. I am not opposed to knocking idiots around for being too rough or whatever, but what I am not in the habit of is hurting people for their opinions. Are you? A simple yes or no will do, and if not then why would I not speak my mind? What kind of man are you drake? You can't hav0.e it both ways.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm no bible scholar and have no desire to be. They taught genesis at my sunday school. I am somewhat familiar with what other christians believe, but I have never been involved in any formal studies on other sects or even the one I was born into. Again, I have no desire to do any such thing. I'm not into that kind of thinking and I am totally okay with that. Like I said before, I reserve the right to change my mind and views at any time given new evidence or experience. In that respect I am totally open to any and all schools of thought, but I ain't lookin' for it. Thats me.... and friend, I have absolutely no desire to trade scripture. Just over viewing your post took the p1ss out of any desire I had to debate religion, period. But thanx for bringing it over to this thread, I appreciate that.


As for the Hindu texts, it's all over the Vedas. Like I said before, I don't have any desire to trade scripture. If you are genuinely interested I can help you find a good place to start your own research tho. Like any religious theory it is all highly subjective and open to interpretation, but I feel that eastern mysticism in general has come much closer to the truth than any of the major creationists. There are tons of essays, journals books thesis etc on the subject, you should have no trouble researching any of this. You should have a decent grasp on quantum mechanics and general relativity before you even attempt to dive in tho. I dunno what you know, you seem like you got the other end covered tho. Do you do religious study, christian study or philosophical studies on a broader level?

Sure, I am always interested in what other relgions are about.
I am working on my Bach, in Theology ( part-time), just for "fun", LOL !

[sanjuro_ronin]

Faith is belief without evidence

Religion is spoon feeding morality to primitive humans who didn't or don't have sufficient capacity for reasoning on their own and had/have to resort to some higher deity to justify their actions.

It's the same things cults do. The only real differences between a cult and a religion is cults are generally more immediately destructive as opposed to being destructive in the long term, and religions are more widely practiced and accepted.

That may be YOUR definition and your view, but that doesn't make it so.
Faith is belief based on various factors and i think you are confusing blind faith with all types of faith.
We have faith when we get on a plane, in the love of our spouses, that are car will start in the morning, that our jobs will be there for us.
And those faiths are based on evidence, so to say that Faith is belief without evidence is incorrect.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Word, and when the WHY is sought from an IS that is based on false assumption you get further and further into the abyss. In my experience most religious people are not willing to backpedal, instead they will hold onto the original hypothesis with, quite often, a very negative zeal. I understand that isn't how everyone is, but the simple truth of this is that the majority of religious believers(real believers, not lip servicers) act in this manner when having traveled down an obviously false path. Like the dinosaur 10,000 year argument. Sure some of the science involved can and should be questioned and in some cases is even questionable itself, but the sheer amount of evidence is intensely overwhelming in against these Christian claims, yet we are still being bombarded when this debate should be over. I have no issue with it taking new directions and offering new evidence, but it's always the same old sh1t.

YEC or young earth creationists are NOT the majority of Christians.
Lets not forget that the largest Christian denomination, the RCC, accepts evolution.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Maybe not, but it is commonly preached in ALL christian sects as far as I know. I could be wrong but I haven't seen anything to make me believe otherwise. A few cats say their faith is not blind because it's based on personal revelation that they contend to be quite real and valuable therefore proving to the self that it is on the right path. That is still blind faith.

Just out of curiosity, and I have no desire to get too far into this, but why do you feel your faith is not blind. What relate-able(key word that I can't remember to to spell) experiences have you had that would suggest it isn't a blind faith? Is any belief in something that can not be substantiated not blind? Maybe we just have different definitions of blind faith, you should prolly start with that. I'll give it a few minutes thought as to what that means to me and whether it is something that should even be viewed as credible considering its highly subjective nature.

I have very little faith in blind faith, LOL !
It's just not me.
Personal revelation aside ( and I believe that in discussion like this we should always put them aside), I have reason to believe based on research I did as a skeptic ( though I can't call myself an unbeliever at any point).
A website that basically is more or less inline with my views is this one:
www.biologos.org.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Guys, behave in this thread or you know what happens.
That goes for ALL of you.
If you can't discuss things civilly and intelligently, then don't post.

[Drake]

Guys, behave in this thread or you know what happens.

We get boobies?

[Bacon]

That may be YOUR definition and your view, but that doesn't make it so.
Faith is belief based on various factors and i think you are confusing blind faith with all types of faith.
We have faith when we get on a plane, in the love of our spouses, that are car will start in the morning, that our jobs will be there for us.
And those faiths are based on evidence, so to say that Faith is belief without evidence is incorrect.

That's not faith. You have prior evidence supporting a probable outcome. That has nothing to do with belief. It is purely probablility. Flr exaple ther is a good probability that if I drop a rock it will fall to. The earth. Faith is not required. It could be moree properly termed as "belief probable outcomes owing to statistical evidence."

