Religion

[a13antichrist]

This is precisely the sort of post that normally would not be dignified with a response, however your lunacy is amusing to me and I can assure you to others as well. You have not presented one single shred of anything even remotely resembling an argument, instead you resort to inane banterings about the opposition arguments being irrelevant or non-existant. For both of the threads I have received PMs and comments concerning your total lack of coherence in this regard, so don't think I'm the only one that has noticed. This is especially evident concerning your ravings about Anger - what it indicates primarily is that you yourself have been burnt and are looking for consolation that you're not the only one. Sorry, you won't find it here.
You may decide to hide behind your veil and not expose yourself to any possibility that might disrupt your own private world, that's your choice. Everything you post is characterised by an attempt not to refute but to ignore anything that doesn't fit with your ideal world. You might like to bear in mind though that "closed-minded" does not mean "someone who declines to enter into Gato's little world of incoherence and lunacy".

What it comes down to is that you're not even INTERESTED in making a post worth considering. Your only apparent aim is to make people think you've somehow outsmarted them. That may work with your day-care group but around here you're not fooling anyone.

 

[a13antichrist]

So you have no faith. In anything, by your own admission.

I'm assuming that you believe in the sciences asa matter of fact, as opposed to having faith that the math and calculations of those called "Experts" are correct. Do the nice little scientificaly accepted theories make you feel better about the why's and wherefore's of reality as we know it?

[...]

I have faith in the sciences...I have faith in the existance of God. It makes me feel better. I'll admit it. I doubt that it's a waste of my time.

Under your definition given above, no, I do not have Faith in anything. If I'm going to decide to support this idea or another, I'm going to have to have some reason to.

I trust Science because it has been shown (i.e, there is evidence for it) to be correct more often than not. It most of the time makes sense. When it doesn't you can be pretty sure I'm not the only one who'd have noticed. That does make me feel better, knowing that there are other people working on the answers too, that I don't have to try and figure ABSOLUTELY everything out by myself. But I wouldn't be too upset if I did have to.

I also don't believe that by disbelieving in the existance of a supreme being, that you should, with the same blow,discount everythign that religion and it's dogma has given to society as a whole.

I have no problem admitting that some of what religion has brought to the table is useful. But then a woman being raped and getting pregnant has also gained something joyful - you don't see many women begging to be raped so that they can experience the joy of having a baby. THe point is that religion helped us when we were too much in the dark to help ourselves. The time has come though that we can stand on our own two feet and make our own decisions. The simple truth is that a LOT of what religion brought has prevented, or at least slowed, the healthy development of our societies. Everything positive that it brought, we could have discovered for ourselves if we'd just given ourselves the chance. Now it's up to us to sort through the mess we've created, and realise that none of these "bonuses" are in fact entirely specific to religion.

 

[a13antichrist]

I can't, Just like you can't prove otherwise

Yes but as I stated above, a superior being is an anomaly to accepted theory and hence the onus is on the anomaly to prove, not not the status quo to disprove. [/QUOTE]

What physical laws. The ones we currently know? If I have told you on the middle ages the earth was round, you would have called me a retard, because by the physical laws known them if the earth was rounded we would fall in to the void. That's because gravity was not known by then, despite being felt by everyone every day. But if the earth was never perceived as rounded, it would never have been conceived as a body, and probably gravity theory would never have been formulated(?)

Very true. However, it is also true that in those periods, we had no way of proving the proposed theories. The new theories were accepted once they were able to be PROVED 100% conclusively. Thus we know for certain that as far as our physical world is concerned, those laws will never be "undone". And we have no reason to believe that anything else we discover will not also fall under those laws.
It is also true that as Science advances, we discover more and more explanations for things that previously we thought we could never explain. And Science continues to get ever-more complex. A cover-all like God is precisely the opposite direction to the progression of Science.

Did you expect him to be made of tangible matter? If God created the world, he is omni-powerful and a perfect being. If he's perfect, he is immutable(unchangeble?), because if it could change it could not be perfect. If he's immutable it cannot be part of the universe as we know, because matter is affectable by changes. If he was tangible he wouldn't be God, therefore.

