GT 1 - 200
Created | Updated Apr 14, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 1, 2002 by Doubting Salmon Post: 1
right people, here you go. I want your opinions, views, speeches, etc.
but most of all I want controversy!!! mwahahahahah!!!!
for instance, did you know all of us, non-christians are actually satan worshippers because we dont believe in god? And even though God loves us all if we dont believe in him he sends us(lovingly) to hell to burn? But actually, all hell is is total separation from god, so in theory, for non-christians, its not that bad anyway!!
well, I've started it, now you continue it.
go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 2, 2002 by Kaz, needed a new start. Moved over here U1025853
Post: 2
Take the christian view if you want to!
Some of us Non-christians are fed up with christian propaganda, ie pagan means godless, no it doesn't. Bored of explaining. I'll set Cernunnos on anyone who still has that view!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 2, 2002 by Doubting Salmon
Post: 3
...
maybe it was sarcasm but I don't take the christian view!!
well, great response from everyone else I must say.(that WAS sarcasm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 2, 2002 by Mina
Post: 4
>>all of us, non-christians are actually satan worshippers
I'm a non-christian, as are most of my friends, and most of Asia, and plenty of peopla all over other parts of the world. And the majority don't even believe in satan. Christian invention - you have to be Christian to think it exists.
How's that for a response?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 3, 2002 by the wag
Post: 5
the essence of the matter is that belief in God or Satan is allegorical, the good and bad it represents is in every individual. By siding with God you are promoting the goodness in yourself. A totally existential world, without belief of any kind, would be an immoral nightmare!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 3, 2002 by Abi
Post: 6
Why can't everyone just accept that everyone is entitled to their own view? I know plenty of Christians who don't think that pagans are godless heathens and in fact are coming round to that most faith systems are born out of each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 3, 2002 by Z Phantom [ACE] (jedi master Gr-sim Den'new)mynameisthislongtoupsetyour<viewer>
Post: 7
I myself go for the whole big bang/evoloution theory, however I also respect the views of others on creation/god/being sneezed out of somethings nose, as I find that the less you impose your views on others the less they do the same to you, making the world a much nicer place. (the exeption being those religious fanatics you get in town centres, the ones that grab hold and seem to latch on to you throwing leaflets about how you will be "eternally dammed" unless you imediatly turn to their religion under your nose. when it comes to them I have to admit I just put my head down and )
Z P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 4, 2002 by The Rogue aka Phoniex
Post: 8
I'm surrounded by christians and i am one but the fact that others dont have the exact same faith as me doesnt bother me! If people wosh to force their beliefs on others thats there buisness. Maybe God is there maybe not but people need something to believe in its part of human nature whether that is a religious belief of not is up to the person. Non- Christians are people and maybe if they believ in reincarnation that'll happen to them. Its all about BELIEF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Whatever suits
Posted Jul 4, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 9
There was a character in a forgotten book (maybe by William Gibson) who was a kind of existential counsellor. For those people who had opened up that box we all keep ignored inside our heads called 'death' and had a good look at the black depths inside, he provided them with a belief system in order to help them deal with it and live happy lives. They weren't all the same.
Most people just ignore it until they are confronted by it. Then they have to either ignore it again, or resolve it somehow. For me, I have (after reading a lot of stuff about various religions, and studying physics) come to my own conclusions. Basically, I have tried on a lot of different hats (including determinism, which was an odd but interesting experience), and have found the one that fits me best. And, believe it or not, I am actually happy!
So (if you need to), go try on those hats.
orbitsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PS
Posted Jul 4, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 10
I should just add that I am not a member of any organised religion. To overuse the same metaphor, I have made my own hat. It's a bit woolly, but it's lovely and warm and comfortable.
orbitsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 11, 2002 by Bisquick
Post: 11
I myself used to be a strict evolutionist but I read a peice on the existance of "a god" in THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO by ALLAN BLOOM. It was very convincing and I can't find anyway to agrue this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 14, 2002 by 2.hot.2.handle(f)
Post: 12
there is no such thing as god!!!
if there was a god why would people be born with disabilities?? why are some people in the world dying of starvartion??? why is there terrorist attacks?? why is there war?? if there is a hell we live and breath in hell every single day of our lives!! earth is hell!!! there can't be no place worse than earth!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 16, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 13
Nice to see you went for the multiple exclamation marks (and question marks!) option for your rant. So much better than the much overused use of CAPITAL LETTERS FOR THE WHOLE MESSAGE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 17, 2002 by unloved
Post: 14
I have a devoted methodist family, although i don't believe s**t about hell or heaven and i would rather think that we when we die we're just dead no biggy.And if life keeps going the way it's going it may be the best piece of sleep i ever get in this life time!Lifes hard enough with out thinking about going to heaven and "living" or existing in peace forever, or burning in hell forever if u didn't do all the bible tells u to! Also u can ask for forgivness and u get it no questions asked! For gods sake i could be a ax murderer then say forgive me and i am in heaven! if u ask me (and u kinda did) heaven is just a bigger form of goverment that screws over the people!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Kaz, needed a new start. Moved over here U1025853
Post: 15
I'm training to be a Buddhist, its refreshing that one of the tenets is not to believe in a God.
It also works very well with my very strong pagan views.
I was bemused to find out that Buddhists met on the full moon, so do Pagans especially Wiccans. I shall have to choose!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Jam (especially Blackberry)
Post: 16
Only this moment exists, no past no future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Researcher 198852
Post: 17
Great debate. Any God that put us here & gave us free will, cannot & will not condemn us to eternal damnation for making the wrong choices. We're here to evolve our souls, not learn lessons. In fact we are all one - there is no separation, not even from God. A fantastic book to give a greater insight into what I'm talking about is "CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD" By Neale Donald Walsh. Go buy it. If nothing else it gives you hope that hell isn't an option!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 18
woo! the man above me speaks the truth. christianity, as a religion, is rather problematic. but that doesnt mean there cant be a God...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 20, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 19
There almost certainly is a God, in the sense that there is an agency responsible for the workings of the Universe, and that this agency is beyond mankind's understanding.