Religion has no evidence therefore any belief or faith on the part of the religious IS belief without evidence and is suspends a suspension of rational thought.

Religion has no evidence for its claims and badly thought out proofs at best.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's not faith. You have prior evidence supporting a probable outcome. That has nothing to do with belief. It is purely probablility. Flr exaple ther is a good probability that if I drop a rock it will fall to. The earth. Faith is not required. It could be moree properly termed as "belief probable outcomes owing to statistical evidence."

Religion has no evidence therefore any belief or faith on the part of the religious IS belief without evidence and is suspends a suspension of rational thought.

Religion has no evidence for its claims and badly thought out proofs at best.

Your definition of faith is NOT mine nor is it absolute.
It simply is YOURS.
I do NOT seek to define your faith, so please do NOT seek to define mine.

As for religion having no evidence, well, I guess that depends on what evidence you want/need and about what claims it is making.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We get boobies?

Well, they can be heavenly :D

[Faruq]

i have lived in the reality of poverty and oppression most of my life and i have observed that your fantasy of elitist intellectualism has not, cannot, and will never be able to be applied to the masses.

Bawang! I had no idea you were Black, bro! Welcome to the community! You should've said so years ago so we could've looked out for you, bro.

[SimonM]

How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.


-Kierkegaard


If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

-Also Kierkegaard


A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

-Nietzsche, not directly answering Kierkegaard as he never had the chance to read him but making his views on the issue of faith clear.


All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.

-Nietzsche; my favourite Nietzsche quote in truth.


If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing
Then he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing
Then why call him God?
- Epicurus (history's first recorded atheist) providing a fundamental argument against a just and omnipotent God which has never been adequately refuted.

[David Jamieson]

Man, you have this consistent habit for reading one word and then completely changing the meaning of the original when you paraphrase. At no time did I say there were ANY religious texts, new or old, that "reveal a knowledge comparable to today scientifically". Basically everything you wrote was to disprove a position that as far as I can see nobody took. WTF david? Why even bother man? Did you actually get anything out of all that? I hope so, for your sake.

Ridiculous.


All I said was that they seem, to me anyways, to have come closer than any other religion and especially when it comes to the creationists. I never specified as to how close. I didn't think it necessary to explain how subjective and open to interpretation religious texts can be. I figure if some cat doesn't already know that they aren't capable of keeping up in this convo anyways. I am a bit confused as to why you felt the need to get into it though.

I've read this. I've re-read your original post. Maybe you should re-read your original post to. I'm leaving my post to that end. :)

[David Jamieson]

I think there is a confusion between having a god who does everything for you as opposed to allowing you your free will to sort things on your own.

If god did everything for us, we would not have free will and we would not grow towards enlightenment. We would forever be stuck on the teat so to speak.

The same is true in reality. If you keep giving handouts, it will get to the point where people do almost nothing for themselves and take no responsibility.

I find the idea of expecting God to solve our problems because we can't is absurd quite frankly. We create our problems, we can solve them. Including the problem of religion or sectarian violence, or what have you.

Like getting kicked out of the garden, we each get kicked out of teh house to stand or fall on our own. Who would truly respect parents that were doormats to the kids desire? No one.

As above, so below. :)

[SimonM]

What value does free will have to an omnipotent god? Seriously, why limit your own power to give free agency to your ant farm?

[sanjuro_ronin]

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing
Then he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing
Then why call him God?

That has been refuted, over and over actually.
Man defining what is omnipotence and what God should and should not do is man at his height of arrogance.
BUT, for argument, sake:
Define evil and what is it defined against.
Absolute evil ( and in this case one needs to deal with absolutes) is defined as such by CONTRAST with absolute good.
Define omnipotence and realize that it is limited by human reason and perception, something that God, if He exists, is NOT limited to/by.
But to answer the argument directly:
The notion that God is only good IF He prevents "evil" fails to address the possibility of greater GOOD coming from the allowance of an act of "evil".

[sanjuro_ronin]

What value does free will have to an omnipotent god? Seriously, why limit your own power to give free agency to your ant farm?

The Christian answer to that is that God is the ultimate source of Love and love can't be forced and since God wants Us to return to Him of our own accord and free will, then this "free will" must be the (perhaps) most crucial element of His Love.

[SimonM]

The notion that God is only good IF He prevents "evil" fails to address the possibility of greater GOOD coming from the allowance of an act of "evil".

I've always felt that to be the biggest cop-out response of all cop-outs. Greater good rarely follows an act of evil.

[SimonM]

The Christian answer to that is that God is the ultimate source of Love and love can't be forced and since God wants Us to return to Him of our own accord and free will, then this "free will" must be the (perhaps) most crucial element of His Love.

Why though?

Seriously, come up with a reason that doesn't cast this god as a total bloody sociopath.

Again, do you really care if your ant farm loves you for the sake of love?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've always felt that to be the biggest cop-out response of all cop-outs. Greater good rarely follows an act of evil.

