| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/18/2007 07:32:26 AM · #1 |
Ok before I start. I have nothing against anyone's choice of religion. This is more a commentary on how it is pushed upon others.
So here goes.
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
Please don't give arguments of faith, I don't care what you believe... you can believe fairies hide your boots for all I care. My question is...
knowing this fact... why is religion so often pushed on others? (not saying everyone does this, but for the ones that do.)
example... "if you don't believe ____ you are going to hell"
another question. Why is it such a bad thing to question the existence of God when supposedly "he"'s the one that gave us the brain and free will to do so? Wouldn't "he" be glad that we were thinking for ourselves and reflecting on life instead of following a pastor around like sheep and basing our lives around a some stale old passages?
Now onto the "he". Why is God gendered? If god has no figure, wouldn't "he" actually be "it" some other worldly being instead of some "dude" with a robe or whatever other popular stereotypes are used. To me using the term he just gives even more flame to the patriarichal fire. Well look... the most powerful being in the universe is a guy. And where are the women? Oh, ruining humanity's innocence with their damn want for knowledge and damning new born babies to original sin. Damn them women.
Sorry, I meant to keep it to that first question but I just had to branch out more. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 07:36:56 AM · #2 |
what 'proof' would you believe?
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 08:15:54 AM · #3 |
| Recently seen bumper sticker: "Militant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either!" |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 08:28:31 AM · #4 |
For me, you are preaching to the choir. ;) Actually, I wish someone COULD prove/disprove their existence - would make things much easier, what with most religions claiming some version of 'do it our way, or suffer eternal damnation'. Gee, kinda difficult to decide which one might be closest to the truth, huh?
Nicely written Monica (and I've enjoyed the other responses too). |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 08:35:22 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
"Well look... the most powerful being in the universe is a guy. And where are the women?" |
The Hoff is "the most powerful being in the universe"...I mean, look at his TV ratings and CD's sales.
"And where are the women"?
The Hoff's got'em all.
Second Runner Up: Dick Cheney (but with much lower approval ratings)
Message edited by author 2007-07-18 08:50:00. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 08:55:28 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
knowing this fact... why is religion so often pushed on others? |
macro evolution cannot be proved and it's taught in schools - another unprovable thing pushed on others
but you believe in macro evolution, so it's ok and not part of your rant |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 08:57:53 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
knowing this fact... why is religion so often pushed on others? |
macro evolution cannot be proved and it's taught in schools - another unprovable thing pushed on others
but you believe in macro evolution, so it's ok and not part of your rant |
I'm curious what evidence you have to support this claim. To the best of my knowledge, it has been proven.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 09:03:55 AM · #8 |
macro evolution ... not micro
we've never seen one fully functioning species evolve into a completely different fully functioning species ... nor have we been able to create one.
We infer based on what we see ... but that's not proof, it's just an educated guess (so to speak)
edit to add:
evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
(also, i won't post to this thread again, please don't think I'm ignoring you - i just don't think threads like this are very helpful to anyone and i get angry at myself when i post to them)
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
knowing this fact... why is religion so often pushed on others? |
macro evolution cannot be proved and it's taught in schools - another unprovable thing pushed on others
but you believe in macro evolution, so it's ok and not part of your rant |
I'm curious what evidence you have to support this claim. To the best of my knowledge, it has been proven. |
Message edited by author 2007-07-18 09:14:36. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 09:09:22 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sorry, I meant to keep it to that first question but I just had to branch out more. |
A lot of what you post leaves me wondering if you have some serious issues with or latent hatred of the male half of the species.
If you don't believe in god, why in the world does it bother you if god or godlike figures are typically male in gender?
edit: and the obvious answer is that since religions are human creations, they reflect the structure of the societies which created them, all of which were patriarchal.
Message edited by author 2007-07-18 09:11:27. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 10:45:00 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by hopper:
macro evolution ... not micro
we've never seen one fully functioning species evolve into a completely different fully functioning species ... nor have we been able to create one.
We infer based on what we see ... but that's not proof, it's just an educated guess (so to speak) |
The obvious answer is that bigger animals procreate over longer timescales and so changes happen more slowly. As a consequence, we cannot observe changes over hundreds of generations in the “macro” world. Instead, we have to rely on the abundance of evidence that records changes over longer periods of time.
As you say, the biggest clue is the fossil record. Millions and millions of fossils chart the development of life over the last 4 billion years. These are all in sequential order without a single “mistake”, illustrating evolutionary change over timescales that make our “macro” timescales very much “micro”, and we see the same thing. Nothing inconsistent with the theory has been seen in over 100 years of professional biological study and many surprising and amazing discoveries are entirely consistent with it.
