| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/19/2007 05:13:25 PM · #76 |
 paddles, I'm going to address your answers in one swoop because they all kind of go with the same theme.
I really appreciate you addition to the conversation. Please do not think I doubt the existence of compitent, kind, progressive Christians or other religious folk. In deed I don't. I have encountered many, and I don't see any part of your responses that I disagree with.
More what I'm trying to speak of is the misuse of religion. For example "Jesus Camp" if you haven't seen it, it's a great watch. And there is no anti-religion agenda, in fact the only commenting in it there is are clip segments of a... sane traditional Christian commenting how the "Jesus Camp" types are taking advantage of people and scewing religion.
Really, some sects of christianity I see today, esp those out screaming in the streets are nothing short of cults and should be treated as such but they hide under the name "Christian" and twist and change its meaning and grow every day gaining power.
Someone told me Scientology was put on a watch list for cults to be careful of and they bought out the company that made the list and took themselves off of it... but I have no source, if anyone has a yes or no on this one let me know. I wouldn't doubt it though! lol. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 05:20:52 PM · #77 |
| Yes that particular group of folks is quite prone to suing people who badmouth their club. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 05:24:53 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
|
FACT: You cannot DIS-PROVE the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc.
So the last 77 posts or so have been masturbation.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 05:25:21 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Yes that particular group of folks is quite prone to suing people who badmouth their club. |
I especially liked what happened to chef from south park after he quit. :D Oh boy. After all the things that show did he got offended when they did one on scientology?
Scary stuff right there. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 05:26:15 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
|
FACT: You cannot DIS-PROVE the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc.
So the last 77 posts or so have been masturbation. |
Yea if that's all you read. That is not what is up for debate right now. Please bring something to this conversation instead of read one line and say we are masturbating. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 05:34:00 PM · #81 |
I don't think the existence of God or gods is worth debating. I also don't think that knowing if evolution turned us from chimps to men (forgive the gender specific term...) is something worth wasting a lot of energy on. But people will continue to do both for lack of anything better to do.
Were I "Routerguy666, Emperor of the Planet", I would bomb Mecca and Jerusalem and then sit back waiting for the skies to part. If no omnipotent being came down to protect his (there it is again) turf, I'd follow up by immediately changing all religious organizations' tax status from non-profit to entertainment and put my new source of income towards funding pleasures too perverse to share in this thread.
edit: "All hail me!" Ahh, that has a great ring to it...
Message edited by author 2007-07-19 17:34:55. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 05:38:52 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Were I "Routerguy666, Emperor of the Planet", I would bomb Mecca and Jerusalem and then sit back waiting for the skies to part. If no omnipotent being came down to protect his ... |
I've often considered how overdue "God's Children" are for a time-out as viable proof of God's non-existence. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 05:40:28 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I don't think the existence of God or gods is worth debating. I also don't think that knowing if evolution turned us from chimps to men (forgive the gender specific term...) is something worth wasting a lot of energy on. But people will continue to do both for lack of anything better to do.
Were I "Routerguy666, Emperor of the Planet", I would bomb Mecca and Jerusalem and then sit back waiting for the skies to part. If no omnipotent being came down to protect his (there it is again) turf, I'd follow up by immediately changing all religious organizations' tax status from non-profit to entertainment and put my new source of income towards funding pleasures too perverse to share in this thread.
edit: "All hail me!" Ahh, that has a great ring to it... |
See I never tried to debate the existence of god. Just the misuse of god and religion.
I think a lot of people would disagree with you on the second point though. Science is always going to be pursued. It is something we CAN prove and CAN understand. |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 07:54:41 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
FACT: You cannot PROVE the existance of god, heaven, hell, etc.
|
FACT: You cannot DIS-PROVE the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc.
So the last 77 posts or so have been masturbation. |
I agree - the most you can do is make an realistic assessment of the odds. Then sit back and be amazed at the number of people who will waste their time and energy, and potentially disparage, maim and kill others in the name of one or other religion that is almost certainly a fiction.
