Random theological stuff - moved from Q about God

[Death Aflame]

the problem with applied sciences and technology is that it tends to be the handmaiden of the ruling classes, thus it is often designed and implemented in such a way that is of benefit to the elite of society with little to no consideration of/for/from/by the majority of citizens.

Of course most people readily accept new technology due to the unrelenting rhetoric of 'progress' and 'neutrality' that has been proselytized alongside any new artefact since Bacon and the Enlightenment. Clearly both of those hypotheses about technology are simply wrong, but there ubiquity and integration into common sense thinking here in the West makes it difficult to dislodge, which is my point. Technology needs to considered critically since it has too vast of an effect upon the people of this world to be taken lightly and at mere face value.

 

[razoredge]

@ Death Aflame - no doubt what Im talking about would require turning back the hands of time which is unfeasible, we will not go back to simplier more earthy ways and could not if everybody even wanted too because that certainly would not sustain the population. I find it sad that we are where we are now and cant move forward economically without the next big technology boom. Its nearly the only thing that got the population of the states through the 90's.

@ BMWG - Im a sceptic on such predictions (naturally) and feel we are already beyond. From the economics angle, the developed countries population suffered from the development of "third world" countries. The "third world" countries prior to this development were extremely sad state of affairs. Though possibly happy and content just the same (as per a subject we had last year sometime, I cant remember the title)

I see the average after this is finally balanced to still leave most living a fairly low standard, which may be similiar to what Death Aflame was saying about "the problem with applied sciences and technology is that it tends to be the handmaiden of the ruling classes"

Environmental/economics: I'm sure everyone may have food and water though this IS of large concern, expecially the water part which reaches to irrigation as well... effecting food supply... fuel issues effecting distributation. So here I'm seeing predictions that indicate... "we'll just keep them all alive (if we can)" little different than many cases currently.

Back to economics briefly - I hope you realize "unemployment" stats only show those out of work, collecting. It does not show welfare, disabled, those supported by others, drug dealers and others who earn or steal their living "off the books". Nor does it include these more primitve populations that live off the land, old school and get by the best they can. Honestly I believe these are the fortunante people because they know no different. Westernizing the entire world into its bizarre "economic" and technology system seems unfeasible and potentially devestating to all.

What we have is growth is always needed or economic collapse occurs. This is why communities alway push for growth. Economics demand it.

Which brings me back to the origional concern brought... religion (or those like me) may not fully support technology (science)... in my case because it leads to this great big freakin mess.

There has never been a doubt in my mind that I would have lived happier in the 1800's in this country (US). Though I will admit to greatly appreaciating the technology called running water. Nothing like a nice hot shower...... cept sex.... with someone that also had a nice hot shower..... LOL

 

[hexwind]

Back to economics briefly - I hope you realize "unemployment" stats only show those out of work, collecting. It does not show welfare, disabled, those supported by others, drug dealers and others who earn or steal their living "off the books". Nor does it include these more primitve populations that live off the land, old school and get by the best they can. Honestly I believe these are the fortunante people because they know no different. Westernizing the entire world into its bizarre "economic" and technology system seems unfeasible and potentially devestating to all.

I think the unemployment problem is always up to the place where it occurs. For example here, it's not only because of the lack of opportunities, but also because of the mentality of people.I mean, for example, when you suggest going to psychologist or involve him/her into education, especially in the first levels, they reject it coz they basically think having a psychologist = being crazy (but this is the majority and not everyone of course). Other thing is, if your country doesn't produce a lot of different things, like cars, computers, clothing ect, that a huge locked door of opportunities. I believe that the more you educate your people in different fields and respect MOST of the jobs, you'll suffer unemployment less.

Which brings me back to the origional concern brought... religion (or those like me) may not fully support technology (science)... in my case because it leads to this great big freakin mess.

I believe religious people who do not support technology and science have other reasons than what you have... God knows what it is (and maybe so do we ).

Nothing like a nice hot shower...... cept sex.... with someone that also had a nice hot shower..... LOL

For me, the most important point is not how science can affect us, whether badly or well,but who's manipulating scientific researches and how it should be given to the public, and how to use it. I mean, look at what human used technology in wars, just to kill more people than we ever did in a shorter span of time. And this makes me think that Religion and Science are similar to some extents; they can be tools of manipulating people despite their different ways of doing that.

 

[Opeth for life!!!!]

I never said i know, but they have always been portrayed as white, either way, still, There is no way the other colour could evolve from two people with the same color! That is why evolution makes 10901293012930129031% more sense. Atleast evolution has more than a book to back it up =)

portrayed???? are you kiddin? I mean did the painters live in Adam and Eve's era?? and yes there's a way for a coulor to evolve to another coulor!!! it's all about genes and environment, you should educate yourself a bit more about that.
The Evolution's theory is not 100% right too, you should look that up and see for yourself.