It is a strange thing indeed if you refuse to accept evolution for lack of evidence (when there is an overwhelming amount), and instead prefer one of many thousands of creation stories for which there is no evidence (indeed, there is contradictory evidence aplenty).
Incidentally, Gould disputed traditional thinking on which of several evolutionary forces was the dominant force. Your selected quotation does not detract from evolutionary theory, merely the degree to which evolution operates in "stops and starts".
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 10:46:05 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by hopper:
macro evolution cannot be proved and it's taught in schools - another unprovable thing pushed on others
but you believe in macro evolution, so it's ok and not part of your rant |
It's taught in SCIENCE class because theories are what science uses. Everything taught in science class is a theory, and a theory is strictly defined and supported by evidence. Those pushing "Intelligent Design" are taking advantage of people's ignorance about what scientific method and theory are all about. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 10:56:11 AM · #12 |
I have a question that goes beyond the typical ones asked:
Before Adam and Eve ate the apple or whatever it was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they had no knowledge of what good and evil was yet they were told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. My question is this - If they had no knowledge of what good and evil was before they ate the apple and therefore no way to judge what they were doing was wrong by disobeying God how could eating the apple be a sin? |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 10:57:36 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Now onto the "he". Why is God gendered? If god has no figure, wouldn't "he" actually be "it" some other worldly being instead of some "dude" with a robe or whatever other popular stereotypes are used. To me using the term he just gives even more flame to the patriarichal fire. Well look... the most powerful being in the universe is a guy. And where are the women? Oh, ruining humanity's innocence with their damn want for knowledge and damning new born babies to original sin. Damn them women. |
I think that this argument significantly detracts from your main point.
In modern English, the language does not tend to use the neuter for animated subjects, so one or other gender pronoun tends to be used (male or female). The reasons in Christianity are rooted in the social order at the time of the origin of Judaism 4-5,000 years ago and the creation story in Genesis (itself probably a combination of many earlier creation stories) that indicates that man was made in the image of god, and woman from man. Other religions have gods and goddesses of various genders and forms.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 11:14:55 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
[…]
knowing this fact... why is religion so often pushed on others? |
I think that your fact is itself the reason why religion is pushed on others.
If the basis of any religion were self evident, or palpable in any way, shape or form, then no persuasion or indoctrination would be required to make people believe. Because there is no evidence, the only way to make people believe is to persuade them of its truth. People do this in many ways.
A more interesting question (to me!) is why people choose to promote their particular religion (or "push") to others. Some are themselves wholly indoctrinated and act out of a genuine (if misguided) attempt to help other people. Others are far more calculating: the rewards (financially and politically, on small and large scales) have traditionally been very great.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
example... "if you don't believe ____ you are going to hell" |
In the case of children – I see this as little short of child abuse. Indoctrination amounting to mental cruelty.
Message edited by author 2007-07-18 11:23:42.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 11:18:49 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by tmhalling:
I have a question that goes beyond the typical ones asked:
Before Adam and Eve ate the apple or whatever it was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they had no knowledge of what good and evil was yet they were told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. My question is this - If they had no knowledge of what good and evil was before they ate the apple and therefore no way to judge what they were doing was wrong by disobeying God how could eating the apple be a sin? |
Internal inconsistencies go hand in hand with religious belief. Another one in Chrsitianity is that god cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient. If he is omniscient, then he knows what he is going to do and will be constrained in his powers to act in any other fashion.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 11:39:10 AM · #16 |
Okay, before I read or decide whether or not to respond further, I just want to know, honestly, is this a question about religion, in general, or Christianity?
Because, whilst the OP said "religion" and many of the things said could be about most religions, the discussion seems to be going straight for Christianity. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 11:39:15 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
Please don't give arguments of faith, I don't care what you believe... you can believe fairies hide your boots for all I care. My question is...
knowing this fact... why is religion so often pushed on others? (not saying everyone does this, but for the ones that do.)
example... "if you don't believe ____ you are going to hell" |
I think it's mostly out of a very human desire (weakness?) to validate our own beliefs by increasing the number of people subscribing to the same beliefs and thus making our beliefs more popular.
That, or a motivation to make money. As L. Ron Hubbard once said, "If you want to get rich, start a religion." Which, of course is exactly what he did.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
another question. Why is it such a bad thing to question the existence of God when supposedly "he"'s the one that gave us the brain and free will to do so? Wouldn't "he" be glad that we were thinking for ourselves and reflecting on life instead of following a pastor around like sheep and basing our lives around a some stale old passages? |
It's not a bad thing.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Now onto the "he". Why is God gendered? If god has no figure, wouldn't "he" actually be "it" some other worldly being instead of some "dude" with a robe or whatever other popular stereotypes are used. To me using the term he just gives even more flame to the patriarichal fire. |
I don't think it has anything to do with men asserting power over women, but, as Matthew suggested, it is more of a result of the way language works.