Well first of all I stated at the very beginning that if you wanted to look at this logically, you had to leave out everything that isn't logical. Logically, God does not exist. Fact, pure and simple. You have to get ideological to allow his existence. Let's ignore that for a second though.

So he's made of intangible matter. I could eventually accept that proposition. Provided of course that you show me some evidence of the existence of such intangible matter, such that a superior being could eventually be concluded to consist of such matter.
He is "intangible" for precisely the reason you state - if he wasn't, he couldn't be God and hence couldn't exist. That in itself is enough to reject the idea. A loophole in order to allow his existence. This simply doesn't happen in Science, so why should we allow it to happen in theology?

 

[ris]

gato, a13, it would be a shame to lock this thread because the two of you can't carry out a debate with each other harmoniously. other than the bickering between you this thread is continuing to be interesting and informative.

it ceases now, i don't expect to see any comments aimed toward each other or to me in this thread.

 

[Shadowfax]

Let me answer this question again SF and a bit more directly. Religion is little more than what men do with it. Obviously if you really don't believe that religion is a threat then you don't need to answer the poll. I haven't stated that religion is an absolute threat but i've left the door open for those who believe that it is a threat.

As far as leaving out judiasm(which others have brought up) I already knew for the most part what that poll wiould look like. As i said in the beginning this poll was done for myself and no one else. If i start a poll asking which team do you like the most the bears or the colts no one need say it's not fair that i didn't ask about the rams.

but that's the point i am wondering about...is religion little more than what men does with it? is christianity, for instance, based on what men makes of it? nope, it's based on 'facts' stated in the Bible and 'facts' stated in the Ten Commands. the true version of the Bible isn't subject to personal interpretation, but are supposed to be 'facts' written down by the elder followers.

now, there lies the difference between religion itself, and the people who practice it. the beliefs stated in the Bible and the Koran, just to mention two..., are indeed peaceful. the followers have their own opinion on how to read those given 'facts' and the extremists use violence to force people to follow their beliefs.
and THAT is beyond the religion. and that's the only point i'm trying to make, that the religion itself isn't the threat, but the people who practice and alter it are.

now, i know you can't state all religions here, but i was surprised that you picked islam and christianity. provoking, i think it is. why? because it only emphasizes on the more and more common belief that islam is an evil religion. i know you don't state nor think that, but it does create a certain atmosphere.
at least i got that impression.

 

[AlladinSane]

Yes but as I stated above, a superior being is an anomaly to accepted theory and hence the onus is on the anomaly to prove, not not the status quo to disprove.

It was you that said it was a black or white question. And called retard anyone who would dare to refute an unquestionable truth. I asked you to prove it as unquestionable.

Very true. However, it is also true that in those periods, we had no way of proving the proposed theories. The new theories were accepted once they were able to be PROVED 100% conclusively.

Hmmm, in fact we HAD the way to prove it. They could have simply board a ship and sail all around the earth. It wasn`t done before because a flat earth was an "accepted theory".

Thus we know for certain that as far as our physical world is concerned, those laws will never be "undone". And we have no reason to believe that anything else we discover will not also fall under those laws. It is also true that as Science advances, we discover more and more explanations for things that previously we thought we could never explain. And Science continues to get ever-more complex. A cover-all like God is precisely the opposite direction to the progression of Science.

To tell you the truth I don't think the idea of God have to go against any established knowledge. If so much maybe question some of them. He wouldn't have given us ways of developing intelligence without a reason. I just don't think we have to consider ourselves as the best thing on the world just because of it.

So he's made of intangible matter. I could eventually accept that proposition. Provided of course that you show me some evidence of the existence of such intangible matter, such that a superior being could eventually be concluded to consist of such matter.
He is "intangible" for precisely the reason you state - if he wasn't, he couldn't be God and hence couldn't exist. That in itself is enough to reject the idea. A loophole in order to allow his existence. This simply doesn't happen in Science, so why should we allow it to happen in theology?

I didn't say he was made of intangible matter. I said He IS intangible, because logically he would not be part of the universe, just as the creator is not part of the creation. That said we don't have material means to be assure of his existance. That only could have been by observation. Personally I have been many experiences and I believe more and more every day in reincarnation. You may or not believe in it, I still didn't find better explanations to the things I witnessed. That is the crucial thing for me to believe in the existance of God, because that requires the concept of a Soul that prevail over the death of the body. And how could that be explained by our known physical laws? Unless that means there are laws unknown to us as yet. More than that would mean there is a PURPOSE to live more than once. There God fits...