Personally, IMO it is worth a bit of stick to be among the part of the small but fast growing crowd shouting "the emperor has no clothes".
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 10:36:22 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Wow. That's pretty judgmental. And, from what you've said, I seem to be doing religion all wrong.
If I recall properly, science is about testing those things that can be "proven", not making judgments on those things that cannot yet be.
I would also like to mention that such dismissiveness bears too much resemblance to assurances that I'll be facing a firey eternity.
In regards to Church and State - we should have enough separation between them that it isn't only one faith or philosophy running the show, but, at the very least, reasonable accommodations made for all of them. |
I'm sorry but I science (and common sense) proven beyond a resonable doubt that the earth is older than 6,000 years or whatever people say the bible says that life began. Not saying all christians believe this, but some do, and it is rediculous.
With or without evolution, I think science can prove there was not intelligent design the way it goes on in the bible. You want to believe that god planned out evolution, then I have no problem with that. |
I don't think I said anything against evolution? Just that it was a bit snarky to say religion is a crutch for the weak-willed. I really dislike that the naughty traits of some zealots are assigned across the board to all religious folks. If you're going to complain about loud-mouthed fanatical Christians, by all means go for it, but let's not judge the rest of us by their behaviors, eh? There's a lot of religion in the world other than the Big Three and even they aren't entirely united in their views and translations of their sacred texts.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2007 10:54:20 PM · #86 |
| science invented the camera ;) |
|
|
|
07/19/2007 11:03:52 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
FACT: You cannot DIS-PROVE the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc. |
By that succulent little piece of logic, neither can you disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, little green men from mars, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, the Thunderbird, oompa loompas, or any other far-out figment of your imagination. |
|
|
|
07/20/2007 12:16:46 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
FACT: You cannot DIS-PROVE the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc. |
By that succulent little piece of logic, neither can you disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, little green men from mars, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, the Thunderbird, oompa loompas, or any other far-out figment of your imagination. |
I do believe in fairies, I do. I do.
Yes, it's funny just because it's a more popular belief people think the belief in God is more valid then say believing in alien abductions or ghosts. |
|
|
|
07/20/2007 09:15:23 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
There's a lot of religion in the world other than the Big Three and even they aren't entirely united in their views and translations of their sacred texts. |
This raises an interesting point. There are so many religions in the world (many thousands in the course of our history), and so many millions or billions of different viewpoints on how each of them should be interpreted. The odds are remote that anyone has ever gotten it right. But with so many different beliefs in one world, it must be the case that the vast, vast majority of the people are mistaken in their belief.
Given this, is it not very worrying that almost all religious people invest time and make decisions (including some very important people and decisions that will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths) based on what must be a mistaken belief?
The loud-mouthed fanatical believers that prompted this thread are the thin end of the wedge: the real worry should be the people who suppress, maim and kill others based on the strength of their (almost certainly mistaken) religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2007 10:22:14 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
There's a lot of religion in the world other than the Big Three and even they aren't entirely united in their views and translations of their sacred texts. |
This raises an interesting point. There are so many religions in the world (many thousands in the course of our history), and so many millions or billions of different viewpoints on how each of them should be interpreted. The odds are remote that anyone has ever gotten it right. But with so many different beliefs in one world, it must be the case that the vast, vast majority of the people are mistaken in their belief.
Given this, is it not very worrying that almost all religious people invest time and make decisions (including some very important people and decisions that will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths) based on what must be a mistaken belief?
The loud-mouthed fanatical believers that prompted this thread are the thin end of the wedge: the real worry should be the people who suppress, maim and kill others based on the strength of their (almost certainly mistaken) religious beliefs. |
Perhaps they are mistaken only in their assumption that theirs is the only way and in fact, they're all right? Maybe there are multiple correct answers. Most complex problems have many, if not an infinite number, of possible solutions. |
|
|
|
07/20/2007 10:31:51 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Perhaps they are mistaken only in their assumption that theirs is the only way and in fact, they're all right? Maybe there are multiple correct answers. Most complex problems have many, if not an infinite number, of possible solutions. |
I am not sure that this could work in the context of religion: if the answer to multiple conflicting sets of rules and philosophies is that they are all right, then why have or obey any one of them?