Perhaps the question you should ask is why does it matter so much to you? You are free to worship as you wish, or not at all.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 11:48:43 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by karmat:
is this a question about religion, in general, or Christianity? [...] the discussion seems to be going straight for Christianity. |
I am not sure I agree – the OP refers to hell and “he”: these are Christian concepts/issues, not religious ones. I tried to make my responses to the OP’s questions generic and then address the Christian issue posited.
Creationism is an issue for several religions – most strongly in Islam where the concept of Allah as Creator is fundamental to even moderate belief.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 11:55:41 AM · #19 |
Allah is a "he."
Buddha was a "he."
As far as "hell," that is what Christianity *names* it, but if I am not Muslim (or whomever), I'm certainly not going to heaven (or whatever it may be called for whomever).
And, according to one Islamic source I found that was talking about the Muslim's approach/philosophy to death, the Quran says
Originally posted by Quran:
"Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgement shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have succeeded. For the life of this world is but goods of chattels of deception" (al-Imran 3:185) |
it seems to me that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on "belief this or burn forever" approach. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 12:07:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Allah is a "he."
Buddha was a "he."
As far as "hell," that is what Christianity *names* it, but if I am not Muslim (or whomever), I'm certainly not going to heaven (or whatever it may be called for whomever).
And, according to one Islamic source I found that was talking about the Muslim's approach/philosophy to death, the Quran says
Originally posted by Quran:
"Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgement shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have succeeded. For the life of this world is but goods of chattels of deception" (al-Imran 3:185) |
it seems to me that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on "belief this or burn forever" approach. |
Sorry for any misunderstanding, but the words used by the OP lent themselves to using Christianity as an example. I assure you that certainly I have an equally low opinion of all other religions.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 12:26:34 PM · #21 |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 04:46:14 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sorry, I meant to keep it to that first question but I just had to branch out more. |
A lot of what you post leaves me wondering if you have some serious issues with or latent hatred of the male half of the species.
If you don't believe in god, why in the world does it bother you if god or godlike figures are typically male in gender?
edit: and the obvious answer is that since religions are human creations, they reflect the structure of the societies which created them, all of which were patriarchal. |
Because I don't have to believe in god for the belief in god and what "he" is and stands for to affect me.
And PLEASE do not start this "man-hater" thing, it spreads like wildfire because people find it so fun to do. I do not hate men, if fact I get along with men much better than women. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 04:48:58 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Okay, before I read or decide whether or not to respond further, I just want to know, honestly, is this a question about religion, in general, or Christianity?
Because, whilst the OP said "religion" and many of the things said could be about most religions, the discussion seems to be going straight for Christianity. |
Well, I guess I speak of what I know. I've never had anyone approach me or harass me on the street or among my friends or on TV and the radio, and so on, to be Jewish, Muslim, etc so I don't know much about pressures from those religions or what they stand for. I tried saying religion to be more fair but apparently I failed at that attempt. |
|
|
|
07/18/2007 04:52:38 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by hopper:
evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. (…) The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. (…) We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." |
I fixed your quote for you. You’ve left out proper ellipsis which would show the quote to be “mined” and misleading. According to talkorigins.org, here are the sources of the quotes in the context of S.J. Gould’s book The Panda’s Thumb (I’ve bolded the portions that make up your quote):
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.
Gould, Stephen J. 1980. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (paperback), p. 189.
And:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.
Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2007 04:53:01 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
[…]
knowing this fact... why is religion so often pushed on others? |
I think that your fact is itself the reason why religion is pushed on others.
If the basis of any religion were self evident, or palpable in any way, shape or form, then no persuasion or indoctrination would be required to make people believe. Because there is no evidence, the only way to make people believe is to persuade them of its truth. People do this in many ways.
A more interesting question (to me!) is why people choose to promote their particular religion (or "push") to others. Some are themselves wholly indoctrinated and act out of a genuine (if misguided) attempt to help other people. Others are far more calculating: the rewards (financially and politically, on small and large scales) have traditionally been very great.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
example... "if you don't believe ____ you are going to hell" |
In the case of children – I see this as little short of child abuse. Indoctrination amounting to mental cruelty. |
That is pretty funny, I mean it is the obvious answer, it is a really good answer thta makes a lot of sense. But still doesn't REALLY answer my question. What compells people to be SO entrhaled in what they believe that they think everyone else should believe it too? It's very interesting how that works. |
|