Doesn't matter if it seems like a "cop-out", it is AN answer to the question.
You keep bringing up evil but you know that the notion of evil as a religious one, right?
As such it must be answered under religious terms/understandings.
To say that evil and an omnipotent God are irreconcilable means that there is no possible reason for God to allow evil, so to show that there IS a possible reason, makes the argument void.
Your view or mine for that matter of HOW valid the reason is, is irrelevant.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why though?

Seriously, come up with a reason that doesn't cast this god as a total bloody sociopath.

Again, do you really care if your ant farm loves you for the sake of love?

The issue is that God made us in His image and NOT as an "ant farm" of any sort.
God has a vested "emotional" interest in Us and knows that we are only complete when we are in Him BUT that we can only get there if we WANT to.
Free will.
Like a parent that KNOWS that his children loving and obeying Him is what is best for them and also KNOWS that this love and obedience can NOT be forced if it is to be real.
He allows Us free will because without it, we would never reach our truest potential, we would never be complete and be noting more that "automatons".

[SimonM]

You keep bringing up evil but you know that the notion of evil as a religious one, right?


No, it is a moral one. Religious people often forget that religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality.



As such it must be answered under religious terms/understandings.


No.



To say that evil and an omnipotent God are irreconcilable means that there is no possible reason for God to allow evil, so to show that there IS a possible reason, makes the argument void.
Your view or mine for that matter of HOW valid the reason is, is irrelevant.

Proposing that there is a greater divine plan is NOT a valid response. If a god is omnipotent there is no reason to allow evil in order to bring out a greater good. He can simply wave his hands and create the ultimate plan he desires.

Which returns to the irreconcilability of free will with omnipotence. Humans can only have free agency if there is no omnipotent deity.

[SimonM]

The issue is that God made us in His image and NOT as an "ant farm" of any sort.
God has a vested "emotional" interest in Us and knows that we are only complete when we are in Him BUT that we can only get there if we WANT to.
Free will.
Like a parent that KNOWS that his children loving and obeying Him is what is best for them and also KNOWS that this love and obedience can NOT be forced if it is to be real.
He allows Us free will because without it, we would never reach our truest potential, we would never be complete and be noting more that "automatons".

To what end though? If he wanted humans at their "true potential" he could have created them.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've always felt that to be the biggest cop-out response of all cop-outs. Greater good rarely follows an act of evil.

Another point if I may:
Ever notice what it takes for humans to be "at their best", I mean to really come together and being truly human above all else?
No racial barriers, social barriers, religions barriers, none of that, just pure unselfish and giving Love?

[sanjuro_ronin]

To what end though? If he wanted humans at their "true potential" he could have created them.

Some would argue that He did but that man's free will, the very gift that makes that potential possible, is also what cased man's fall.

[SimonM]

Generally? An abundance of food occurring in a natural environment (rather than farmed) and a small society with strong kinship bonds.

[SimonM]

Some would argue that He did but that man's free will, the very gift that makes that potential possible, is also what cased man's fall.

Some would be proposing a sociopathic god then for creating a creature whose greatest aspirations lead to his own inevitable downfall.

[Bacon]

Your definition of faith is NOT mine nor is it absolute.
It simply is YOURS.
I do NOT seek to define your faith, so please do NOT seek to define mine.
That's functionally defining a term within the discussion and it's quite a proper definition I would add but that aside for the moment....


As for religion having no evidence, well, I guess that depends on what evidence you want/need and about what claims it is making.

When religion claims there is a conscious omnipotent being(s) they better have evidence, tangible, verifiable evidence to back it up especially if you reject my definition of faith as being belief without evidence.

And before you or anyone start with the "can't disprove god" bit the onus of providing evidence is on the person making the claims. If I claim that we were created by the one true god named Popopo and that he says the ultimate goal in life is the cultivation of flowers or we will be sent to a plane of existence where we spend eternity making bad hats...
1. I have no evidence to support my claim which is exactly as much as any religion
2. If I believe without evidence it is just like the "faith" of which you speak.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Generally? An abundance of food occurring in a natural environment (rather than farmed) and a small society with strong kinship bonds.

Nope, try suffering.
Nothing brings the human race to the pinnacle of unconditional love than suffering.
Think what happens after an earthquake for example or a mass shooting.

[SimonM]

Nope, try suffering.
Nothing brings the human race to the pinnacle of unconditional love than suffering.
Think what happens after an earthquake for example or a mass shooting.

I would suggest that assertion is not founded in any sort of actual truth other than the truthiness of the heart.

Furthermore, if you are correct, if suffering truly does bring out the best in people, then my postulation that an omnipotent god is a cruel monster to be rebelled against and overcome is strengthened.

Then again, I simply don't believe in any gods, omnipotent or otherwise.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Some would be proposing a sociopathic god then for creating a creature whose greatest aspirations lead to his own inevitable downfall.

