The great and all powerful religion thread!

[entanglement]

Double post. Hey, it told me to wait 20 seconds and do it again.

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

No, but nice strawman. The comparison isn't a huge stretch. The book was about a society were everyone was "happy" and they didn't think for themselves. You're advocating a world were everyone would be "happy" because they won't think for themselves. Either you're really not smart enough to comprehend the comparison or you're being willfully ignorant.


I didn't say I liked or agreed with the film. I suggested the film because it was, IMO, a good match for what someone else said they believed. You think you're nailing me on something you think is stupid? Not even close. Just because I tell someone they might enjoy or should check out a particular book or film doesn't mean I agree with or endorse the content. I know, it's a tough concept to grasp.

Like a LOT of people that post here you can't seem to imagine anyone means anything except what you've already decided they mean. That must make the world a really frustrating place.

PWND.... I love you LuLu... and your right about him to a "t"...

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

I have to admit, I get a kick out of debating with religious people, even though I don't do it that often. It's so easy to win the arguments, and I kinda feel like I'm doing the world a service. In general, though, I avoid starting religious arguments, because I don't want to seem like an asshole.

You only think you are right about religion or winning a argument.. but unless you have facts to back your argument like others have said then your argument is just a opinion... as for assholeness in a argument... we all are...

 

[genocide roach]

I don't know, I'd probably take world peace. Freedom of thought is overrated.

SIG'D!!!

seriously, are you that stupid? do you perhaps listen to korn or 50 cent?
~gR~

 

[Death Aflame]

Well I can't argue against you feeling something, I just don't think it is a divine energy. I do not feel humans are inadequate to discover the origins of the Universe, I just don't think our sciences have advanced that far yet. In the time of Ancient Greece, they had no idea what the sun was, so they thought it was a god. That didn't make them right.

Science is very good at explaining how something works but it is never able to answer the larger questions of why. This is what I mean when I say I believe science will always be inadequate in this regard. For instance, for all evolution theory has taught us it still cannot explain the true significance of life and likely never will. Unless of course you simply believe life begins and ends as we see it, which of course is just as valid as any other belief (keyword being belief); it is just not something I subscribe too.

It is a logical fallacy to say "A is a false or insufficient answer, therefore B must be true". We may not know exactly what happened with the big bang, but that only means that we do not know, not that something divine happened.

What I meant initially, and perhaps I didn't make this clear enough, was that science's consistent inability to explain the significance of life encouraged me to seek an alternative route for these answers. To use your terms, I meant that "If A is false or insufficient than something else must be the correct answer". I did not mean my specific answer is the correct alternative in a factual manner, it is merely the one I believe to be correct.

Also you say that "you must use something to create or make something else". Who/what created this divine energy? If it has the capacity to always have existed why then could the universe not always have existed?

My statement taken in the context of my previous post reads more like this: Science hypocritically accepts the hypothesis that something (the universe) came from nothing but at the same time cannot fathom or apply this to anything else within its sphere of influence. In other words, according to science, everything must come from something else yet Science's answer to the question of initial creation (the big bang) fundamentally opposes this fact. Thus, this is one reason why I believe that science is, and always will be inadequate at answering the larger questions of significance (by this I mean questions such as the reason for life? the reason for existence, why is there anything at all? etc.).

In terms of how that applies to my own belief, it doesn't really matter. What matters is the energy itself is eternal and is a part of our own universe as we know it. Whether it created the universe/helped create or is just a part of it isn't significant. What is, is it's influence on the inter-connectedness of life forms within our world.

 

[cookiecutter]

Hey cookiecutter, do you have a link for the abiogenesis claim you made - I haven't read ANYTHING that's not achingly old, so anything would be cool.

Here's the first link I found on google: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html. I learned about it in biology class three years ago, so definitely not achingly old. It's not perfect, but it does show that the creation of amino acids is possible by natural methods. This provides a piece evidence for the natural explanation of the origin of life. That's one more piece of evidence than God has going for him.