Rather than being simply one "aspect" of religion that each professes to be the *only* way, this concept fundamentally underpins pretty much every religion.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2007 11:07:17 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Perhaps they are mistaken only in their assumption that theirs is the only way and in fact, they're all right? Maybe there are multiple correct answers. Most complex problems have many, if not an infinite number, of possible solutions. |
I am not sure that this could work in the context of religion: if the answer to multiple conflicting sets of rules and philosophies is that they are all right, then why have or obey any one of them?
Rather than being simply one "aspect" of religion that each professes to be the *only* way, this concept fundamentally underpins pretty much every religion. |
Yes, but being the only path is not the only near universal theme. Perhaps the others typify, but don't exclusively define, the right path.
Message edited by author 2007-07-20 11:12:27. |
|
|
|
07/20/2007 12:02:58 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, but being the only path is not the only near universal theme. Perhaps the others typify, but don't exclusively define, the right path. |
In respect of those universal themes, one can derive two possible reasons:
1. God ordered it and all religions tend to reflect that godly order and its manifestation in their own way.
2. that human societies generally function better if people follow that rule, and it has as a result been codified into multiple religions (and other secular social systems).
Option 1 requires us to invent a never seen but supposed supernatural being with a sophisticated capability to understand human society and actions, almost infinitely complex, undetectable, on the one hand immensely demanding, but on the other completely unwilling to intervene – but at the same time revealing the same truth many hundreds of times in different ways, while also presenting a variety of other “truths” that are inconsistent one with another etc etc
Option 2 can be reasoned as a natural step and consequence of human biology in the development of society.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2007 01:06:31 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by paddles:
I'm going to have to call you out on this one. Please demonstrate to me that/how reason and logic are frowned upon in religion. |
1. The mere existence of "Intelligent Design 'Theory'" was what I was chiefly thinking of when I wrote that.
2. The very basis of the majority of religion, especially Catholicism, which is what I have experience with, is "faith without questions", where reason, logic, and even evidence is diametrically opposed to faith, which is belief without the need for these things. Routinely using words like "Mystery", "Divine Plan", "Knowledge is evil", and other such code words for the eschewing of logic and reason is proof positive of this. |
1. But that is essentially the same arguing "Some religious people frown on logic, therefore religion frowns on logic.", which I'm sure you're aware is a logical fallacy, just as "Some athiests murder people, therefore athiesm promotes murder" is a logical fallacy.
In any case, Christianity doesn't fundamentally depend on intelligent design, and intelligent design is logically incompatible with some religions (e.g. Buddhism).
It also supposes that intelligent design is illogical. I totally agree that intelligent design is not scientific, but I haven't examined it enough to know whether it is fundamentally illogical, or just whether the way some people teach/believe it is fundamentally illogical.
Originally posted by paddles:
Also, religious views/faith might not have demonstrable incontrovertible proof, but that doesn't mean they entirely lack evidence. It would be illogical and unreasonable for me to expect the ways God has revealed himself to me to serve as proof/evidence for you, but it would be equally illogical for me to ignore them as evidence for myself. |
Well, this contains the rebuttal to your argument I think. You can't expect to claim to have evidence for something, while at the same time admitting that it's no kind of evidence for anyone but yourself. I'm afraid your personal experiences are not even evidence enough for you, strictly speaking. [/quote]
This comes back to the fundamental epistemological question, "how do we know what we know?". Not everything that is true can be proved to be true, logically or scientifically (even in a limited and fundamentally logical domain such as mathematics - we have Gödel to thank for proving that).