 

[outside looking in]

a13...

Are you trying to visualize an open but finite universe (the existence of which I'm not sure is even physically possible as it would require boundaries... I'd have to check though), or a finite but unbounded universe (i.e., closed)? It sounds more like the latter, with your NewYork to NewYork example.

As far as the religious "discussion" I'm reminded of that nice picture of the special olympics kid.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

"Q" is very offended by the inferences that he is intangible.

Ill have to take this matter to the continuim on Monday.

 

[a13antichrist]

a13...

Are you trying to visualize an open but finite universe (the existence of which I'm not sure is even physically possible as it would require boundaries... I'd have to check though), or a finite but unbounded universe (i.e., closed)? It sounds more like the latter, with your NewYork to NewYork example.

Yeah that's the one.. to be honest I did have to think about it for a second when I wrote it, the "unbounded" term still managed to escape me..

As far as the religious "discussion" I'm reminded of that nice picture of the special olympics kid.

What, the one that beats everybody down with his crutches so that he's the only left who can win?

It was you that said it was a black or white question. And called retard anyone who would dare to refute an unquestionable truth. I asked you to prove it as unquestionable.

Sorry, I wasn't totally clear there.
The existence of God is black or white, yes or no. Either he exists, or he doesn't. Believing in him really hard won't make him real (but then what is "real"?), and denying his existence won't destroy him, but there can be no opinion on the matter because it's a question of fact, whichever way you believe. Opinions can't be "wrong", but beliefs can. I.E., one of us is certainly wrong in our belief about God (you believe and I don't), but we just don't have any way of knowing who is wrong and who is right.
Personally, I believe that his non-existence is so self-evident that I find it difficult to take seriously those that believe. Because, as stated above, the issue is a question of fact, and as fact, non-scientific methods should have no part in it. I object to this belief because in order to accept it, people have to resort to non-logical arguments.

Hmmm, in fact we HAD the way to prove it. They could have simply board a ship and sail all around the earth. It wasn`t done before because a flat earth was an "accepted theory".

Yes, they did have the means to prove it. But since they never actually did DO it, it was always only a theory. The difference is that science proposes theories, and then PROVES them (or disproves them), so that there can be no doubt. Had the people of the day ever attempted to prove their flat-earth theory, they would have discovered their mistake.

To tell you the truth I don't think the idea of God have to go against any established knowledge. If so much maybe question some of them. He wouldn't have given us ways of developing intelligence without a reason. I just don't think we have to consider ourselves as the best thing on the world just because of it.

When did I say we were the best things on earth? We are the most advanced, but "best" is most definitely a matter of opinion.
The existence of God has to go against established knowledge, you admitted as much earlier. God is not tangible and does not abide by the physical rules of our universe. Our established knowledge says quite plainly that everything that exists abides by those rules (hence why they're called rules ). Therefore, in order to accept his existence you have to make exceptions to those rules, and the only motivation we have at this point to do so is, precisely, to allow his existence - and science is restricted to taking the results and drawing conclusions, not making the conclusion (God exists) and hence deciding on the results (God is immune to physical laws).

I didn't say he was made of intangible matter. I said He IS intangible, because logically he would not be part of the universe, just as the creator is not part of the creation.

That's the big problem - You can't decide he's intangible because he can't logically be part of the universe. You have to PROVE he's intangible and that would then prove that he can exist as not part of this universe. Nothing else is capable of that so we have no right to make exceptions for God.

That said we don't have material means to be assure of his existance. That only could have been by observation. Personally I have been many experiences and I believe more and more every day in reincarnation. You may or not believe in it, I still didn't find better explanations to the things I witnessed.

Personally all my experiences lead me to believe more and more every day that there is no reason to believe anything whatsoever if science has no evidence for it. Just as the Earth was thought to be flat until we discovered navigation, God was thought to be the creator of the universe until we discovered celestial physics.