Sure, if you wanna see it that way, and one most certainly can.
Being someone that subscribes to "theistic evolution", I don't but I can see that view as a critique of creating the first humans "as is".
BUT the wat the judeo-christain religions view it, various interpretations aside of course, is that God created/endowed Man with the very thing God has : free will and with that comes the ability to choose to do good or do evil AND the knowledge of what that will lead to.
In Genesis 2 we are told that the REASON Adam and Eve ate the fruit was so that they would be LIKE God, ie: No need of God and independent of God, knowing full knowledge of Good and Bad BEYOND what they already knew.
God warned them what would happen ( their death ie: removal from Eden at the cost of their immortality).
They exercised free will and did it anyways.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's functionally defining a term within the discussion and it's quite a proper definition I would add but that aside for the moment....



When religion claims there is a conscious omnipotent being(s) they better have evidence, tangible, verifiable evidence to back it up especially if you reject my definition of faith as being belief without evidence.

And before you or anyone start with the "can't disprove god" bit the onus of providing evidence is on the person making the claims. If I claim that we were created by the one true god named Popopo and that he says the ultimate goal in life is the cultivation of flowers or we will be sent to a plane of existence where we spend eternity making bad hats...
1. I have no evidence to support my claim which is exactly as much as any religion
2. If I believe without evidence it is just like the "faith" of which you speak.


Let me ask you this:
Is there any evidence that WOULD convince YOU of God?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would suggest that assertion is not founded in any sort of actual truth other than the truthiness of the heart.

Furthermore, if you are correct, if suffering truly does bring out the best in people, then my postulation that an omnipotent god is a cruel monster to be rebelled against and overcome is strengthened.

Then again, I simply don't believe in any gods, omnipotent or otherwise.

Well, I come to that opinion based on observable facts that I have seen and have been seen by others and widely documented.

I don't see how you got to your conclusion, other than by putting human perceptions and limitations on a being, that IF He exists, is far beyond any human understanding or perception based on the reality that we know to exist.

[SimonM]

They exercised free will and did it anyways.

And there isn't anything cruel or unusual about putting the tree in the garden in the first place...

Or in allowing the serpent into the garden...

"Satan, I know thy strength, and thou know'st mine,
Neither our own but giv'n; what follie then
To boast what Arms can doe, since thine no more
Then Heav'n permits, nor mine, though doubld now"

- Milton, Paradise Lost (bold for emphasis mine)

[SimonM]

by putting human perceptions and limitations on a being, that IF He exists, is far beyond any human understanding or perception based on the reality that we know to exist.

If we are created to be like this god would we not share at least some measure of his perception? If we are in his likeness wouldn't it follow that our minds too would be in his likeness? Isn't that the point of free will?

If we are alike to a god by being created so by him then he cannot be entirely ineffable.

[Bacon]

Let me ask you this:
Is there any evidence that WOULD convince YOU of God?

Even if you could prove the existenc of a vastly superior being who created time, space and humanity it just means that it is beyond our current level of understanding. You could prove to me that a more powerful being exists but you could never convince me to worship it. The concept of god doesn't enter into it because it is an outdated label for conceptualizing a being or beings vastly superior to ourselves.

Remember Clarke's third law? "Any sufficiently advanced technology [or ability] is indistinguishable from magic."

If I can turn invisible it is not magic even if beyond our current level of understanding. Similarly if I created the universe, time, space, and little pink squishy beings it is not divine or magical, it is simply beyond the pink squishy beings understanding. Even if humans could never understand those abilities it still does not make them divine or magical.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And there isn't anything cruel or unusual about putting the tree in the garden in the first place...

Or in allowing the serpent into the garden...

"Satan, I know thy strength, and thou know'st mine,
Neither our own but giv'n; what follie then
To boast what Arms can doe, since thine no more
Then Heav'n permits, nor mine, though doubld now"

- Milton, Paradise Lost (bold for emphasis mine)

Every living, sentient, being has free will, including His "angels".
They were free to rebel to God's blessing of Humans

[bawang]

how will low iq working class without higher education comprehend atheism and act respondibly without slipping into nihilism? this is magical thinking.

you can see how the liberal movement helped destroy the black community.

[SimonM]

Bawang, that is the most hilarious inversion of religion as the opiate of the masses I've ever seen - the masses must be drugged. LOL!

And since I'm in a literary mood I suggest:

"Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling.
And being restrain'd it by degrees becomes passive till it is only the shadow of desire.
The history of this is written in Paradise Lost, & the Governor or Reason is call'd Messiah.
And the original Archangel or possessor of the command of the heavenly host, is call'd the Devil or Satan and his children are call'd Sin & Death.
But in the Book of Job Miltons Messiah is call'd Satan.
For this history has been adopted by both parties.
It indeed appear'd to Reason as if Desire was cast out, but the Devil's account is, that the Messiah fell, & formed a heaven of what he stole from the Abyss."

- Blake, the Marriage of Heaven and Hell

[bawang]

Bawang, that is the most hilarious inversion of religion as the opiate of the masses I've ever seen - the masses must be drugged. LOL!


if atheist liberals want to legalize drugs, why are they against getting high off religion?

