Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

Evolution/science has left little to no room for intelligent design. The only thing left for God to possibly be responsible for is the beginning of the universe. Although they will probably figure that out soon enough and then God will be responsible for the begining of whatever our universe is "contained" inside of, and so on.

If you understand evolution/science you should know that God did not create any of the living things on earth. You should know that God did not create the earth, the solar system, or the galaxies in the universe. So everything in that ancient book, that "god" said he made, he didn't really make. Aside from false hopes, it leaves me wondering what God is even good for?

Jesus.

*sigh* *deep breath*

Please, explain to me how exactly are we close to understanding evolution, let alone the beginning of the universe or the very essence of science itself? What the hell have you been reading? Or have you been reading anything at all?

Come on man, stop making shit up and get a fucking education.
 
@siren: he's full of surprises, you know.

i have a question for all the debating agnostic/atheists: why are you so rabid about people who think differently? it's a commonplace that the religious try to force their opinion on others, or despise non-believers for being "sinners" and "evil", but looking at this thread (even after allowing for the famous "death metal forum proviso") i confirm my feeling that these days it's actually some secularists, rather than christians, being aggressive. in other words, why do you care to tell people they are silly or superstitious or whatever based on their religious beliefs? how do these hurt you in your life?
 
@hyena: one of the wisest men of all time said: i know one thing, that i know nothing.
unfortunately, there will always be people who think they know more than others and will try to force their beliefs on them.
 
@ hyena: Atheists and evangelicals proclaim their faith with equal fervor. Its the same blind devotion to an ideal. That's why I don't pay attention to the extreme versions of either. Regardless, I think its also a case of spreading what you're passionate about. If you loved some one or some thing enough, wouldn't you want to talk about it? Hypothetically speaking, of course.
 
Those who don't feel the urge to press their beliefs on others just don't post very often in this thread. ;)
 
@Matse: Since when does love for discussion and too much free time equal urge to press beliefs on others? ;)
 
Jesus.

*sigh* *deep breath*

Please, explain to me how exactly are we close to understanding evolution, let alone the beginning of the universe or the very essence of science itself? What the hell have you been reading? Or have you been reading anything at all?

Come on man, stop making shit up and get a fucking education.


Have you been reading anything at all? I never said scientists knew everything about the universe. Scientists do however know a hell of a lot about the planets/solar systems, stars, and galaxies, and surprise: god has nothing to do with any of it.

I'm so aggressive on these message boards because it's the internet. I'm normally very bored at work, luckily there are some of you who have thousands of posts on this board and check it every 20 minutes.

I'm explaining how there is no proof that god exists. The shitty thing is that even if scientists were able to successfully demonstrate spontaneous generation (life developing from non-living matter) in an experiment, it wouldn't matter. People would still hold on to their emotional attachments to religion. "Oh okay, well god didn't create life on earth but he made the 'rules' that allowed life to form." It's frustrating to me that glaring evidence/logic/reason is just thrown out the door when human emotion is involved.

This is the internet, if you have a problem with my posts, don't read them.
 
This is the most nonsensical crap I've read in months. What the hell was that? A parody of postmodern thinking?

It's called metacognition sir, you are conscious of your own thoughts. Among other things, it's probably what lead to the whole idea of humans having a soul/inventing religion and gods, expressing creativity, philosophy, etc.
 
You, sir, are way beyond lost when it comes to religious thinking and even more when talking about cognitive theories. Your capability for abstract symbolic thinking (or seeing beyond your nose anyway) is the portrait of atrophy, it seems obvious you haven't been reading anything that has been posted here, and so I refuse to waste my time crossing words with you any further. You don't look like you have any remedy.
 
It's called metacognition sir, you are conscious of your own thoughts.

I'm not buying this. If you were conscious of your own thoughts you'd be depressed, not bored. ;)


ian.de throws the "This is the Internet" card and turns us all into pumpkin. Little does he know that God already has one heck of a satellite tracker and is working hard on teleportation. When our death metal demons from the seventh circle of Hell knock at your cubicle's door, you'll see our agnosticism was just a clever cover for a cult of powerful necromancers.
 
QRV said:
Personally, I think that there's an innate, archetypal knowledge of the existence of a spiritual realm (call it instinct, collective unconscious, whatever) as opposed to the concrete tridimensional realm. Myths, dreams, artworks, philosophies, etc., all around the world and throughout history pretty much have shown shared motifs on this.
Myths, dreams, art, philosophy, etc., have never shown the existence of such a realm, they have only shown the power of the human mind, its creativity, and its capabilities.


