register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

Off Topic » As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware) (Posts 181 to 210 of 1859)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 62
  14. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemonStar
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008 edited
    Steven I read the article. It is pretty interesting, and I agree with some of it. I know how annoying the superstitions are. Nothing comes without a bad side, and religion does too. I never said it didn't, and I have already said that before. I DON'T believe in the expensive rituals, baseless superstitions and things like that, which were undoubtebly what led the Church to take the mentally ill man as a gifted seer. Those are all man made "polluntants" which are unnecessary in religion, but have crept their way in nevertheless.

    But I want to look at the brighter side of religion. I have mentioned why it is beneficial in my above post, and I have already expressed my views about why I firmly believe in God before.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Steven wrote
    DemonStar wrote
    Just a minor question - does anyone know how the elements that we know today, like iron, silicon etc (the BASIC elements) of which everything is made of, even the planets, were first formed? They're the simplest substances - all other compounds are their combinations or derivatives. So there must be a Creator who made them, the atoms they're composed of, the SUB atomic particles like electrons or protons. Or was everything just "automatic"? tongue

    And how was the universe itself formed? When? How? Even the scientists don't know. All we have is theories. This is one of the many things for which I belive in the Creator.


    A perfectly valid reason too, but not enough of a reason for me personally to base a strong belief on a creator since it still doesn't explain whom or what created the creator, it's an infinite regression.


    Steven, why does your mind not want to accept God unless He was created by something? Why does He have to have been created by someone or something else to even have the possibility of being real? There's got to be an end to the line somewhere. It gets down to this: you either believe God has been around forever, or little teeny tiny particles have been around forever, which have somehow over time just evolved or exploded or something into what we have now. If you're not willing to accept that God may have no creator, how can you accept that millions or billions or trillions of years ago there were small particles out of which everything we know today formed. Who or what created the particles and the simplest substances, as Ravi pointed out?
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008 edited
    DemonStar wrote
    An interesting hypothesis made by religion is that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, but geology has pretty much thrown that idea out the window thankfully. All evidence suggests the Earth is a lot older than that, and that's not just something I've blindly accepted on faith from my peers, I have studied basic geology and the predicted age of Earth. Fascinating stuff!


    Even renowned not-so-old scientists made such mistakes, it is not religion's fault. After all the mulling over, and thinking over facts for years and years did scientists come out with facts. Read about the experiments about abiogenesis vs. biogenesis where a sweaty nightshirt was put in a corner and when some mice began to live in it, they thought they were produced by the shirt. So what's religion's fault in this? And eventually these very experiments led to Miller and Urey's experiments which provided scientific proof for abigenesis. Had the previous experiments, however funny they sound, not been performed, there wouldn't have been advances in the field.


    Great points, Ravi! beer
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008 edited
    DemonStar wrote
    There isn't enough historical evidence, yes, but there isn't any solid evidence that they're just parables either. And saying that they're just tall tales made by people cannot be solidified without any proof IMO. Just expressing my thoughts. smile


    Well, I would say that the fact that this exact-same story is told throughout time in every single culture (I even found a comparable one where Charlemagne is credited with such a conversion! smile ) makes for a pretty compelling case that this is classic mythology, but fair enough, obviously it is impossible to disprove a story (I don't have any eye witness account who actually saw the Buddha and said murderer and noticed that the murderer wasn't convinced).

    But even taken at face value, I could easily interpret the story in a psychological light where someone is asked to think about "what the fuck he thinks he's doing?", and having been confronted like this makes the cognitive decision to change his ways.
    In short: there's nothing miraculous there for me, but if stories like that help you to be a better person, I'm definitely not going to argue against them!!

    The "you must believe this" thing is not acceptable I know, but if you leave that out, I can't see anything wrong.