There almost certainly isn't a God, in the sense of a being who created us in its own image, and with whom we can somehow communicate and ultimately "come to".
Scientists are pretty arrogant, believing they can reason such a God out of existence. But the ultimate heretics were the primitive men who defined God in human terms in their religions, closely followed by the modern-day practitioners of these religions.
The Western set (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are the worst of the lot in this respect. They idealise long-dead charlatans who have little to teach us that has present-day relevance. Worse, They admit no interpretation and prescribe a way of living which harms the planet and its people (if you want an example of this, think about the rightness of a religion that forbids birth control in a world where most of the problems ultimately derive from overpopulation). They have no real function in the modern world except to focus and articulate malice, making them the principal fuel of war. They delude people and stifle rationalism. They create false expectations of salvation and forgiveness which diminish individual responsibility. They obstruct change in a world that must change to survive.
In short, Western religions not only have nothing to do with God, but are the principle force for Evil (in its real sense) in the world today.
Wooh. Glad I got that of my chest. Just an opinion, you understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 25, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 20
I tell you what, I was glad to get rid of that George Carey a*****e.
Now, don't misunderstand me here.
I am not a Christian.
What really got me about him was that after 9/11, he poo-poohed
people who put their faith before their country.
So, according to him, (in order) we should praise,
the Queen,
the Prime Minister,
God.
What a complete an utter t**t. I don't believe in hell, but if there
is one, I hope he roasts on the hottest flame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 27, 2002 by Jake Denotsko
Post: 21
All religions are pathetic crutches. If people were truly willing to face the results of their decisions, they wouldn't need a god. Gods were invented in a time when there were no better explanations for the way things are. There was a time when people thought the word was flat. Now we know better and set aside silly ideas.
Over time, polititions learned to manipulate religion towards their own agendas. There is true power to be had in mind control.
When a religion dies it is called mythology. Be it Greek, Roman, Hebrew or Arab; It's all a big load of s**t. The day the world wakes up and takes responsibility for itself and it's actions is the day all people are free. If you don't have that crutch of a god to come and make everything alright, will you live the same way?
I'm an atheist and think in terms of today and tomorrow. How will what I do today effect the world my kids inherit tomorrow. Plain and simple. No fear of hell or a plague. Just refusal to fail the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 27, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 22
The only trouble with a mass debate is that a lot people end up talking a load of w**k. So here I go...
God? Fiction.
Got to thinking today - imagine a world that had religion but had never had science. Don't need much imagination really, it existed right here for centuries. Result - massive infant mortality and an average lifespan in the thirties or forties, intolerance, superstition, mass slaughter based on minor differences of mode of worship and prayer as the cure for cholera.
Now imagine a world that had science, but had *never* had religion - none at all. *Not* a world where it was suppressed - a world where it had simply never occurred to anyone to blame anything on or ask anything of a god. No Judaism, no Christianity, no Islam, nothing. What would that world look like?
No fundamentalists. No Creationism. No Northern Ireland problem. In all probability, no September 11th. No astrology. No Holocaust. No Inquisition. No Crusades. Morality based on pragmatism, and hence rooted in the past but not so unrealistic as to be stuck there - able to adjust to changes in the nature of reality. Example: Pragmatic morality does not ban or even condemn contraception - it DEMANDS it, for everyone, whenever they want it, for free, because increasing population is a threat to the planet. Pragmatic morality does not require circumcision, because people nowadays have enough water to wash every day.
Better, or worse? Just to put my cards on the table, I'm an atheist, and I've thought just a tiny, little along this particular line, and I can't see any way in which a world with religion in it is in any way preferable to a world where it had just never happened. I think we'd all be a lot better of without it.
Of course, now it's here, it's too late (and if what I've read about a theory of the development of the mind is even close to accurate, you couldn't have conscious humans without religion - it's kind of a side effect of the species developing consciousness). You can't suppress it - the Soviet Union tried and failed, among others, and in any case, if people want to believe the moon is made of green cheese and that the tooth fairy is in the pay of the British Dental Association they should have that right.
But wouldn't the world be *better*, if NOBODY had religion? I don't know, and I'm interested what people think...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Jake Denotsko
Post: 23
WOW! I wish I had said that. Bravo, bravo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 24
Hi Hoovooloo and All
I think you're right in most respects, particularly on the evil that flows from Western Religions (my take in Post 19).
But I don't think atheism is a very intelligent stance either.
Can all this be explained by science? Manifestly not. A lot of it can, but there are some crucial pieces of man's knowledge missing. Man needs some humility about the Limit Of (his) Scientific Knowledge, or the highly-scientific people your religion-free world would just find another excuse for perpetrating atrocities - and possibly self-destruction. There are examples of the Evil of Science as well as the Evil of Religion too, remember. (Just don't get me started on the Evil of Money, that's all)
LOSK is a pretty odd God. His worshippers strive legitimately to diminish him, but fear the last remaining vestiges of his wrath. In the meantime, though, they respect their planet and (because their knowledge is incomplete) they consider themselves no better than their fellow men. Inculcating such respect is just about all a religion can contribute, really.
I'd call myself agnostic. I haven't ever quite decided whether Buddhism or Wicca are the truest religions. I just know that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are very bad for mankind, and that we can only hope that their ultimate decadence and decline passes off reasonably peacefully.
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 25
Hiya Pinniped,
Glad to see at least some of what I said gets your seal of approval (sorry, couldn't resist ).