*strokes beard

[sanjuro_ronin]

If we are created to be like this god would we not share at least some measure of his perception? If we are in his likeness wouldn't it follow that our minds too would be in his likeness? Isn't that the point of free will?

If we are alike to a god by being created so by him then he cannot be entirely ineffable.

The only one to share His Nature would be one begotten/born, not created.
So, while we were created in His image, we were created and as such do NOT share His nature.
So, while we can come close to grasping God, we fall short of understanding ALL that God is.
To go back to your ant farm analogy, the ants can grasp you lifting their home and juggling them around but they don't know that why you are doing is to safe them from the cat that keeps trying to knock them to the floor.

[SimonM]

if atheist liberals want to legalize drugs, why are they against getting high off religion?

*strokes beard

Because eventually you come down after getting high off weed.

[SimonM]

The only one to share His Nature would be one begotten/born, not created.
So, while we were created in His image, we were created and as such do NOT share His nature.
So, while we can come close to grasping God, we fall short of understanding ALL that God is.
To go back to your ant farm analogy, the ants can grasp you lifting their home and juggling them around but they don't know that why you are doing is to safe them from the cat that keeps trying to knock them to the floor.

Translation: we can't because we can't.

Or to shorten it further: because.
:rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Even if you could prove the existenc of a vastly superior being who created time, space and humanity it just means that it is beyond our current level of understanding. You could prove to me that a more powerful being exists but you could never convince me to worship it. The concept of god doesn't enter into it because it is an outdated label for conceptualizing a being or beings vastly superior to ourselves.

Remember Clarke's third law? "Any sufficiently advanced technology [or ability] is indistinguishable from magic."

If I can turn invisible it is not magic even if beyond our current level of understanding. Similarly if I created the universe, time, space, and little pink squishy beings it is not divine or magical, it is simply beyond the pink squishy beings understanding. Even if humans could never understand those abilities it still does not make them divine or magical.

Where did the notion of "magic" come into this?
I have no issue in the view that the being some call "God" is a super evolved being that was the first ever being, ever present and ever existing before the notion of Time ever came to be ( Or one in a parallel dimension/universe where time as we know it is nonexistent).

[bawang]

Because eventually you come down after getting high off weed.

but thats the ultimate dream. the never ending high.

do you guys think aliens visiting earth would convert to islam?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Translation: we can't because we can't.

Or to shorten it further: because.
:rolleyes:

Nope, more like we can't YET, but we will, eventually.
The bible promises that one day we will be "like the angels" or in short, we will evolve to the point of being what we now call "supernatural".

[sanjuro_ronin]

if atheist liberals want to legalize drugs, why are they against getting high off religion?

*strokes beard

That's not a beard...

[bawang]

i shaved pubis and glue to my face. now i look like guan yu.


the biggest mistake is people think that atheism will transform america into a science fiction paradise. thats magical thinking.

neither religion nor atheism can change a psychpath/sociopath

[Bacon]

Where did the notion of "magic" come into this?
I have no issue in the view that the being some call "God" is a super evolved being that was the first ever being, ever present and ever existing before the notion of Time ever came to be ( Or one in a parallel dimension/universe where time as we know it is nonexistent).

Because magic and divine are essentially the same in this discussion with the difference being that one is attributable to a "god" and one possibly able to be used by being who are not "gods."

And I would have no issue with the categorization of a "god" as simply a more advance being if people could give evidence that it exists. Unfortunately, just like chi, it is both improbable and unproven. I do not say that said powerful entity could not exist just that it is improbable and unproven. At some point in future there may be evidence to the contrary but that is the key, empirical evidence.

[bawang]

I do not say that said powerful entity could not exist just that it is improbable and unproven. At some point in future there may be evidence to the contrary but that is the key, empirical evidence.

asking the savage and primal human mob to voluntarily become compassionate without the arbitrary finality of a deity is also improbable

[Bacon]

the biggest mistake is people think that atheism will transform america into a science fiction paradise. thats magical thinking.

neither religion nor atheism can change a psychpath/sociopath

I think this is the first intelligent thing I've heard you say.

While neither athiesm or religion will independently make this world better there is one thing which will, education and intelligent thought. The problem is that the dogmatic, closed minded, unscientific thinking and belief without evidence associated with religion is contrary to that.

And you forget that any religion is atheistic to the hundreds of other god which have been supposed to exist over the millenia.

And as for the second point that's the domain of psychology, not religion.

[bawang]

I think this is the first intelligent thing I've heard you say.

While neither athiesm or religion will independently make this world better there is one thing which will, education and intelligent thought.

free thinking is dangerous. without responsibility it turns into random thinking, which is insanity disguised as logic.

people confuse freedom with randomness and chaos.

[SimonM]

Whereas Bawang is all about iron-fisted authoritarian order - except with regards to grammar. ;)

[Bacon]

asking the savage and primal human mob to voluntarily become compassionate without the arbitrary finality of a deity is also improbable

Asking them to become so with it is equally improbable as past and present bear witness to.