 

[Opeth for life!!!!]

all I can say is go read 'Hex' replies again and think about it. DO NOT JUST READ IT BUT TRY AT LEAST TO UNDERSTAND his point cuz it seems you're simply blinded by hatred!

 

[Opeth for life!!!!]

You know what the penalty for apostasy (leaving your religion) in Islam is? It's death penalty. And i love that in Islam, Men come first, women come second. It's also nice that the Prophet Muhammed was a pedophile (It sums up how ''good'' Islam is)
.

1. no human being was and never will be forced to be muslim. The death penalty for those who leave islam was actually set because: when the prophet Muhammed died , so many hypocrites (who again were not forced to become muslims at the first place) left this religion and called themselves prophets, so they had to be killed.
2.Muhammed is not a pedophile , and as I've said above try to understand hex point cuz he did a good job!and try to look for reliable sources next time: there are no scriptures that precise Aisha's age when she got married, besides she was physiologically and mentally mature back then.

 

[razoredge]

Really the scriptures indicate Moses was what ? something like 700 and some odd years old ? Who would think doing a goggle search is the way to find out facts bout antiquity ?

Christianity is primarily the creed of White people, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to conclude why Jesus has been painted as a white dude. Art (painting) skills didnt even begin to be well developed until when ? 1000 years AD or so ?

Good post Hex, but Im not one to support pshcyology either, here they are amounst the biggest wack jobs and capitalistic pigs that exist. If people would stop bringing other peole down they would not be needed. Psychology is only about 30-40 years old in commercial use and has had a booming market the past 10-20 and that is due to the puppet masters rewriting the "meaning of life". Again let me stress the point that the human race survived thousands of years without all this modern "must have" medical bullshit. I find it a shameful side of mankind to have regressed to this stage of pussifacation.

Again this stems to my economic views. Imagine the world of employment without all these medical and psychological employees having that work...what the fuck would that part of the massive population do ? Yet it was all unneeded just a century ago... but a speck in time in the history of mankind.

Absolutely pathetic in my book. Mankinds become a bunch of wankers... and what do we have to thank for it ?...... science and technology... PERIOD!

 

[Dak]

If you fix things, it is in your interest if something is always broken.

Science and technology are merely tools. Mankind has "become a bunch of wankers" because Mankind has always had it's "wankers". Science and technology just makes it easier for a small group of "wankers" (the "ruling elite") to control the masses.

Blaming technology for it's misuse is as misguided as blaming a gun for a murder. It is still the human pulling the trigger, whether literally or metaphorically, that is responsible.

 

[Quantum Foam]

For those who are interested in the origin of religion and subsequent evolution of modern religion from ancient folk religion, there are two good books i recently read and would recommend. One is called Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett (2006) and the other is called Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer (2002). These books are pretty useful for bolstering an atheist argument against what is called Reformed Epistemology which seeks to defend faith as rational by demonstrating that epistemic propositions of theistic belief are properly basic and hence justified; as opposed to the truth of theistic belief. Rationalists argue that beliefs held by faith, without evidence, contradict one another. Thus most "faiths," in the sense of "religions," hold that their view is correct and that other religions are false religions. The Bible, for examples, says, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me." Therefore, of the exclusive religions held through faith, either one is correct and all others are wrong, or they are all wrong. Rationalists argue that if, in all cases but one, faith leads to incorrect belief, then it is wrong in that one case to expect faith to lead to correct belief.

 

[hexwind]

Psychology is only about 30-40 years old in commercial use and has had a booming market the past 10-20 and that is due to the puppet masters rewriting the "meaning of life".

I would argue that psychology is a cool thing to learn, it's just a way to understand people's behaviors and focus on their weakness to either heal them or destroy them. But the elites, use psychology to control the masses and decide what ideas they should have about certain people, what products they have to use, what lifestyle they should have and what lyrics you should say. So I don't think we have to blame psychology here, we have to blame those who misuse it.

Again let me stress the point that the human race survived thousands of years without all this modern "must have" medical bullshit. I find it a shameful side of mankind to have regressed to this stage of pussifacation.

My mother has Rheumatism for 12 years now, and she was supposed to get certain pills just for 5 days no more...but none of the doctors told her about that, they said those pills are essential and she has been taking them now for 11 years.. Her state haven't change at all, she's got other health problems because of all the medicines that she has been taking throughout all this period.. The point that i was trying to make here, is that medicines aren't as good as most people think they are.. they heal you but there is a potential of another disease.
It's true that the mankind have survived without the medical technology and science that we have today but these discoveries has always been in progress , BUT, the earth health was way different from what it is right now, I mean, the problems caused after the industrial revolution put us in a position that natural healing isn't 100% guaranteed neither medical help. So we are stuck !!