>But I don't think atheism is a very intelligent stance either.
What's unintelligent about it? I look at the world and don't see any evidence of any gods. People used to look at the sun and see a god. Now most intelligent people look at the sun and see a ball of fusing hydrogen and helium nuclei a little over 90 million miles away. People used to look at the moon and see a goddess. Now most intelligent people look at the moon and see a ball of rock a quarter of a million miles away. People used to see lightning and blame it on the gods, now most intelligent people see lightning and blame it on a difference in electrical potential.
Atheists look at this progression, and look around at the world, and ask, "isn't the idea of gods just something we made up to fill in the gaps?".
>Can all this be explained by science? Manifestly not. A lot of it can, but there are some crucial pieces of man's knowledge missing.
Yes, absolutely, and there always will be. Science, unlike religion, does NOT claim to be able to answer everything. But why do you need a god to fill in the gaps, and doesn't it tell you something that year by year, this god gets smaller and smaller?
>Man needs some humility about the Limit Of (his) Scientific Knowledge,
But one of the achievements of science is that it not only recognises the limit of its knowledge, in one area at least it has actually QUANTIFIED it. Any physicist will tell you there are certain things one can know, and as a result certain other things which will be forever *unknowable*. That's a fundamental feature of the universe, and science pointed it out.
>or the highly-scientific people your religion-free world would just find another excuse for perpetrating atrocities - and possibly self-destruction.
Name one atrocity, just one, perpetrated in the name of "science". Careful, now - various people have used "science" as a cover. I don't want to hear about things perpetrated in the cause of politics (e.g. use of nuclear weapons), I'm not interested in things done out of racist bigotry (e.g. medical experiments in concentration camps), and don't bring up anything where scientific results were turning a profit, because it's the profit that's the problem, NOT the science (e.g. Bhopal).
Science gives us the means for self-destruction, sure - but more importantly it gives us the means to recognise and AVOID the possibility self-destruction. Not one of the world's religions warned us about global warming or the environmental consequences of the use of CFCs, for example. Religion has so far proven to be next to useless as a cure for AIDS, malaria, cholera, measles, smallpox etc. etc. etc.
>There are examples of the Evil of Science as well as the Evil of Religion too, remember.
No, there aren't. There are examples of the evil of politics, economics, capitalism, socialism, racism, bigotry and ignorance, and a lot of the perpetrators of these evils have used the tools of science to achieve their ends. BUT saying that, for instance, those killed at Hiroshima are an example of the evils of science is like saying that the women killed by the Yorkshire Ripper are an example of the evils of hammers. DIY tools are not evil. People can choose to use them for evil ends, sure, but in and of themselves they have no moral value, good or bad. They're just tools, and so is science - it's a tool to understand the world, and tool which inherently recognises its own limitations and doesn't pretend to have answers to questions when it doesn't.
>(Just don't get me started on the Evil of Money, that's all)
Iain M. Banks writes science fiction, and very good it is too. Much of it is set in a utopian galactic society called "the Culture". One of the sayings they have in that society is "money is a sign of poverty". We here today live in an age of scarcity - not enough food, not enough fuel, not enough space, not enough transport. One day, if we're lucky, (and if you believe K. Eric Drexler it'll be sooner than you think) we will transcend all that. We'll be in a position to give everyone anything they want. Energy will be for all practical purposes unlimited. Food will be available in abundance, everywhere. Transport to anywhere you want will be available more or less on demand, free. And when that happens, money will become obsolete. There's no point having a medium of exchange when your society has progressed to the point where everyone can have anything they want. Now - given that such a society is POSSIBLE (and there's no reason that I can see to suppose that it is not), how do you get there from here? Prayer? Or research and development?
>LOSK is a pretty odd God. His worshippers strive legitimately to diminish him, but fear the last remaining vestiges of his wrath.
No idea what you mean by this. Limit of Scientific Knowledge is not a "god". Nobody worships it. And what "wrath"?
>In the meantime, though, they respect their planet and (because their knowledge is incomplete) they consider themselves no better than their fellow men. Inculcating such respect is just about all a religion can contribute, really.
Haven't you just said that there's no NEED to inculcate such respect, because it's already there? Unsure of what you're getting at here. Scientists do not consider themselves no better than their fellow men because their knowledge is incomplete. Scientists generally, to pinch a phrase, hold this truth to be self-evident - that all men are created equal. Completeness of knowledge is irrelevant - are you saying that if a scientists knowledge WAS complete he'd be somehow a better person?
>I'd call myself agnostic. I haven't ever quite decided whether Buddhism or Wicca are the truest religions.
Don't know much about Wicca (most of what I know comes from watching "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", which I do not consider to be a reliable source of facts... ), and Buddhism to me doesn't count as a religion. It seems more like a set of instructions on how to be happy and peaceful - like a suggested operating manual for the mind. Nothing I've heard about Buddhism speaks of gods. I can even picture a day, far in the future, where science and Buddhism coincide, and science can say "yeah, Buddhism works, and here's *why*". But that's on the far shore, and we're a long way from that level of scientific self understanding - but I don't think it's unknowable. Science understands how the liver, kidneys, heart, lungs and everything else works to a greater or lesser extent, and I have no doubt that sooner or later (probably later) we'll have as complete an understanding about the brain.
For now, it's enough to know that Buddhism seems to work for a lot of people.
>I just know that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are very bad for mankind, and that we can only hope that their ultimate decadence and decline passes off reasonably peacefully.
Amen to that. Sadly they don't seem to be declining. Part of the power of religion as a meme is that it is self-replicating and protects itself from outside influences. Admittedly, religion as a concept is now under the most sustained and comprehensive attack in history, being challenged on all sides by the incredible successes of science in explaining and controlling the world and making life better for almost everyone who lives in it.