Yes the proletariat of the world are generally stupid, undereducated and unreaonable. They have been for centuries but that is the great challenge of humanity. To lift ourselves on our own two feet, to drag ourselves out of the muck and listen to the better angels of our nature.

Being good because you are told or compelled to rather than choosing to out of reason and rationality is not really being good or virtuous at all. Morally standing on our own two feet based on reason and the good conscience which goes along with it may be an unwinable battle but it is one worth fighting and one we must fight in any case.

[bawang]

Whereas Bawang is all about iron-fisted authoritarian order - except with regards to grammar. ;)

punctuation marks are inefficient and hamper speed of communication.

[Bacon]

free thinking is dangerous. without responsibility it turns into random thinking, which is insanity disguised as logic.

people confuse freedom with randomness and chaos.

Free thinking is dangerous but not for the reasons you put forth. Thought without logical guidance turns into random thinking which is where you get all the supposition in religion.

Freedom is not anarchy.

[bawang]

Being good because you are told or compelled to rather than choosing to out of reason and rationality is not really being good or virtuous at all. Morally standing on our own two feet based on reason and the good conscience which goes along with it may be an unwinable battle but it is one worth fighting and one we must fight in any case.


morality does not come from free will. you cannot really "choose" to be good.

morality is combination of self control and empathy and testosterone levels, which are genetically based. it makes sense that the masses must be forced to be good.


Thought without logical guidance turns into random thinking which is where you get all the supposition in religion.



religion comes from primitive early man's logical and rational assessment of the natural world. it forms part of society's collective consciousness/unconsciousness.

[Syn7]

Sure, I am always interested in what other relgions are about.
I am working on my Bach, in Theology ( part-time), just for "fun", LOL !

So you do that at home online? At nights? If online, are you satisfied with the level of support? I considered trying it out, but I was concerned about the face time. I do okay when reading, but I do so much better when I have somebody to answer questions. I like the idea of online though, and it is waaaaay cheaper for the accredited courses. I'm skeptical of schools like Phoenix, but I am starting to see the big REAL universities offering the same thing as the other purely online colleges. For me, money is the big issue.

How far in are you?

[Syn7]

I have very little faith in blind faith, LOL !
It's just not me.
Personal revelation aside ( and I believe that in discussion like this we should always put them aside), I have reason to believe based on research I did as a skeptic ( though I can't call myself an unbeliever at any point).
A website that basically is more or less inline with my views is this one:
www.biologos.org.

Yeah but how does that make your faith not blind? I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow based on years of observation and schooling. I can give you evidence for days on why tomorrow we will indeed see the sun rise. I can even try to quantify the chances of it NOT rising tomorrow. This just isn't the case when dealing with faith in a god. I will check out the site, and I'm not trying to belittle your faith at all. Just help me understand why your faith isn't blind. We both agree that blind faith is not a good thing, right?

[Syn7]

I've read this. I've re-read your original post. Maybe you should re-read your original post to. I'm leaving my post to that end. :)

It was only one sentence that I wrote originally. Did you really need to re-read it? I never said that any of the vedas were comparable to the knowledge acquired by physics today. Or how was it you put it?


What texts? What passages of the mists of time reveal a knowledge comparable to today scientifically?

which was an answer to me saying


I dunno, there are tons of hindu texts that got closer to what physicists believe today than anything else I know of.


Whatever tho, that's fine. It's not really an argument I care to have. I stand by mine and you apparently stand by yours. I'm happy to just dead it right there.

[Syn7]

Quick question David.

Do you believe that man has an innate and/or instinctive knowledge of his/her universe? If so, what words would you expect philosophers of the past to use? Nobody denies the subjectivity of it all and nobody has put anything concrete foreword. That being said, just curious, why so ridiculous? Especially coming from someone that does believe in a creator. How is one ridiculous and the other not?

Personally, I don't really come down on either side, but I do see things in many religious texts that seem amazingly insightful and almost revelatory in some ways. You do not?

[Syn7]

That has been refuted, over and over actually.
Man defining what is omnipotence and what God should and should not do is man at his height of arrogance.

It's only arrogance if a god actually exists. Otherwise it's critical thinking and an important step in the evolution of our species. Who's to say whether it is or isn't. But to not question something because it may bring the pain later is pretty ignorant in itself is it not?

[Syn7]

The issue is that God made us in His image and NOT as an "ant farm" of any sort.
God has a vested "emotional" interest in Us and knows that we are only complete when we are in Him BUT that we can only get there if we WANT to.
Free will.
Like a parent that KNOWS that his children loving and obeying Him is what is best for them and also KNOWS that this love and obedience can NOT be forced if it is to be real.
He allows Us free will because without it, we would never reach our truest potential, we would never be complete and be noting more that "automatons".

Yeah, but wouldn't putting ANY definition to god be arrogance by your standard?