    ...except if you leave OUT the "you must believe" and RETAIN the "you must do good", then you actually don't have religion any more, but humanism.
    smile

    Again, at the end of the day I don't care: whatever helps you be a good person is fine with me.
    My argument primarily is against organized religion (for the reasons outlined in my former post), not faith or belief.
    Faith and belief, as long as no one tries to force them on anyone else, are personal issues and coping systems which may indeed be very beneficial in many ways. That it's not for me (in a gnostic sense) is nothing more than my personal coping mechanism.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    TheTelmarine wrote
    Steven, why does your mind not want to accept God unless He was created by something?


    Well, I could easily argue that he was created by man, but I do understand that that's not your point.
    The thing is not that the concept of infinity isn't present in both religion and science (it IS): it's the underlying principle that's different.

    In Christian religion, one is asked to accept without question the omnipresence of god: god has been, is and shall always be everywhere. Period.

    In science, the big bang theory is currently entertained by the concept of either a quantum singularity which has always been, or an ever selfpropagating Multiverse "spewing out" different Universes all the time.
    But with the current state of science we don't know this. Which is fine. Science is working on it. They may..no, will come up with other, different or more detailed theories. It's not dogmatic in any way (though certainly every theory has its dogged proponents).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    DemonStar wrote
    But I want to look at the brighter side of religion. I have mentioned why it is beneficial in my above post,


    And that is excellent, of course!
    I think both Steven and I though are arguing that these benefits are in no way exclusive to religion.
    That's what I meant by causality: religion may serve you to be a good man, but that does not logically mean that every good man is religious.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    TheTelmarine wrote
    Steven, why does your mind not want to accept God unless He was created by something?


    Well, I could easily argue that he was created by man, but I do understand that that's not your point.
    The thing is not that the concept of infinity isn't present in both religion and science (it IS): it's the underlying principle that's different.

    In Christian religion, one is asked to accept without question the omnipresence of god: god has been, is and shall always be everywhere. Period.

    In science, the big bang theory is currently entertained by the concept of either a quantum singularity which has always been, or an ever selfpropagating Multiverse "spewing out" different Universes all the time.
    But with the current state of science we don't know this. Which is fine. Science is working on it. They may..no, will come up with other, different or more detailed theories. It's not dogmatic in any way (though certainly every theory has its dogged proponents).


    I wonder if, as humankind we cannot conceive of something as always having been there due to the fact that we are mortal and have a beginning and an end? It's beyond our reasoning that the universe didn't have a begining.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Yes, that's definitely a psychological barrier, but as it has never stopped people from entertaining theories about an infinite anthropomorhic entity steering things or indeed an infinite mass of heat and matter initiating entropy, I think philosophy and imagination can pretty much handle that side of things.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    Yes, that's definitely a psychological barrier, but as it has never stopped people from entertaining theories about an infinite anthropomorhic entity steering things or indeed an infinite mass of heat and matter initiating entropy, I think philosophy and imagination can pretty much handle that side of things.


    smile *phew* glad I made sense, I'm in a lot of pain at the moment.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Timmer wrote
    I'm in a lot of pain at the moment.


    Mentally or physically? wink
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemonStar
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008 edited
    Martijn wrote
    DemonStar wrote
    But I want to look at the brighter side of religion. I have mentioned why it is beneficial in my above post,


    And that is excellent, of course!
    I think both Steven and I though are arguing that these benefits are in no way exclusive to religion.
    That's what I meant by causality: religion may serve you to be a good man, but that does not logically mean that every good man is religious.


    And that makes my point, I am sure. If you read back my posts, I never said that religion is the only way to be a good person, I only said that it was one of the ways. wink

    As far as my belief about God is concerned, it doesn't take any religion to prove there's a God, whatever form you see Him in.

    There is a true story about an Indian king (I forget his name) who believed that God is just a false belief in people because their religion taught them from a very young age to believe that way. So he didn't want his son to believe in God. As soon as he was born, he locked him up in a huge tower under the care of selected attendants who were strictly instructed never to mention anything about God to him.

    One day, when the king visited his son, he found him with his head bowed in front of the window. The son said he was bowing to the "Creator". The king was very furious at all the attendants and threatened to put them to death, but they swore they had been loyal to him.