And yet, do you see people turning to their priests and saying "in two thousand years your religion achieved NOTHING to improve the life of my ancestors, made it worse in some cases and was directly responsible for the deaths of many of them, and in two centuries or less science has DOUBLED my life expectancy, practically destroyed infant and child mortality and conquered one deadly disease after another - so take your useless superstition and tell it to someone else"?
No, you don't. In fact, in the latter years of the last century, if anything we saw MORE people turning to superstition - psychic hotlines, crystal healing, astrology, and many others.
Unfortunately, religion isn't going away. It's like a virus, infecting our minds - a virus which makes us want to believe in some higher power we can't see. Over the last couple of hundred years we've started inoculating ourselves with real knowledge of the world, systematically gathered and explained in theories which were ruthlessly tested and discarded when found to be incomplete. But the religion virus is mutating, adapting to this new threat. You can see it in the new beliefs - spoon bending, alien abductions, government conspiracy theories and the like. All the characteristics of a religion (higher powers, explanations for the otherwise inexplicable, charismatic people doing the explaining to the fascinated masses, and all kinds of wacky explanations as to why there's no scientific evidence at all - compare that with, say, Creationism, or for that matter, Catholicism).
I think religion's going to be around for a while yet...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 26
Like I said, I mostly agree.
I do think you're a bit optimistic about the purity of scientists. If you're going to claim that death-camp surgeons and A-bomb physicists weren't scientists, then it's just as reasonable to argue that the 9/11 hijackers weren't Muslims.
I think your central point is that religion is unnecessary and sterile, and that conversely science is vital and potentially mankind's salvation. With that I agree completely.
If you're denying any possibility that scientific ideals are corruptible, and that mankind is somehow incapable of perpetrating evil through science, then we differ. Blaming some other nasty human characteristic (greed, thirst for power etc) for the evil, while admitting that science provides the means of causing the problem doesn't exactly get science off the hook.
There are also some examples of what I'd call scientific evil that derive principally from the arrogance of the scientific establishment. Without their over-confidence, there would have been no commercial opportunity. Prematurely-introduced drugs such as Thalidomide provide a poignant example. Unless proper care is exercised, bioengineering has the potential lead to something far worse for far more people.
This is where LOSK comes in. Of course LOSK is not a God - but I mentioned him to try to explain the desirable mindset of a community that replaces religion with science. To elaborate on an earlier point, most religions do at least propose two fundamentally good ideas for a fair and safe world. One is, we don't know everything so we'd better be careful. The other is, no one of us is any better or worse than anyone else.
Good science makes a virtue of both, and Worshippers of LOSK would know that implicitly. Bad science can get over-confident and the domain of an elite.
I'm a scientist myself, with a physics degree and a profession in engineering. A majority of the people I count as close friends are also scientists. But I do recognise a propensity for elitism in many of us, an attitude to others that goes "they're not equipped to think, so we must think for them". In my opinion, that mindset is not only ugly - it's dangerous.
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 27
"I do think you're a bit optimistic about the purity of scientists."
I don't make any claims for scientists individually. I do make optimistic claims for the scientific establishment in general, because it's set up in a way to self-correct. It's only when external factors such as politics and profit become involved that those self-check measures are bypassed, and you can't blame science, or scientists in general, for that. Example: GM crops. If the experiments to check the safety of GM crops were in the purview of pure science, there'd be huge separation distances, LONG (decades long) trials, and results you could have confidence in. But because the prize for getting it right is massive profits, the government and the companies developing them are sidestepping conventional scientific methods - which is one of the things giving science a bad name with the public.
>If you're going to claim that death-camp surgeons and A-bomb physicists weren't scientists, then it's just as reasonable to argue that the 9/11 hijackers weren't Muslims.
Many Muslims have said that the 9/11 hijackers were NOT good Muslims by any definition they recognise. Interesting parallel indeed. Unfair, I think, to include A-bomb physicists in that list. They were scientists. They delivered a weapon of awesome power into the hands of the military. In the event, the military had no need at all to use it. They used it anyway. Were the scientists to blame?
>If you're denying any possibility that scientific ideals are corruptible, and that mankind is somehow incapable of perpetrating evil through science, then we differ.
This is rapidly turning into more of an agreement than a debate. Scientific ideals ARE corruptible. Evils perpetrated with the fruits of scientific research are legion. We agree.
>Blaming some other nasty human characteristic (greed, thirst for power etc) for the evil, while admitting that science provides the means of causing the problem doesn't exactly get science off the hook.
Depends what you think science is. My definition would be a world view that works on looking at evidence, building a theory that makes predictions, testing the predictions and changing the theory if it fails to predict accurately. It's a morally neutral world-view, because it offers no guidance on what to do with the results of those predictions. For that you need to look elsewhere.
>Prematurely-introduced drugs such as Thalidomide provide a poignant example.
Profit, again. This kind of problem with scientific advancement is only possible in this age of scarcity where people need to be paid money to do research. This is not a problem with science, it's a problem with economics. Drugs cost billions to develop, so there's a lot of pressure to get them to market early. Mistakes are made. But the driving force which causes those mistakes is not the scientific method, but the shareholder value.
"... most religions do at least propose two fundamentally good ideas for a fair and safe world. One is, we don't know everything so we'd better be careful. The other is, no one of us is any better or worse than anyone else."
Point one seems diametrically opposed to what a lot of fundamentalists believe. They DO know everything, because it's written in their book (whatever book it is). Anything not in the book isn't worth knowing.
Point two, also, seems diametrically opposed to what many religions teach. They mostly seem to be based on the idea that there are the Chosen, and then there's everyone else. They differ as what particular mode of painful death is appropriate for "everyone else", but they generally don't seem terribly well-disposed towards them.