Science is very good at explaining how something works but it is never able to answer the larger questions of why. This is what I mean when I say I believe science will always be inadequate in this regard. For instance, for all evolution theory has taught us it still cannot explain the true significance of life and likely never will. Unless of course you simply believe life begins and ends as we see it, which of course is just as valid as any other belief (keyword being belief); it is just not something I subscribe too.

I can agree with parts of this. As far as my limited knowledge of science goes, we have not yet discovered why the big bang happened. I do simply believe that life begins and ends as we see it. However, since we that at least this is true, and since there is no evidence that shows anything else to be true, I feel this is a more logical belief.

What I meant initially, and perhaps I didn't make this clear enough, was that science's consistent inability to explain the significance of life encouraged me to seek an alternative route for these answers. Of course my own perspective on it is based on pure personal belief and faith, the antithesis of logic. I recognize this completely. But to be fair, I meant only in general terms that science's lack of answering the all important 'why?' is the reason I concluded that, at this point in time, some other answer is needed to fill that void. I never said my answer is the correct one, it is simply the answer I believe to be correct. And again, this based purely on belief, not logic or science.

Well at least you are admitting you are not using logic. I personally feel that "I don't know, but I'd like to find out" makes more sense than "I don't know, so I will believe something illogical".

My statement taken in the context of my previous post reads more like this: Science hypocritically accepts the hypothesis that something (the universe) came from nothing but at the same time cannot fathom or apply this to anything else within its sphere of influence. In other words, according to science, everything must come from something else yet Science's answer to the question of initial creation (the big bang) fundamentally opposes this fact. Thus, this is one reason why I believe that science is, and always will be inadequate at answering the larger questions of significance (by this I mean questions such as the reason for life? the reason for existence, why is there anything at all? etc.).

I am a little beyond my depth here (any physicists in the house ) but what makes sense to me is that before the big bang there was nothing. No time, no matter, no energy, so in effect the universe in some form or another has always existed. There was no "before" the big bang since there was no time. This is hard for me to grasp and hard to explain but that's the way I see it. If you or anyone else can point out an error here or correct me, I'd like that.

I hope I've made myself clear. I am glad to discuss this with someone intelligent and articulate.

 

[Death Aflame]

I can agree with parts of this. As far as my limited knowledge of science goes, we have not yet discovered why the big bang happened. I do simply believe that life begins and ends as we see it. However, since we that at least this is true, and since there is no evidence that shows anything else to be true, I feel this is a more logical belief.

Indeed it is more logical because it ends precisely where the unknown begins.

Well at least you are admitting you are not using logic. I personally feel that "I don't know, but I'd like to find out" makes more sense than "I don't know, so I will believe something illogical".

I understand what your saying but when you believe you will never be able to find out the answers through man-made (and thus inherently flawed) apparatuses such as science it makes it impossible for one to be able to simply 'find out' the answer.

I am a little beyond my depth here (any physicists in the house ) but what makes sense to me is that before the big bang there was nothing. No time, no matter, no energy, so in effect the universe in some form or another has always existed. There was no "before" the big bang since there was no time. This is hard for me to grasp and hard to explain but that's the way I see it. If you or anyone else can point out an error here or correct me, I'd like that.

I'm certainly no physicist, that's for sure but from my perspective the idea that there is nothing beyond what we believe and label as 'time' and 'space' seems awfully self-centered. IMO human beings and our logics/sciences are inherently flawed because we are limited by our own perceptions and senses. It then follows that we will simply never be able to fully understand our purpose and origins because of this. And it is here where faith, belief or any manner of religion enters into one's consciousness; to fill the void of unanswerable questions.

I hope I've made myself clear. I am glad to discuss this with someone intelligent and articulate.

Likewise, cookiecutter.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Wtf. I don't even know what content means but if the bible matches word for word who cares.
Never read the Dead Sea Scroll so far on the bible. Only read through the books of Moses and Matthew so far @ Chapter 9 of Mark right now. Only had the bible for a lil while been reading it every day.
The bibles wasn't found during 125AD.

You don't even know what CONTENT MEANS?! Content= I.E. what the book ACTUALLY says. Simply having a current text of the bible which matches word for word with and ancient text (which we do NOT have) does not prove that what the bible actually teaches is true. No shit the bible wasn't found in 125 AD. I am saying the earliest SURVIVING fragment of the New Testament dates to 125AD... i.e. 100 years after Jesus' death.
This ladies and gentlemen is precisely the kind of "reasoning" that keeps religion alive.