That is the crucial thing for me to believe in the existance of God, because that requires the concept of a Soul that prevail over the death of the body. And how could that be explained by our known physical laws? Unless that means there are laws unknown to us as yet. More than that would mean there is a PURPOSE to live more than once. There God fits...

What justification have you got for believing in the concept of a "soul"? You do realise also that reincarnation is not in God's book..

As a side note, this is the first time in a long while that I have actually discussed the fundamentals of the religion issue. I stopped quite some time ago when I realised that REGARDLESS of whether or not God exists, he has nothing to offer me. Thus, the question of his existence becomes moot since it would not change the slightest aspect of my life.
The corrollary then is that if it if he does truly exist, it should not be possible to discount him in such a manner, hence his existence becomes even less credible.
Lemme summarise that: I don't believe he exists. Since we haven't proven it yet though, it's still conceivable that I'm mistaken. However, even if his existence was proven tomorrow, that wouldn't change my need for him one bit. Since he is of no use to me, he cannot be the all-powerful being he needs to be to exist.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

As a side note, this is the first time in a long while that I have actually discussed the fundamentals of the religion issue. I stopped quite some time ago when I realised that REGARDLESS of whether or not God exists, he has nothing to offer me. Thus, the question of his existence becomes moot since it would not change the slightest aspect of my life.
The corrollary then is that if it if he does truly exist, it should not be possible to discount him in such a manner, hence his existence becomes even less credible.
Lemme summarise that: I don't believe he exists. Since we haven't proven it yet though, it's still conceivable that I'm mistaken. However, even if his existence was proven tomorrow, that wouldn't change my need for him one bit. Since he is of no use to me, he cannot be the all-powerful being he needs to be to exist.

Ok ok I got one.

Question: What do you say to A13antichrist at Christmas time?

Answer: Good luck!


Edit: No wait I have another one.

Have you heard of the agnostic dyslexic?

He stayed up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

Seriously dude that last sentense is really screwy. I dont believe in Rosey O'donnel but the bitch just wont seem to dissapear. Hence she remains the all annoying creature she needs to be to exsist.

 

[AlladinSane]

God is not tangible and does not abide by the physical rules of our universe. Our established knowledge says quite plainly that everything that exists abides by those rules (hence why they're called rules ).

Change that to everything that exists in our universe and we agree on that.

The existence of God has to go against established knowledge, you admitted as much earlier.(...) Therefore, in order to accept his existence you have to make exceptions to those rules, and the only motivation we have at this point to do so is, precisely, to allow his existence - and science is restricted to taking the results and drawing conclusions, not making the conclusion (God exists) and hence deciding on the results (God is immune to physical laws).

...but this is not exactly what I said. I didn't create the exceptions to allow the concept. As I said before I believe in His existence based on observation of facts(see below). That assumed, I began to abstract the conclusions I mentioned earlier, that he can't be part of the universe. I just stated that initially, to make clear that the "what can't be proven scientifically doesn't exist" doesn't apply here.

That's the big problem - You can't decide he's intangible because he can't logically be part of the universe. You have to PROVE he's intangible and that would then prove that he can exist as not part of this universe. Nothing else is capable of that so we have no right to make exceptions for God.

Isn't a question of rights. The exception is intrinsic here. He's God and is an exception(out of the universe) or he's not.

The corrollary then is that if it if he does truly exist, it should not be possible to discount him in such a manner, hence his existence becomes even less credible.

In fact it's possible to discount him. It's called free will.

What justification have you got for believing in the concept of a "soul"?

Lemme take this; if a person I know, and that has a record of being honest and truthfull and reasonable(?) says that she "sees dead people" I have to believe in her. The other alternatives would mean she being a)crazy, b)a liar. I don't believe in both. If a person I know can talk like she's another person and show an intelligence I know she doesn't have I have to think there's a reson for it. If a person I didn't know can talk things about myself that nobody else would know, I have to think she can communicate, like she states, with an unnoticeable being. What other explanation could I find? No other than telepathy. But then that would be changing a thing i can't explain by another I can less yet. Even if they could play a trick on me what would be their reasons? Money? They don't value that and never charged nothing of myself nor any person I know. Pride? It's an attribute that doesn't fit discreet people like them.
All above are manifestations of "non-corporal" individualities. Could it be? Could the inteligence and identity transcend the body? What other definition I could give to that other than a soul? I'll not extend on my reasons to make short a long story.
Consider that possibility true for a moment. Could that fit in the "order derived from chaos" universe? No, the after-life concept would make implicit the existence of a supreme being. We'll only know for sure when we die(or not if I'm wrong )

You do realise also that reincarnation is not in God's book..