The evidence of your tastebuds' reaction to chocolate might be evidence that you like (or dislike) chocolate, but that evidence is no good to me. The only evidence I have is seeing how you behave and react in the presence of chocolate, but that evidence could be faked.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2007 01:06:41 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Were I "Routerguy666, Emperor of the Planet", I would bomb Mecca and Jerusalem and then sit back waiting for the skies to part. If no omnipotent being came down to protect his (there it is again) turf, I'd follow up by immediately changing all religious organizations' tax status from non-profit to entertainment and put my new source of income towards funding pleasures too perverse to share in this thread. |
Always good to see a man with a plan. :) Of course, you might not mention your perverse pleasures in this thread, but DPC wants to know - would you submit photos into an Open Topic challenge?
Only trouble is, the part about turf protection is neither logical not scientific in determining the question of the existence or non-existence of God, because it assumes (a) that Mecca or Jerusalem is considered home turf by any god that happens to exist, and (b) that God would automatically act to protect his/her turf and/or seek retribution for its destruction.
Coincidentally, I've just been reading a passage in Jeremiah where God warns his people not to assume they're safe because he'll protect his temple - in fact he's telling them he won't protect his temple, just as he didn't protect another holy place, Shiloh. (Jeremiah 7:14, but verses 1-14 give more context.)
Just as God isn't a vending machine that gives us all the goodies we want as long as we press the right buttons, he isn't a robot that is pre-programmed to start smiting if you hit the wrong buttons.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2007 10:40:27 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by paddles:
1. But that is essentially the same arguing "Some religious people frown on logic, therefore religion frowns on logic.", which I'm sure you're aware is a logical fallacy, just as "Some athiests murder people, therefore athiesm promotes murder" is a logical fallacy. |
That is absolutely a logical fallacy, yes. Whereas it might not have been apropos to mention specific examples, if you refer to number two in my list, the issue of faith vs. fact is universal to belief in god(s), and supports what I'd originally said about the major religions discouraging the use of reason in determining whether or not God exists.
Originally posted by paddles:
In any case, Christianity doesn't fundamentally depend on intelligent design... |
No, but the reverse might be true, despite how it's being generically packaged.
Originally posted by paddles:
It also supposes that intelligent design is illogical. I totally agree that intelligent design is not scientific... |
No, it supposes that the promulgation of Intelligent Design as science is unreasonable, when it is clearly not science.
Originally posted by paddles:
This comes back to the fundamental epistemological question, "how do we know what we know?".... |
This is an interesting way to excuse the colossal lack of evidence for the existence of God. It's difficult for me to accept mystical explanations and discreet mathematics as a basis for the possible existence of God. I know it's not your intention, but it smacks of a shell game. Yours is a philosophical approach, and therefore doesn't address concrete issues of observation of the evidence of the senses, science, and human history. |
|
|
|
07/21/2007 10:57:04 AM · #97 |
Every member of this site is religious.
We tithe 25 dollars a year.
Our high holy days are Monday and Wednesday, which we celebrate as soon as they begin on Midnight (In the Eastern U.S. timezone. The Eastern U.S. is the sacred birthplace of our religion).
We have two founders and a dozen or so high priests who determine what is allowed and what is anathema.
We obsess over the completely nonfunctional and immaterial activity of taking pictures.
I'm pretty sure from my experience that EVERYBODY has a religion of one sort of another, though some vehemently deny it.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2007 10:57:40 AM · #98 |
| oh, and I almost forgot... the European Pilgrimages! |
|
|
|
07/21/2007 03:11:07 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by paddles:
...he isn't a robot that is pre-programmed to start smiting if you hit the wrong buttons. |
That's mk's master-project. |
|
|
|
07/21/2007 03:36:01 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Yours is a philosophical approach, and therefore doesn't address concrete issues of observation of the evidence of the senses... |
But the evidence of the senses can be utterly misleading; ask any pilot who's lost his instruments while flying through heavy cloud cover. Or did you ever put a blindfold on someone, tell them you were going to burn them, and then touch them with an ice cube? They SCREAM...
R.
|
|