 

[Ender Rises]

Gods... he is truly stupid.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Gods... he is truly stupid.

No he isn't... we've just hardened our hearts against the Baby-Jesus so that we refuse to see the truth in his logic.

 

[cookiecutter]

I understand what your saying but when you believe you will never be able to find out the answers through man-made (and thus inherently flawed) apparatuses such as science it makes it impossible for one to be able to simply 'find out' the answer.

I guess I just haven't given up hope.

I'm certainly no physicist, that's for sure but from my perspective the idea that there is nothing beyond what we believe and label as 'time' and 'space' seems awfully self-centered. IMO human beings and our logics/sciences are inherently flawed because we are limited by our own perceptions and senses. It then follows that we will simply never be able to fully understand our purpose and origins because of this. And it is here where faith, belief or any manner of religion enters into one's consciousness; to fill the void of unanswerable questions.

I feel that even if as you are arguing that science will never discover these answer, then we should believe nothing about, since we will never know the right answer. Most religions and faiths create answers from what we perceive, and if the answer is beyond perception, then those would be incorrect. I think your faith is closely related to Deism and so the "energy" you describe is probably beyond perception, and therefore able to explain some these things that we are assuming science cannot. Correct me if I am misrepresenting your beliefs. I guess reduced down to that with the assumptions that: "human beings and our logics/sciences are inherently flawed because we are limited by our own perceptions and senses.It then follows that we will simply never be able to fully understand our purpose and origins because of this." I can't disagree with you.

I have two problems with this and again, correct me if I am not understanding you correctly. The first is that I am not ready to believe that these answers are beyond human perception. I have faith () that science can find answers about the origin of the universe. My second problem is that I do not feel that humanity, life or the universe has a "purpose". I think things just exist. I was not born to serve a purpose, I was just born. If establish a goal and choose to strive for it then I have a purpose, but I do not feel that I or anything else has a purpose simply by existing.

 

[Death Aflame]

I guess I just haven't given up hope.

Fair enough.

I feel that even if as you are arguing that science will never discover these answer, then we should believe nothing about, since we will never know the right answer. Most religions and faiths create answers from what we perceive, and if the answer is beyond perception, then those would be incorrect.

Good point. This is why in my initial post I was saying that what I feel goes far beyond what I am able to articulate within the bounds of language. I try to as best as possible but it falls far short. All I can really say concretely is that it's a strong 'feeling'.

I think your faith is closely related to Deism and so the "energy" you describe is probably beyond perception, and therefore able to explain some these things that we are assuming science cannot. Correct me if I am misrepresenting your beliefs. I guess reduced down to that with the assumptions that: "human beings and our logics/sciences are inherently flawed because we are limited by our own perceptions and senses.It then follows that we will simply never be able to fully understand our purpose and origins because of this." I can't disagree with you.

The general idea of deism is pretty similar to my own, so yeah you are presenting my viewpoint accurately.

I have two problems with this and again, correct me if I am not understanding you correctly. The first is that I am not ready to believe that these answers are beyond human perception. I have faith () that science can find answers about the origin of the universe. My second problem is that I do not feel that humanity, life or the universe has a "purpose". I think things just exist. I was not born to serve a purpose, I was just born. If establish a goal and choose to strive for it then I have a purpose, but I do not feel that I or anything else has a purpose simply by existing.

Again perfectly valid points that provide good reasons to believe what you believe. I guess in my case I am not ready to believe that it is all that simple, so I look elsewhere for answers.