QRV said:
ian.de said:
This is all a product of human consciousness of consciousness. You can think about thinking about thinking about thinking, no other animal can do that. And because of this, we can brew up some crazy shit in our heads.
This is the most nonsensical crap I've read in months. What the hell was that? A parody of postmodern thinking?
First of all, that was a childish response.
Second of all, I understand what ian.de is talking about there, and it isn't nonsense, it's a real area of debate in the field of consciousness. Unlike what ian.de said earlier, there is no evidence that tells us that animals aren't conscious at all, in fact certain behaviors show otherwise. We can't possibly know for sure ..perhaps they are very much conscious of their existence and the fact that they are an entity in an out-there world, but since they biologically lack the complex communication skills that humans possess, they are very much limited in conveying any of it, either to each other or to people who study them. But it is a currently-discussed and debated scientific topic that, while other animals may be conscious and may think, our species is easily conscious of being conscious. We think about thinking. And that this may be one of the main reasons for our extensive imagination.


QRV said:
Jesus.
*sigh* *deep breath*
Please, explain to me how exactly are we close to understanding evolution, let alone the beginning of the universe or the very essence of science itself? What the hell have you been reading? Or have you been reading anything at all?
Come on man, stop making shit up and get a fucking education.
The very basic underlying essence of the universe, its beginning, its real nature, and its bounds are of course very far from known. They are all nothing but theories based on interpretations of limited evidence ..exciting as it may be. I don't know what you mean by essence of science..
However, evolution is very well understood. And it's all out there. You advocate reading, perhaps you'd be interested.
And lastly, as to your rude response, I don't see anything in that particular post of ian.de's that would qualify as "making shit up" any more than your thoughts of your innate spiritual realm.



hyena said:
i have a question for all the debating agnostic/atheists: why are you so rabid about people who think differently? it's a commonplace that the religious try to force their opinion on others, or despise non-believers for being "sinners" and "evil", but looking at this thread (even after allowing for the famous "death metal forum proviso") i confirm my feeling that these days it's actually some secularists, rather than christians, being aggressive. in other words, why do you care to tell people they are silly or superstitious or whatever based on their religious beliefs? how do these hurt you in your life?
I had been thinking about how to put down some thoughts into writing (mostly about evolution as requested). I wanted to see how I could make it as concrete as possible and not write a textbook in this forum, which wouldn't exactly be appreciated by myself or anyone else here. But reading this last post of yours made me realize a few things.
I didn't think these discussions were being seen as rabid and aggressive agendas with which to attack people. And I didn't want them to be. But.. I do understand. You're right. I understand how it's seen that way from the perspective of many of you. And with that, there really isn't much left I can say.
The beliefs of people have not hurt me in any way to this day (though I have reason to believe they may in the far future). In fact, I know someone who became hands-down a better person because he "found Jesus" and I think it would be good for him, and those around him, that he remain that way. My opinion of religion in general and its effects on the world as a whole I will keep to myself.


I apologize to those who got offended. And I'm now going to try to step away towards the sidelines and join Lina, who in a way probably had the most sense in the thread.
 
I didn't think these discussions were being seen as rabid and aggressive agendas with which to attack people. And I didn't want them to be.

I don't think she was referring to you. As much as some could say you have a rather condescending way to express your point of view, it doesn't seem to me you could be mistaken for a rabid anti-God agitator. But you have to admit that dropping by a couple of times a week to post in this thread only with an increasing amount of mock-disbelief at the naivety of believers - like ian.de does - can legitimately raise a few eyebrows: is it pent-up anger? A moral crusade going downhill? Has he lost to God someone he loved, possibly someone belonging to the feline family?

All things considered it has been a comparatively productive discussion where everyone more or less behaved. I think biting remarks should be excused from both sides, not because THIS IS THE INTERNET but because it's normal to vent a little when you're only conveying a message in writing, and to strangers. I mean, I remember circumstances where "please die in a fire" would have been the kindest expression of human concern my metacognition allowed me to come up with.
 
You, sir, are way beyond lost when it comes to religious thinking and even more when talking about cognitive theories. Your capability for abstract symbolic thinking (or seeing beyond your nose anyway) is the portrait of atrophy, it seems obvious you haven't been reading anything that has been posted here, and so I refuse to waste my time crossing words with you any further. You don't look like you have any remedy.