What is science at the end of the day??
It's just a discovery of the physical world which there is no harm about it as long as we don't involve our ego ways of using them.

@Quantum Foam :
Are they similar to what Zeitgeist and Jordan Maxwell are talking about???

 

[razoredge]

If you fix things, it is in your interest if something is always broken.

Science and technology are merely tools. Mankind has "become a bunch of wankers" because Mankind has always had it's "wankers". Science and technology just makes it easier for a small group of "wankers" (the "ruling elite") to control the masses.

Blaming technology for it's misuse is as misguided as blaming a gun for a murder. It is still the human pulling the trigger, whether literally or metaphorically, that is responsible.

In ways you always misunderstand me. I dont totally play the "blame game". Though I bitch and moan my real intent is to show the downside of certain things, where others focus on the upside and try to whitewash, smokescreen, ect. the complete final results.

I'd say technology has made us... everyone... wankers. Woman use to pop babies out in the field and shortly get back to work. Now birth costs prolly $10,000 (our daughter was 6000 20 years ago), just an example, not picking on women, I've been though all kinds of self inflicted pain due to my line of work but am grateful I never had to give birth. Medically I would say we need little of what is pushed down our throats. Remember Im jaded (dulled) due to what went on with my mother, that is why I told the story, to give the picture, my picture.

I dont even think tech has been totally misused but rather utilized for its benefits, its just the bottom line of lost work, environmental concerns, waste, expence of development and such that I will always question. Fortunantly today and for years some tech is going to help environmental concerns. Where as last centuries tech was destructive due to mans simple ignorance and complacientness of end results. Yes, largely developed and abused for military, corporate and municiple interests.

Still tech is always a doulbe edged sword. Seems every positive action has a negative repercussion.

 

[hexwind]

Still tech is always a doulbe edged sword. Seems every positive action has a negative repercussion.

I think this sums up the whole thing.

 

[razoredge]

Hex - my grandmother, great woman, old ways, homemaker, was in reality what we called a closet junkie. That is most often a woman that some doctor has on so many pills they dont know if they are coming or going and then other medical problems arise from the drugs themselves. To be fair she had serious arthritis and other minor issues but after decades the end results of such medication yielded simple bumps and bruises that would become open sores that would never heal, She did still have a full life.

Psychology - I do my own... lol. My friends, my experiences, music, all that... they are my psychologists. Sometimes you guys are... yep I use everyone... lol

Which may very well bring us back to some rootes of religion. I dont think we can deny that these "holy" books have been used for psychological merit. A way for man to explain the unknown, to ease and give explaination for suffering, to always present a silver lining at the edge of the clouds. Present lessons of life passed down from elders that "have been there". This is why as non religious as I am I can not curse these ancient books. The native Americans, the northern Inuits and all tribes world wide had stories passed down generations and they were of the same merit, to calm the spirits, to present hope, to make it all worth it, the meaning of life, the moral of the story.

 

[hexwind]

Psychology - I do my own... lol. My friends, my experiences, music, all that... they are my psychologists. Sometimes you guys are... yep I use everyone... lol

That's true, but sometimes everything seems to be way too complex to understand. Especially if you haven't a good experience in a certain subject, thus you need a quicker explanation for things,that's why I use psychology. I do think about a lot of stuff, always observe what people do and why and that's why I find psychology interesting. I agree that you don't need a psychologist to make you understand things properly but i think it's always up to the people, some people are too weak to get over problems in their lives, like diseases and stuff so they need someone who knows about how to deal with psychological problems better, mom is an example, and I thank psychology books/documentaries for helping to help her get over some bad states actually.

Which may very well bring us back to some rootes of religion. I dont think we can deny that these "holy" books have been used for psychological merit.

Yeah, some people use Holy Books to seek tranquility and the sense of belonging which makes them feel better. It's just like what i believe most of us do/did with music, none of you ever used music as a spiritual healing to get over a certain issue?

A way for man to explain the unknown, to ease and give explaination for suffering, to always present a silver lining at the edge of the clouds. Present lessons of life passed down from elders that "have been there". This is why as non religious as I am I can not curse these ancient books. The native Americans, the northern Inuits and all tribes world wide had stories passed down generations and they were of the same merit, to calm the spirits, to present hope, to make it all worth it, the meaning of life, the moral of the story.

If I have ever found any contradiction between the religion that i was raised into and the science i have been taught i would never bear the beliefs that i have now.
I mean,i could look at religion that way, i thought about it when I was "agnostic" but it's the scientific aspects that makes me believe in what Qur'an, despite its wisdom.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm a bit late to the discussion but...