    The King asked his son, "What Creator are you talking about? Who told you?" The prince replied "No one told me. Why should anyone tell me? Out of this window I can see the beautiful world, the plants, the animals, the sun, the moon and the stars. Someone must have created this. Such glorious must be His power that I hope He bestows his kindness on us all. So I bow to him." The king was defeated. He knew from his son that God was real.

    And that is why, no matter whether you see Him as Christ, Buddha or Krishna, I KNOW God exists. You might say everything was "automatic", but I for one don't believe so. A young child might think the TV came into existence by itself, we know it didn't. I am NOT comparing anyone to a child tongue , I am only giving an example as you can look at it from that point of view. Who told the Prince that there was a God? What religion did he follow. Whatever may be the issues with religion, I absolutely and firmly know that God is real. I know some will say that the boy thought very narrowly, but think about it youself, too.
  12. Martijn wrote
    DemonStar wrote
    But I want to look at the brighter side of religion. I have mentioned why it is beneficial in my above post,


    And that is excellent, of course!
    I think both Steven and I though are arguing that these benefits are in no way exclusive to religion.
    That's what I meant by causality: religion may serve you to be a good man, but that does not logically mean that every good man is religious.


    I don't think that either Ravi, William or me stated that being religious is a sine qua non condition to be a good person.

    What is true though is that in some way religious systems could have created the basic skeleton of ethics developed later by philosophers and around 17th Century completely disconnected in its Christian basis, because most of Ancient philosophy was quite devoid of religion, if not (as Epicureism or Stoicism) atheistic in its very base.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    Timmer wrote
    I'm in a lot of pain at the moment.


    Mentally or physically? wink


    Probably mentally when I get around to reading through the last few pages of this thread to catch up!? dizzy wink

    Nah, it's physical, see 'What's Annoying You' thread.

    Continue everyone, nothing to see here.....
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008 edited
    Martijn wrote
    DemonStar wrote
    There isn't enough historical evidence, yes, but there isn't any solid evidence that they're just parables either. And saying that they're just tall tales made by people cannot be solidified without any proof IMO. Just expressing my thoughts. smile


    Well, I would say that the fact that this exact-same story is told throughout time in every single culture (I even found a comparable one where Charlemagne is credited with such a conversion! smile ) makes for a pretty compelling case that this is classic mythology, but fair enough, obviously it is impossible to disprove a story (I don't have any eye witness account who actually saw the Buddha and said murderer and noticed that the murderer wasn't convinced).


    I should add that if you argue that a story cannot be proved to be either true or false, does that make the possibility of either a true of false outcome just as likely as the other? I can't say that I believe that a zombie Jewish Jesus who was his own father who can make you live forever if you symbolical eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so that he can remove an evil force in your soul that is present in all humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree is a story which lies directly in the middle of being either true of false.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    PawelStroinski wrote
    I don't think that either Ravi, William or me stated that being religious is a sine qua non condition to be a good person.


    Just making sure, as there seemed some confusion there. smile

    What is true though is that in some way religious systems could have created the basic skeleton of ethics


    Isn't that a contradiction? confused
    Bases of ethics were laid separate and apart from religion as you actually state yourself (the best example being Greek philosophers)!
    Or do you mean any religion (i.e. old nature relisions included).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregje
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Ehm... maybe someone should have renamed the topic title? I didn't know a discussion was going on. It's too much to read through now. Maybe tomorrow...
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Well, all Californians go to hell anyway, so I kinda like the topic title... wink
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Bregje wrote
    Ehm... maybe someone should have renamed the topic title? I didn't know a discussion was going on. It's too much to read through now. Maybe tomorrow...


    biggrin

    I don't blame you Bregje! Helluva lot to read and take in if you haven't been following it from the start. sad (I agree, the title should be changed.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemonStar
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Steven wrote
    Martijn wrote
    DemonStar wrote
    There isn't enough historical evidence, yes, but there isn't any solid evidence that they're just parables either. And saying that they're just tall tales made by people cannot be solidified without any proof IMO. Just expressing my thoughts. smile


    Well, I would say that the fact that this exact-same story is told throughout time in every single culture (I even found a comparable one where Charlemagne is credited with such a conversion! smile ) makes for a pretty compelling case that this is classic mythology, but fair enough, obviously it is impossible to disprove a story (I don't have any eye witness account who actually saw the Buddha and said murderer and noticed that the murderer wasn't convinced).