>I'm a scientist myself, with a physics degree and a profession in engineering.
Me: engineering degree, career in engineering. Purely for interest's sake.
>A majority of the people I count as close friends are also scientists. But I do recognise a propensity for elitism in many of us, an attitude to others that goes "they're not equipped to think, so we must think for them". In my opinion, that mindset is not only ugly - it's dangerous.
I entirely agree. My own attitude, and you can call this elitist or at the very least arrogant if you like, is more along the lines of: "They're not equipped to think, so we must EQUIP them". Several times on this site I've encountered people who demonstrably don't even know what science is, what it's FOR, but think they do. And because of their wrong-headed idea about it, they embrace superstition. I try, occasionally, to point out what science is, its power, why it's useful, and why everyone should use it as a base mindset for interacting with the world. I don't think I've been very successful. It doesn't stop me trying.
I'd become a science teacher tomorrow, if I thought for a second I'd be any good at it and it didn't mean cutting my salary in half. It's the old saying isn't it - give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you can get rid of him for the whole afternoon...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 28
...but have to leave it there for now. The Weddell's on the warpath...
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 29
I believe in God but not the Christian God. The Christian God is a bit of a sadist. He gives you a will of your own. Then toasts you in hell for eternity for using it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by cactusklaw
Post: 30
Is it possible that going beyond self and trying to format a set of ethics wedding tolerance,compassion and the interconnectedness of all life might benefit us all on a very small planet.Perhaps even the internet might be a small step to raising the sacred interdependence of all life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Jake Denotsko
Post: 31
Couldn't the argument also be made that if it were not for profit(not prophet), politics, and power etc... religion would be pure and good? These are also to blame for the evils of god, arent they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 32
Hi Hoovooloo!
I've been looking back at your Posts, #27 and earlier, now I've some time. I can't find much that I disagree with in #27!
Maybe 2 points overall :
- About Buddhism not being a proper religion, just a set of rules for right living. Isn't that what a religion is? Or is it the worship of a deity that characterises a religion? My own definition would be the first. I think the second is just an unnecessary (and disastrous) convention that most of them have adopted.
Everything hinges on whether you believe religions to be God-made or man-made, doesn't it? We seem to differ only very marginally. You say there is no God, and that everything's man-made (or at least made by agencies which are the same stuff as man). I say there is a God, because the agencies can never be entirely explicable - my God is (just!) a creative force beyond our understanding.
We both think that religions are human creations, though. Very human, in fact. Like nothing could be more base and less divine.
I guess you're going to come back and say something like True Science manages with axioms for the job I seem to need a God for. Well, maybe so. Maybe science goes beyond my philosophical flexibility on that point.
2. Your earlier point :
<But the religion virus is mutating, adapting to this new threat. You can see it in the new beliefs - spoon bending, alien abductions, government conspiracy theories and the like...
Interesting idea! But what's really going on here? Is mankind's susceptibility to religion a unique failing of his reason? I think the truth is more like :
- there are charlatans around who will try manipulate the thinking of masses for their own gain (that's democracy, after all!)
- they'll try anything that people are potentially gullible about. Religion is only one candidate.
- Pseudo-science is at least as good. Your examples are rather extreme, but public perceptions of a lot of important issues are unhelpful : genetic engineering, clean and safe energy, the morality (and reliability) of space defence. I don't have a rigid view on any of these, but I deplore the standards of debate.
(Confession : I'm currently banned from one local pub. There was a bit of a scene after some guy said we needed a referendum on GM foods, and I pointed out he wasn't intellectually entitled to vote... )
So I really like your Mission to EQUIP, from the last paragraph in #27...
(and, yes, you are arrogant!)
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 33
>I've been looking back at your Posts, #27 and earlier, now I've some time. I can't find much that I disagree with in #27!
Is this the five minute agreement or the full half hour?
- About Buddhism not being a proper religion, just a set of rules for right living. Isn't that what a religion is?
To me, religion implies some belief in at least one being of some sort which is in some way responsible for the way the world works, a belief which requires faith. If you don't believe in a god, or gods, then to my mind you have a philosophy, an approach to life, rather than a faith.
>Or is it the worship of a deity that characterises a religion?
Not necessarily worship - just belief in. For instance, people who describe themselves as "lapsed Catholics", say - I would characterise them as being religious. They clearly BELIEVE in their god, since they persist in characterising themselves in a religious way - but they don't worship it.
> my God is (just!) a creative force beyond our understanding.
Interesting position. How do you worship that? Or don't you?
>I guess you're going to come back and say something like True Science manages with axioms for the job I seem to need a God for.
Actually, I was going to come back and say if you characterise God as a creative force beyond our understanding, I would just add the words "for now"
><But the religion virus is mutating, adapting to this new threat. You can see it in the new beliefs - spoon bending, alien abductions, government conspiracy theories and the like...
Interesting idea! But what's really going on here? Is mankind's susceptibility to religion a unique failing of his reason?
I don't think it's a failing of his reason, I think it's a feature of almost everyone's psychology. We have this monkey curiosity, a need to know the answer to everything. Science DOESN'T have those answers. Sure, it has more now than it ever has before - but it's still a single candle in a huge dark room. Religion seems to fill the gaps - unless you decide you are comfortable with the gaps.
>- there are charlatans around who will try manipulate the thinking of masses for their own gain (that's democracy, after all!)
That's priests since time immemorial...
>- they'll try anything that people are potentially gullible about. Religion is only one candidate.
Absolutely. Which is why I mention the other things above...
>- Pseudo-science is at least as good. Your examples are rather extreme,
Are they? Really? MILLIONS of people believe in them, in the teeth of the evidence. I don't think they're extreme at all.