He still allowed it to happen.

So would you rather have no evil and no free will? Maybe he's just not an officious god.

I don't know who the moderator is..But stop removing my pictures?

Then stop posting dumb and immature expressions of your disbelief in a particular ideology. You can argue, but there's no need to be an ass.

 

[Quantum Foam]

@Quantum Foam :
Are they similar to what Zeitgeist and Jordan Maxwell are talking about???

I've never seen Zeitgeist and I've never heard of Jordan Maxwell. From looking at the summary of Zeitgeist on wikipedia and briefly glancing at Maxwell's site, I'd say no, Dennett and Boyer's books are not similar. The two books are based on biology and comparative anthropology, not conspiracy theories which is what Zeitgeist and Maxwell appear to advocate. Dennett's book also incorporates philosophy since he is a professional philosopher. Boyer's book is a bit more complicated, but Dennett cite's Boyer a few times in his book, so if you only read one I'd check out Dennett's and then move on to Boyer's if you want a more detailed look at different religions, especially folk religions.

 

[Quantum Foam]

So would you rather have no evil and no free will? Maybe he's just not an officious god.

It's possible to have free will and no evil. Check out Quentin Smith's "A Sound Logical Argument from Evil" at http://www.qsmithwmu.com/a_sound_logical_argument_from_evil.htm

Another good article to check out that argues free will and no evil are compatible is "Depravity, Divine Responsibility and Moral Evil: A Critique of a New Free Will Defence" by Andrea Weisberger at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/andrea_weisberger/depravity.html

Beyond this, I'd say if there is indeed a god/gods, and they are not officious, that should obviously contradict what many religions around the world hold to be the truth. Also, I'd rather have no free will if it would mean no evil. I think religious people have kind of hijacked free will by associating it so strongly with morality that they don't appreciate that if we lived in a world where we were not free to do morally atrocious acts, we could still be free to choose how to live our lives in a myriad of other ways.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's possible to have free will and no evil.

I completely agree. I was merely pointing out the fact that someone complained that God allowed an "evil" act to take place and did nothing to stop it. I think it's unfair to take that stance, because if God has granted free will then why should He bother interfering? God has the power to stop evil, but then He infringes on our free will.

Obviously the paradox of God Himself is what is being argued here, and there is no answer. I think it's safe to say that a being as complicated and transcendent as "God" is not affected by the laws of logic and physics.

 

[Quantum Foam]

I completely agree. I was merely pointing out the fact that someone complained that God allowed an "evil" act to take place and did nothing to stop it. I think it's unfair to take that stance, because if God has granted free will then why should He bother interfering? God has the power to stop evil, but then He infringes on our free will.

Obviously the paradox of God Himself is what is being argued here, and there is no answer. I think it's safe to say that a being as complicated and transcendent as "God" is not affected by the laws of logic and physics.

Well, there are a few things to distinguish here. For example, natural disasters and diseases are not based on free will, so one could make what to me is a convincing argument that a good god would either intervene to stop these things or would create the laws of nature in such a way that would be radically different where such intervening would not be necessary. This gets in to John Hicks' "soul-building" defense of natural disasters and diseases which i find unconvincing.

As for acts caused by free will, a lot of religious people assume free will exists whereas there are various philosophical interpretations of free will and to what extent it exists if at all. Even some religious interpretations of predestination seem to imply we don't really have free will. But assuming we do have free will of some type, if you are going to use the argument that god should not intervene then why not use the argument that i should not intervene to help someone? For example, if i see a woman being raped in a dark ally, should i not help her because that would interfere with the ability of the rapist to exercise his will? I think most people would say that if you can help the woman, help her. Now God can give us free will to think about raping someone and even try to initiate the act of rape, but the difference is god will not intervene to stop the rape. Not only one rape will god not stop, but in no discernable way has god stopped one rape in the history of the world. Unless you hold a Divine Command Theory of Morality, I don't think this can be justified.

As for being affected by laws of logic, some theists hold that god transcends logic, others hold that god is within the laws of logic. It also kind of depends on what definition of god one uses, as I think some definitions are less illogical then others. As for the laws of physics if god exists it might be bound by other laws of physics in another dimension which would obviously limit its omnipotence, but based on what atheist philosophers have written, the concept of omnipotence doesn't seem to make as much sense as theists want it to make.

 

[Dak]

I would argue that assuming there is a God, if he has a particular set of laws, or, rules by which to conduct yourselves so that everything works for the best, that by not following those laws, we as humans bring about the "natural disasters".Because who follows any of the different faiths set of rules as a group? There might be a person here or there, but by a large majority, even the main group of followers of any particular faith really don't abide by the actual precepts set forth by it's holy book.