I can go on and make my case but I'll see what you have to say first.

[Drake]

Yeah but how does that make your faith not blind? I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow based on years of observation and schooling. I can give you evidence for days on why tomorrow we will indeed see the sun rise. I can even try to quantify the chances of it NOT rising tomorrow. This just isn't the case when dealing with faith in a god. I will check out the site, and I'm not trying to belittle your faith at all. Just help me understand why your faith isn't blind. We both agree that blind faith is not a good thing, right?

The Sun doesn't rise. We are actually just spinning around it. Things aren't always as obvious or straightforward as they seem. No, the sun will not rise or set, tomorrow or ever.

[Syn7]

Let me ask you this:
Is there any evidence that WOULD convince YOU of God?

You talkin personal revelation or god showing us his face(whatever that means)?

This argument must be fun for you huh? Getting to practice here and all that.

[Syn7]

Well, I come to that opinion based on observable facts that I have seen and have been seen by others and widely documented.

I don't see how you got to your conclusion, other than by putting human perceptions and limitations on a being, that IF He exists, is far beyond any human understanding or perception based on the reality that we know to exist.

People do that sh1t all the time with their pets. Projecting all their own emotion into their twisted little interpretation of what their dog is thinking when in fact his most complicated thought is "SMELL GOOD GO THERE!"

[Syn7]

Bawang, that is the most hilarious inversion of religion as the opiate of the masses I've ever seen - the masses must be drugged. LOL!

And since I'm in a literary mood I suggest:

"Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling.
And being restrain'd it by degrees becomes passive till it is only the shadow of desire.
The history of this is written in Paradise Lost, & the Governor or Reason is call'd Messiah.
And the original Archangel or possessor of the command of the heavenly host, is call'd the Devil or Satan and his children are call'd Sin & Death.
But in the Book of Job Miltons Messiah is call'd Satan.
For this history has been adopted by both parties.
It indeed appear'd to Reason as if Desire was cast out, but the Devil's account is, that the Messiah fell, & formed a heaven of what he stole from the Abyss."

- Blake, the Marriage of Heaven and Hell

LOL
That was way above his pay grade Simon.

You should join the Nation of Gods and Earth bawang. 5%ers should appeal to you. You could even move to the bronx and try to pass as the black man you wished you were when you were a teen.

[Syn7]

asking the savage and primal human mob to voluntarily become compassionate without the arbitrary finality of a deity is also improbable

That's shortsighted. There's a ton of evidence and examples that show that collective needs in the real world is what created the communal spirit, not the belief in any sort of deity, that came after and, IMO, is the natural progression of the species. Infact there is more than enough evidence to support the idea that any belief in any deity is counterproductive to foreword progress. Sure, religion has given us a lot, but it isn't anything we wouldn't have acquired anyways.

It's sorta like saying a dysfunctional family is ok because it could be worse, you could have no family. That's what people say to try to justify bullsh1t. In reality you would be better off in a functional family and how bad it could have been is quite irrelevant. Sure the dysfunctional family kept you fed and clothed, but you also get the beatings or whatever. So yeah, religion has given us a ton, but that doesn't change the fact that it's dysfunctional and there are better options.

[Syn7]

Asking them to become so with it is equally improbable as past and present bear witness to.

Yes the proletariat of the world are generally stupid, undereducated and unreaonable. They have been for centuries but that is the great challenge of humanity. To lift ourselves on our own two feet, to drag ourselves out of the muck and listen to the better angels of our nature.

Being good because you are told or compelled to rather than choosing to out of reason and rationality is not really being good or virtuous at all. Morally standing on our own two feet based on reason and the good conscience which goes along with it may be an unwinable battle but it is one worth fighting and one we must fight in any case.

The proletariat may be uneducated, but they are by no means stupid. The social mechanisms that keep them down are not successful because the victims are stupid. Most of the worlds greatest finds came from uneducated people. Throw an old money aristocrat or even your average middle class american into what the true proletariat deal with everyday and they would perish, whereas the proletariat continue to exist despite a ton of effort from some to end their existence. That is anything but stupid. Intelligence has nothing to do with education, NOTHING.

[Syn7]

The Sun doesn't rise. We are actually just spinning around it. Things aren't always as obvious or straightforward as they seem. No, the sun will not rise or set, tomorrow or ever.

If you want to take me on, choose something that isn't pure semantics. Do you honestly believe that I was not aware of these things, and do you feel that anyone was confused by the analogy?

I'm starting to think you don't even have the juice to handle a real argument.

[Drake]

If you want to take me on, choose something that isn't pure semantics. Do you honestly believe that I was not aware of these things, and do you feel that anyone was confused by the analogy?

I'm starting to think you don't even have the juice to handle a real argument.

I'm thinking you are still missing the point.

[Syn7]

I'm thinking you are still missing the point.

Which point, that you're copping out again? That you are a walking contradiction?

So which is it? You a toughguy making threats or a decent guy lying about physical intimidation?