>but public perceptions of a lot of important issues are unhelpful : genetic engineering, clean and safe energy, the morality (and reliability) of space defence. I don't have a rigid view on any of these, but I deplore the standards of debate.
Agreed. Which is a failing of the representatives of science to communicate, and a failing of the liberal arts mafia in the media to allow any semblance of a balanced story to be told. As long as television companies keep making documentaries about ghosts, it's going to be an uphill struggle.
Here's another observation: imagine a TV cop show. Every week, a crime is committed. The attractive and intelligent double act of FBI agents investigates. Every week, they narrow it dow to two suspects - a black man and a white man. And EVERY SINGLE WEEK it turns out the black man is the perpetrator. EVERY WEEK. How long would that show last?
The white man is a simple scientific explanation. The black man is a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory alien abduction explanation. And the show has lasted NINE YEARS on prime time.
>(Confession : I'm currently banned from one local pub. There was a bit of a scene after some guy said we needed a referendum on GM foods, and I pointed out he wasn't intellectually entitled to vote... )
Well done! I'm still bothered by the fact that next time there's a general election, Jade from Big Brother is entitled to vote - Jade, who thinks "East Angular" is in the Mediterranean. BUT Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) had this to say on the subject of democracy. Take the hundred smartest people in the world, and ask them a question on which the public is evenly divided. There are two possible outcomes. (1) They're evenly divided too, in which case intelligence is irrelevant to democracy, OR (2) They all vote the same way, in which case intelligence IS relevant but is hopelessly diluted. Either way, ouch.
Hence the mission to equip - stupid people get to vote. You can't take the vote off them, so you have to do your best to take the "stupid" off them.
>(and, yes, you are arrogant!)
I knew that!
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 34
It's hard work being controversial round here...
But 2 (related) things worry me (possible cracks in Hoovooloo's edifice?)
>Actually, I was going to come back and say if you characterise God as a creative force beyond our understanding, I would just add the words "for now"
...So you (H) believe that science will solve everything, given long enough? What about your own earlier nod towards Heisenberg, which suggests you already acknowledge the absolute nature of uncertainty at least on a small scale? Maybe that observation is pedantic, but I don't think I want to believe in a universe where everything is explicable. I like the later "comfortable with the gaps" slant on this much better.
>As long as television companies keep making documentaries about ghosts, it's going to be an uphill struggle.
...There goes this certainty thing again. First you're categorically an atheist (a philosophical position of absolute certainty). Now the inference is that you don't believe in ghosts (another one). Don't you think there's a basic inconsistency in denying the validity of others' (religious) faith while seemingly having turned your own views into conviction?
Don't get me wrong - I think your reasoned position is far more coherent than a religious one, but that only means you're probably right. To claim that you're certainly right undermines your own argument.
At least, I think it does...
Let's simplify. Do you think the view that "there probably isn't a God" is an intellectual cop-out - or is it a rational position?
P.
(and poor old Jade! OK, she's pretty thick, but I never heard any suggestion that she's taken in by religion, or that she's intolerant in a malicious way. The problem with democracy comes down to DNA's 3 spaceships - the iffy group's the middle group. Not those who can't think, or those who can think, but those who think they can think)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 35
><snip>"for now"
...So you (H) believe that science will solve everything, given long enough?
For a given value of "everything", yes.
> What about... Heisenberg...? Maybe that observation is pedantic,
It is!
Heisenberg (and come to that, chaos theory) prevents a future where science can PREDICT everything. And since one of the fundamental powers of science is its ability to predict (eclipses, earthquakes and the weather, etc.) that's a pretty big limitation. But nothing fundamentally stands in the way of a future where science can look at any observed event in the past and explain it. Is that so bad?
>but I don't think I want to believe in a universe where everything is explicable. I like the later "comfortable with the gaps" slant on this much better.
There will always be gaps in our knowledge *of the future*. There will not necessarily be gaps in our knowledge of the observed past... if we get that far. I don't have a problem with that. There are a lot fewer gaps now than there were two hundred years ago, but a LOT of people seems quite happy completely ignoring that hard-won information and just going on being superstitious. This will continue to be an option.
>As long as television companies keep making documentaries about ghosts, it's going to be an uphill struggle.
...There goes this certainty thing again. First you're categorically an atheist (a philosophical position of absolute certainty).
Well, I'm absolutely certain I'll be devout Christian the very minute someone presents me with some evidence for the existence of that god that doesn't boil down to "someone else told me he exists and I believe them", "it says so in this book" or "I just KNOW it". My "certainty" comes from, among other things, education in strongly religious church schools, not a single member of staff of which could provide any convincing reason for believing in a god. That included the vicars. Every passing day without any reason at all to believe in a god, any god, makes me more certain - but I'll still change my mind if someone gives me reason to.
>Now the inference is that you don't believe in ghosts (another one).
Correct, I don't believe in ghosts. Introduce me to one, and I'll believe. Introduce James Randi, or Paul Daniels, or Penn and Teller to one, and I'll believe, come to that. (Funny, isn't it, how a lot of serious sceptics of things like faith healing, spoon bending, ghosts and other wacky stuff like that are professional magicians? Usually because they recognise the techniques of stage conjuring being performed by charlatans who claim its for real)
>Don't you think there's a basic inconsistency in denying the validity of others' (religious) faith while seemingly having turned your own views into conviction?
I do not deny the validity of others' faith. I merely point out that it is precisely that - faith. No evidence asked for, and none given. I strongly believe, and state as often as anyone will listen (not often... ), that I would defend anyone's right to believe in leprechauns if they want to. But I don't see any inconsistency at all in my pointing out that a belief in leprechauns is a little, ah, eccentric, while simultaneously "believing" myself in, say, relativity.