 

[CAIRATH]

IMO human beings and our logics/sciences are inherently flawed because we are limited by our own perceptions and senses. It then follows that we will simply never be able to fully understand our purpose and origins because of this. And it is here where faith, belief or any manner of religion enters into one's consciousness; to fill the void of unanswerable questions.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it implies that religion is somehow more equipped to fill that void than science is. A line of reasoning which seems to be deeply engrained into Judeo-Christian culture but is essentially not based on anything. The church somehow commands a great deal of respect for nothing more than simply voicing their opinion on matters. An opinion that is no more or less based on anything than yours or mine would be. There are two ways a religious person can argue that the church is more equipped. One would be to claim that the church bases its stance on the (expert) interpretation of scripture. But that requires accepting the scripture as a valid and relatively unflawed source of information and to consider it of divine rather than man made origin, which is a bit of leap to say the least. The other would be to claim that the pope or any other important figure within the church talks to god. There's not much to argue against that really so I'm not even going to bother trying.

Ofcourse this applies to organized religion, in the end you can always say that as a person you believe X or Y to be true about the universe but again that claim is not based on anything. You're essentially filling a void with another void. Some people find that comforting I guess. Personally I don't see the point in doing that. Why would I hold onto beliefs which are not directly based on any kind of perceived evidence and which I cannot test in any way and only apply that line of reasoning to existential issues when in any other aspect of my life doing so would seem utterly ridiculous.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

No, but nice strawman.

Sigh... Don't use words if you don't know what they mean. Asking someone what they mean isn't a strawman. It's a question.

The comparison isn't a huge stretch. The book was about a society were everyone was "happy" and they didn't think for themselves. You're advocating a world were everyone would be "happy" because they won't think for themselves. Either you're really not smart enough to comprehend the comparison or you're being willfully ignorant.

And apparently you aren't smart enough to realize that "utopia" and "dystopia" are opposites. Let's review: I suggested that a religious utopia would be a nice place to live, you suggested that I would probably like to live in an areligious dystopia.

I didn't say I liked or agreed with the film. I suggested the film because it was, IMO, a good match for what someone else said they believed. You think you're nailing me on something you think is stupid? Not even close. Just because I tell someone they might enjoy or should check out a particular book or film doesn't mean I agree with or endorse the content. I know, it's a tough concept to grasp.

Strange, then, that when I was laughing at the film you acted as though I was laughing at you. I don't see why people need to make things so personal.

Like a LOT of people that post here you can't seem to imagine anyone means anything except what you've already decided they mean. That must make the world a really frustrating place.

SIG'D!!!

seriously, are you that stupid? do you perhaps listen to korn or 50 cent?
~gR~

World peace would help everyone. Freedom of thought is wasted on 99% of the population.

 

[Pessimism]

thisisaformicatable...

 

[cookiecutter]

The problem with ... so would seem utterly ridiculous.

Agreed 100%

formica table, I think you are proposing something which could never happen. And I think the Brave New World comparisons are very valid. In Brave New World, the society is a utopia. Everyone is happy as you propose, but without freedom. It is then shown that this becomes a dystopia for that reason.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

formica table, I think you are proposing something which could never happen.

No shit, that's what "utopia" means.

And I think the Brave New World comparisons are very valid. In Brave New World, the society is a utopia. Everyone is happy as you propose, but without freedom. It is then shown that this becomes a dystopia for that reason.

I didn't suggest freedom (of thought) be forcibly restricted or removed by a governmental entity.

 

[LithiumLulu]

Sigh... Don't use words if you don't know what they mean. Asking someone what they mean isn't a strawman. It's a question.

I like the sigh, it's so emo.

A straw man is misrepresentation of an opponent's position. That's what you did. Everyone else seems to see it, I'm sorry it's eluding you.

And apparently you aren't smart enough to realize that "utopia" and "dystopia" are opposites. Let's review: I suggested that a religious utopia would be a nice place to live, you suggested that I would probably like to live in an areligious dystopia.

Actually, I believe it's you that's not smart enough to see what you're offering would be a dystopia to many.

Strange, then, that when I was laughing at the film you acted as though I was laughing at you. I don't see why people need to make things so personal.

I didn't take it personally. You were acting like a dick, shitting on someone's beliefs and I took exception to that because that sucks.

More with the emo-ness.... are you on the right board?

World peace would help everyone. Freedom of thought is wasted on 99% of the population.

World peace would be nice, but I don't think any end result is worth what you suggest.

 

[Ender Rises]

This line by line arguments are really fun to watch but a bitch to get into.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

I worship metal.