You always conveniently fail to address anything I ask you. Maybe you really don't have the juice to go any deeper than this bullsh1t. Show me \I'm wrong. I would love that. I actually respected you at one point, I would like nothing more than to respect you again. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

If you wanna meet me, come to me. I'll come talk to you. You may not like what I have to say, but if you are a soldier worth your salt you should be able to take any insult without reacting violently. So which is it? You a toughguy or a poser? Stop answering my posts if you aren't willing to address anything of substance. You can't complain that people troll you when you do it yourself. That sh1t is b1tchmade, for reals.

[Drake]

I am never, ever going to meet you. Your problem is that you don't understand what it is you are reading, make a false assumption, then grandstand on some off the wall idiocy.

[Syn7]

And you have yet to directly address anything we have argued about. Instead you b1tch and whine about semantics.

Of course we aren't gonna meet. And you are in no position to complain about assumptions since all you have put foreword are assumptions. Like how afraid I would be to be honest about my feelings to your face and that I am a coward because I hide behind a screen. WTF? If you don't plan and seeing me then why would you even go there? My hypothesis is that it is a weak attempt at misdirection in order to avoid being accountable for your words and your profession.

Seriously, just answer a question directly for a change. Or fukc off. You choose. But I'm not gonna bother with your misdirection any more. Man up or go away, simple. I don't even trhink you misdirect on purpose, I think it's just who you are. An assumption, yes, but a fair one based solely on YOUR posts. I have nothing else to go on.


So Drake? Are you a tough guy or a poser? If you choose neither, then justify your intimidation comments. If you dodge this question I'm just going to ASSUME that you don't have the intellectual capacity to go there. Again, your choice.

And, like I said before, man up and I will show you all the respect you would deserve. You have a very short memory, I do not. I remember ALL the questions you have dodged. So far I have not dodged ANY and I challenge you to show me when I have. And if by chance I did miss one for some reason, I am more than happy to answer now. Keep to our discussions tho, I ignore other people all the time. But you, I haven't dodged any of your questions. Just answer a question for a change. Otherwise what are you even doing here? Why even get involved and post if you have no intention of following through? I was raised to think poorly of people like that. My grampa used to call em sh1t disturbers. People who make trouble or provoke conversation or confrontation then back off.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So you do that at home online? At nights? If online, are you satisfied with the level of support? I considered trying it out, but I was concerned about the face time. I do okay when reading, but I do so much better when I have somebody to answer questions. I like the idea of online though, and it is waaaaay cheaper for the accredited courses. I'm skeptical of schools like Phoenix, but I am starting to see the big REAL universities offering the same thing as the other purely online colleges. For me, money is the big issue.

How far in are you?

3rd year.
Its a combination of online and inclass ( part-time), depending on the students flexibility ( if you can't attend the in-class, you do online, webcast, etc...)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah but how does that make your faith not blind? I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow based on years of observation and schooling. I can give you evidence for days on why tomorrow we will indeed see the sun rise. I can even try to quantify the chances of it NOT rising tomorrow. This just isn't the case when dealing with faith in a god. I will check out the site, and I'm not trying to belittle your faith at all. Just help me understand why your faith isn't blind. We both agree that blind faith is not a good thing, right?

Again, personal revelation and experience aside ( and in matters of faith we put them aside because they are simply anecdotal), my faith is based on how I see and understand the universe and it's order, people, morality, the historical records of Christ's resurrection ( I am A christian as you know), the writings of the likes of Augustine, Aquinas and others, my views on the universal constants, anthropic principle, the big bang and so forth.
Yes, there is ALWAYS a certain element of "leap of faith", but since I do question it ( my faith and understanding of things that lead to my faith) and do question the teachings and even the existence of God ( in the NT we are told to "test everything"), I don't see how my faith is blind.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's only arrogance if a god actually exists. Otherwise it's critical thinking and an important step in the evolution of our species. Who's to say whether it is or isn't. But to not question something because it may bring the pain later is pretty ignorant in itself is it not?

I agree that man SHOULD question and should use critical thinking, I just think that people would be better served on BOTH sides of the argument to admit their preconceived notions AND for skeptics to admit that limitations of human understanding and at least conceived that, what we KNOW NOW may be proven to be quite different 1000 years from now, just as what was know as FACT 1000 years ago has been proven to NOT be the case now.
Know what I mean?
It is the height of arrogance to KNOW that we don't know everything BUT dictate what CAN and CAN NOT be in absolute terms.
The first stage of critical thinking is to admit and accept that all knowledge is dependent on our ability to understand it AND that ability is dependent on our perception of reality.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You talkin personal revelation or god showing us his face(whatever that means)?

This argument must be fun for you huh? Getting to practice here and all that.

Its a question I ask of all skeptic when they ask for evidence of God.
Every discussion or debate needs a mutual point of reference, right?
So I ask what evidence would be enough to prove to you ( a skeptic) that there is a God?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Syn7 and Drake, you guys really need to cool it, ok?