There is, I think, a category difference between "believing in" a god, and "believing in" science. Science requires that you believe the evidence. Gods require that you believe DESPITE the evidence. It's a pretty strong difference.
>To claim that you're certainly right undermines your own argument.
Ah, but I don't claim that. All I claim is that my view certainly WORKS. Your kid got leukaemia? Mine too. Tell you what - you try prayer, I'll put my "faith" in chemotherapy. AIDS your problem? Me too. You ask your god for forgiveness, I'll ask my doctor for AZT or whatever. Wife possessed by demons? Mine too. Tell you what, you try an exorcism, I'll get a psychiatrist to prescribe the standard drug treatments for schizophrenia. The weird thing is, one time in ten thousand, your way will work. But I wouldn't bet on it. There's no such thing as a sure thing - but science comes a LOT closer than any religion.
>Let's simplify. Do you think the view that "there probably isn't a God" is an intellectual cop-out - or is it a rational position?
Personally? "There probably isn't a god" seems to me a bit weak. Quite apart from anything else, *whose* god isn't there, probably? There are so damn many of the things knocking about in the past and present belief systems of the world that it's difficult to keep track of them. For instance - do you believe in Odin? Jupiter? Apollo? Shiva? Amaterasuomikami? If you believe in all those, congratulations on covering Norse, Roman, Greek, Hindu and Shinto theologies. A career awaits you as an Electric Monk . If you choose not to believe on ONE of those gods, think about why - and that's most likely the reason I choose not to believe in yours.
More to the point, there's not just no evidence FOR a god, there are perfectly sound reasons why we as a species would concoct the idea, reasons which go far beyond just as a crutch to make ourselves feel better. But I've rattled on at length about the theory of the bicameral mind elsewhere, and it's late and I'm a little tired.
>(and poor old Jade! OK, she's pretty thick, but I never heard any suggestion that she's taken in by religion, or that she's intolerant in a malicious way.
Nor did I imply either of those things. I'm just observing that it's slightly worrying that sooner or later Jade is going to be asked the question "do you want control over interest rates to be passed to a central bank in Brussels, thus depriving the bank of england of the power to control inflation and the chancellor of the exchequer of much of his ability to affect the running of our economy?" - and her answer will MATTER. But, like I said, that's democracy, "the least worst electoral system in the world", as Churchill put it.
>The problem with democracy comes down to DNA's 3 spaceships - the iffy group's the middle group. Not those who can't think, or those who can think, but those who think they can think)
I love that idea - although I think the real problem with democracy is that *nobody* really knows anything!
Anyway, it's late...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Element
Post: 36
fiction - all available data points to this
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by kirriea
Post: 37
i have no idea whether god is fact or fiction but my view is that if it is fact, it is not an entity i'd chose to worship. if it happened the way it says in the bible then i dont consider GOD to be a particularly nice being. as an all powerful all seeing all knowing deity doesnt it strike you as a little odd that he did not forsee the whole apple/serpent thing? which leads me to believe we are part of some cruel experiment(if GOD exsists)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 38
So you're not absolutely denying the existence of a God. Instead you're asserting that there is no logical necessity to assume a God, and therefore he doesn't exist, because he needn't exist.
You've got me wondering whether everything that exists is necessary to explain something else. Isn't that Kierkegaard, or somebody?
I'm gonna leave this one here, and Lurk around waiting for Hoovooloo to say something else somewhere else that I can really disagree with.
Maybe that's a bit ambitious. Let's aim for something I can actually understand, for starters.
See ya!
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 30, 2002 by em's
Post: 39
ok say you take a block of wood an chuck it. i agree its gonna make a loud "BANG" but it aint gonna make a table! you get me... i dunno but the whole big bang thing dont work for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 30, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 40
I do get you, emmm's. This is a common Creationist argument. It's often phrased to include the image of a tornado blowing through a junkyards and spontaneously building a jumbo jet.
Now, OBVIOUSLY that's nonsense. But the REASON it's nonsense isn't the idea of complex structures arising spontaneously from simplicity. The reason it's nonsense is that that kind of thing doesn't work on a scale you can see. The building blocks of jumbo jets don't spontaneously attach themselves together in regular, useful form if they just happen to pass close enough to each other. BUT ATOMS DO.
Like you say, if you chuck a block of wood, it isn't going to make a table.
But the weird thing is, if you "chuck" atoms together, they DO just make tables. Or rather, big, complex molecules. That's how chemistry works. It's against common sense, because common sense is based on what you can SEE, and you can't SEE chemistry going on. If you could, you'd most likely be complaining that you can't make a table by throwing a block of wood...
It's a deeper understanding of the physical and chemical mechanisms underlying things like reproduction and photosynthesis that means that the "gaps" people use a god to explain are narrowing all the time. Anyone who's still protesting that order can't spontaneously arise from disorder is deliberately ignoring widely available and provable facts, for some reason.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 30, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 41
Well, I guess since I'm here I might as well stand up and be counted. *Deep breath* I'm a Christian.
And I'm a rather old-school one. That is, I believe in one God, formed of the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that (though the evolutionary process) he created the universe and then the human race. I believe that he appeared as an incarnation on Earth 2000+ years ago, lived and then died to forgive our sins, bringing us into relationship with him.
I want you all to know something else. I think of myself as relatively intelligent. I have a Bachelor's degree in English, a minor in Sociology, an IQ of 135 and I've done a lot of reading and philosophizing in my 24 years on this planet.
I'm not here to fight with anyone, but to simply tell another side of the story. A side where I believe in the teachings of Jesus... loving your neighbors, not worrying about tomorrow, trusting in something greater than yourself, being slow to anger. Yes, I know most if not all people fall short, but I still want to keep trying. Because I believe it's right to try and take care of other people.