    I should add that if you argue that a story cannot be proved to be either true or false, does that make the possibility of either a true of false outcome just as likely as the other? I can't say that I believe that a zombie Jewish Jesus who was his own father who can make you live forever if you symbolical eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so that he can remove an evil force in your soul that is present in all humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree is a story which lies directly in the middle of being either true of false.


    I have already expressed my views about the superstitious stuff. And I want to mention that for a lot of stories there are quite some supposed evidences that people present, it depends on whether you want to believe or nor. For example, I myself have visited the prison where Lord Krishna was supposedly born. I have seen the remains of the chains which allegedly snapped open from Krishna's father's wrists by themselves to free him. Again, that's what people say, it depends on what you wish to believe.

    I agree that what you mentioned does sound very fictional, but as I have already mentioned it doesn't take religious mythology to know God is real. I have mentioned that in my previous post.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Careful what you say about this California resident angry
    Tom smile
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Of course I didn't mean YOU, Tom!!
    But then you're a European at heart aren't you? wink
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemonStar
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    The communism rubbish began later because of people but that was NOT what religion is originally intended for.


    No sure what Communism has to do with this?


    I missed this... sorry, it was a typo. I meant "communalism" biggrin I mean the fights between people who argue that their religion is better, or yours offends mine, or you MUST convert into mine etc etc. I agree that that is a big evil of the religious system, but that's part of the dark side of religion. Let's not ignore its better side!
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Forgiven my friend
    Tom smile
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008 edited
    TheTelmarine wrote

    Steven, why does your mind not want to accept God unless He was created by something? Why does He have to have been created by someone or something else to even have the possibility of being real? There's got to be an end to the line somewhere. It gets down to this: you either believe God has been around forever, or little teeny tiny particles have been around forever, which have somehow over time just evolved or exploded or something into what we have now. If you're not willing to accept that God may have no creator, how can you accept that millions or billions or trillions of years ago there were small particles out of which everything we know today formed. Who or what created the particles and the simplest substances, as Ravi pointed out?


    Indeed why does your mind assume the only possible explanation can be that of a god? You make a valid question, but it's not one that is reserved purely for the religiously inclined.

    You then ask why does he have to have been created by someone or something else to even have the possibility of being real. The same argument, again, can be used against that of the God Hypothesis; why does there have to have been a creator for the universe to even have the possibility of being real?

    You base a fundamental assumption (bordering on self-confessed knowledge) on the fact there had to be a creator. Why is this any more a valid an assumption than the one I make that there is in all probability no creator? (And note the use of the phrase "in all probability" rather than "in all certainty".)
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Steven wrote
    Bregje wrote
    Ehm... maybe someone should have renamed the topic title? I didn't know a discussion was going on. It's too much to read through now. Maybe tomorrow...


    biggrin

    I don't blame you Bregje! Helluva lot to read and take in if you haven't been following it from the start. sad (I agree, the title should be changed.)


    Don't change the title. we'll get all manner of Trolls invading.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Well, we could simply delete any troll-like posts from non-regulars?
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Hey, you could always change it to "Steven is doing his thang again" and most people will know what it's about.
    Of course they may also expect a thread full of sexual innuendos and bad puns.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    Well, we could simply delete any troll-like posts from non-regulars?


    It's great to see well reasoned intelligent debate of a subject that so often turns into a flame war on other message boards. If this were at *no need to mention* it would have been locked / deleted by now due to people catching fire, blinding each other and turning into pillars of salt.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Coz we iz like well smart and stuff aint we?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
    Not just smart, gifted!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn

181 to 210 of 1859

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 62
  14. >