Nah, it's there, if you know where to search, despite the efforts the church made along two centuries to cover that. Jesus' words were "unclear" for a reason

On a side of my part I must say while I love involving myself on these discussions in RL I rarely do that here. Frankly, I'm bad enough already expressing myself in portuguese But I have to say I quite enjoyed it...

 

[ris]

i'm glad to see that you are enjoying the debate, i can assure you that i am enjoying not having to lock or move or shout and scream at two people bickering. i'm pleasantly surprised

personally i am an atheist from a background of lapsed catholicism. while i do not believe in god i cannot deny the hugely important part that religion plays in my family and friends lives. without it i think they would be less joyful, and anyhting that can bring so much happiness to a person cannot be all nonsense.

as for christmas, i'm sure a13 would celebrate the midwinter festival. yule is something that has been celebrated in western societies for perhaps 40,000 years before christ's birth.

 

[Raven]

now, there lies the difference between religion itself, and the people who practice it. the beliefs stated in the Bible and the Koran, just to mention two...

so what version of the Koran are modern muslims reading?

yes I also realise there are many different versions/intrepretations of the bible too

 

[Shadowfax]

i don't know which version of the Koran modern muslims are reading. neither do i know which version of the bible modern christians are reading. hell, i don't if they have version numbers; each translation has it own differences.
but to this point that doesn't really matter, since (as far as i know, so correct me if i'm wrong) there aren't any statements in neither the bible nor the koran (in ANY version) that call directly for things like that THAT religion should be enforced as a global religion, or for the extinction of a certain race.
problem is with translation after translation, that words can be twisted and people can intrepretate them in a totally different way as intended by the original wording.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

btw sf, i do have a response for you here, i'm just procrastinating and hoping i can keep it under two pages.

 

[Shadowfax]

ok, waiting anxiously

 

[chcr]

so what version of the Koran are modern muslims reading?

Probably not one that includes the satanic verses.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

I reasoned yesterday that morality is just a social construct and as such subject to change based on the intellectual capacity of humans in general.

Where as once the act of killing another may have been "black and white" it can now be "grey". IE. Self defense, or in the defense of another, or even as a preventive measure (someone just promised you he would rape and kill your child the first time he had his chance).

Since we have the ability to reason and think as human beings, rules can not be completely black and white anymore. We have to look at things on a case by case basis. This is one major problem I have with religious writings because some of the ideas seem to pre-date the idea of individual judgement and freedom of making rational decisions based on what the circumstances call for.

This is also one MAJOR PROBLEM WITH MANY OF OUR LAWS AS WELL.

Now I am Satan I guess.

 

[freako104]

it would explain the AV. is that your photo

 

[MrBishop]

so what version of the Koran are modern muslims reading?

yes I also realise there are many different versions/intrepretations of the bible too

If I may interject something into the discussion here, before you write your thesis

The version of the Koran doesn't play a part in it's interpretation by the people in teh middle-east, nor does it have anything to do with the formation of zealots and eventually terrorists within Muslim countries. What most people don't realize (and I'll take Afghanistan as a fine example), is that 80% of the population is illiterate. Those who are literate are also not the ones who'll go out and strap dynamite to their chests in order to become martyrs for th cause.

In Islam dogma, you pray several times per day, facing Mecca. Most of the people there say this by rote. They were verbally taught their prayers. They never read them.

With illiteracy running rampant, those who would hold the Koran in their hands while they lie, can create zealots easily. They say that the Koran demands martyrs, that Allah asks for people to kill for their religion, and none of their followers have the ability to go against thee false ideals/interpretation of the Holy Koran.

So..what you have are people who trust and believe their holy leaders, without question, and are trying to find their way to paradise/do Allah's will.

It's a shame really. A nation felled by illiteracy. A religion besmirched by the same hand.