What has been posted in this thread that I have been ignoring? The only person posting any information is Mag-Sec. The only items you have posted are personal attacks on my lack of knowledge of cognitive theory.

I'm trying to make the point that religion is a product of our cognitive ability. Sorry I don't agree with your "7th sense" idea that humans have an innate sense of a spiritual realm. Speaking of nonsense.
 
I'm trying to make the point that religion is a product of our cognitive ability. Sorry I don't agree with your "7th sense" idea that humans have an innate sense of a spiritual realm. Speaking of nonsense.

I don't see what's so outrageous about it. I do agree with QRV, but even if I try and look at it from a neutral perspective what comes out is this: there are two theories being discussed here, one stating that there is no deity and humans invented one (or more than one) in order to make sense of otherwise unexplainable phenomena, and another one stating that humans think about god because they were hard-wired by god to do so.

as i said before, this is the kind of statement you cannot prove one way or the other. why should the second in particular be nonsense? i don't agree with the first, but i don't think it's nonsense either: it's a hypothesis which i do not happen to share. the comment QRV made concerned, if i understand correctly, both the finality of your tone and the inaccuracy of your statement, not your idea that god does not exist.

@mags: my comment wasn't meant to make you or anyone else stop posting. i was genuinely curious about why people who do not believe in god are sometimes so passionate about religion. you know, i can see why religious people are passionate: for them, their immortal soul is at stake every waking moment, and failing to defend their stance might, in some worldviews, have dire consequences on judgement day. but non-religious people believe in no such thing, it's not like they have something supernatural at stake. so in a sense for them it should be easier to just tolerate the existence of another system of thought, if it doesn't induce violations of their rights or disruptions in their existence.
 
there are two theories being discussed here, one stating that there is no deity and humans invented one (or more than one) in order to make sense of otherwise unexplainable phenomena, and another one stating that humans think about god because they were hard-wired by god to do so.

I like the way you divided it into two schools of thought however I do agree with the first one simply because this is what really went down through history and is documented.

The second idea has to be discredited simply because if it were true, then all humans regardless of race or location or era in time would instinctively come up with the exact same version of a God just like all living creatures on earth drink the same water.

Why were there (and still are) so many religious wars?
Simply because these wars are those of conflicting ideas, wars between different versions of the idea of god.

It is funny how humans wage wars not because they have differences in manners or tradition, but because they differ so much in methods of thought or belief.
 
Is it also innate to kill one another just because we have different views on life, god, and the world?

Sometimes it is ethnic cleansing.
Sometimes it is a struggle for power; which religion dominates and rules over a certain country.
Sometimes it is a division in the same religion, where christian fights against christian and moslem against moslem...etc.

Man made god as an answer to otherwise unanswerable questions.
Man created the idea of an afterlife so the suffering in this one gains meanning and purpose.
It is the sheer insignificance of man that has led him to this kind of thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>seeking the invisible, the magical, the spiritual, the illogical....

Let me put it this way:

If the idea of God is innate in humans, it follows that punishment and reward is also an innate idea. (Innate means instinct, something you would do without having to be taught about it, like a baby suckling milk from its mother...)
Fact: Man's (and every other creature on this planet) INNATE first duty is to HIMSELF.

Q.Given that, who do you suppose will take the initiative and cause harm unto others (murder, war, enslavement...etc) and risk his/her own status in the afterlife?
A. Someone who does NOT share the same belief or school thought.

Q. How come then people of the same religion murder and torture each other?
A. Because the idea of god is a very PERSONAL one. Every religion or sect firmly believes that it is the closest to the truth of the matter and therefore it's idea/belief must prevail (think of the Crusades, of the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, of the huge hate between Moslem Sunnites and Moslem Sheits, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnea and Serbia, the ever present conflict between the Jews and Islam and Christianity) and they all believe in the same god, only in different versions.

The question that should be asked, i think, is why does thought and belief define people rather than their actions with each other?
Hostility to the other is Innate.
The lust for power is Innate.
Greed is Innate.
Selfishness is Innate.
Kindness is also Innate, but you see it less and less.
Tolerance is Aquired.

Religions and thought are also aquired, passed down by bloodlines, or taught.

Descartes: I think therefore I am: My thoughts and ideas define who I am. (Idealist) God may exist in this school of thought.
Kierkegaard: I am therefore I think: My surrounding influence and define who I am. (Existential) God has no reason to exist in this school of thought.

please let me know what you think