I may disagree with Agnosticism and Atheism, but that doesn't mean I have no respect for people with those beliefs. I just don't think they're right. If you want to know more about why I believe what I do, or want to debate, I'll be happy to do so. But I'd ask anyone who wants to talk to be polite and respectful. Flaming won't get anyone anywhere.
Peace.
-Eagle1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 42
I was where you are now. I was a Sunday School teacher and a deacon in the church. I believe in God and Jesus but I do not believe the whole Bible. I did at one time. I do not need the Bible to believe in the living God. There has been so many changes to it. For one, there are three books which have been taken out of it. One being the Book of Thomas which would probably abolish all religions. Plus I went through hell by so called Christians when I came out as being homosexual. I was told God hates homosexuals. The word homosexual did not come into the Bible till the mid-19th centuary. You told us of your qualification. Why don't you look into the history of the Bible. I think you will be very surprised. Be happy. God is love
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by EggsER
Post: 43
Maybe earth seems pretty bad if you look at it's faults but it has it's beauty too. That's one of the things the H2G2 points out over and over. There may be better places and there are probably worse places. I am a Christian who believes the difficulties in this world are the result of the choices Man makes, not God. Famines, disasters, etc are the result of what we mess us or expect to be protected from. If we are part of a natural world we must accept that nature is not always kind and forgiving. God created a perfect world and gave man the ability to choose (hense not totally controled by instinct). I am NOT a fundamentalist so I don't pretend that we need to count the days it took to create, or argue over the big bang. The real message is how do we treat each other and do we really take care of the world we are part of? Do we accept that life will be hard for some and easy for others. Only magical imaginary Gods would create a beautiful world and then change it. We are living in a great experiment and some of us suffer. It comes with one guarantee, our bodies will die eventually as all living things do. Some of us believe there is a part that continues on but that doesn't mean that we are excused from responsibility to the world we were all given to care for. Sorry if this sounded like a sermon.
Peace and beauty are what you want them to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 44
Why can't people believe in themselves and be done with it. Or are we brain washed so much as children to believe in God someone better than us. That we have been made to feel inferior towards ourselves. And brought up to believe in this hell place where we will toast if we don't believe in God. Is that why people believe in God because of their fear of the unknown?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 45
Believe in ourselves? Not inferior? Have you seen what happens when the masses try to worship the Self or the State, or anything else associated with something specifically human-made and not something seen as superior to us? Communism and Fascism come to mind. And before anyone starts in about Communism, it doesn't work as a system because of human greed and ambition.
Why is it bad to be humble and fearful about unknown consequences when it comes to unethical behavior? If it weren't for religion, it seems like far from the utopia that Marx envisioned, it would be a pit of State-endorsed opression or a chaos of human Id run amok.
This is just one opinion, of course, but there you have it. Take it for what it's worth.
-Eagle 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 46
"Have you seen what happens when the masses try to worship the Self or the State...?"
Good point.
I've asked you this question, personally, Eagle1, but it bears asking to a wider audience. I agree that worshipping the Self or the State leads to undesirable consequences due to human greed and ambition - your examples are good ones.
That same human greed and ambition leads to undesirable consequences of worshipping a god - consequences like the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burnings, and September 11th. All the result of "religion" being twisted by people for their own ends.
So - I agree worshipping the Self is bad. I agree, worshipping the State is bad. I further think that worshipping a god is bad. In fact, I think "worshipping" *anything* is bad.
So here's the question - why "worship" anything?
[interjection here: the definition of "worship" is "to show profound devotion and respect to; adore or venerate" or "to be devoted to and full of admiration for". Something I can understand doing to your parents, partner or close friends - but why anyone/anything else?]
What is it with some people that they feel the need to worship *something*, and feel the need so strongly that (from my perspective) they have to invent something that they can't see?
If you think God is a fact - why? Endlessly curious about people's answer to this question.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 1, 2002 by Beegle
Post: 47
As for my answer a resounding "or" would echo... this being from the fact that we only had three options initially, that in itself constraining opinions. The fact there will always be fiction and that some fiction will be construed as fact is unavoidable (the beloved BBCs Spaghetti tree April fool some years ago a good example of fiction misconstrued as fact by many). My own opinion is that religious texts were just a few stories slapped together while someone tinkered with the TV set theory. I also firmly hold the belief that we are not alone in the vast expanse of space... so when the first off-worlders come to say hi (or invade unflinchingly) will those who believe in gods, call the off-worlders gods or call on their omnipotent being to save them? this must be their question... they want god back, but if (and i emphasise that word) god existed would they recognise the sod anyway? i mean if the only omnipotent being in the world turned out to look like a half eaten pilchard would you worship it? and on top of that if it was omnipotent could it create a rock so heavy that it couldn't then pick it up itself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 1, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 48
I did not say worship yourself, I said believe in yourself and do things to help yourself. To believe in yourself (not worship) makes you a better person and more understanding of other humans. I have met some of these so-called Christians and they can be very nasty people. They don't worry about the state of the world because God is going to give them a new one. That's like slapping God in the face and telling him his creation of the first world was not good enough. Some of them also believe they are in the world but not part of it. The fact is we are. We, and everthing else in the universe, are made of star dust. Plus if an atomic bomb was dropped everything on the planet would be dissolved. Then where would religion and Christianity be? Be happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 1, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 49
-What does believing in yourself have to do with making you a better person?
-Being in the world but not of it doesn't mean what you think it does. It means doing your best to act out the characteristics of the Christian faith without being pulled into any Biblically immoral behavior.
-I understand that you may not have had a great experience with Christians, but just know that quite a number of us are not like that at all. I don't think I'm nasty or hypocritical, for instance.
Right, time to head home.
-Eagle 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 2, 2002 by EggsER
Post: 50
If you read C.S. Lewis's book, "The Great Divorse" you will see a different view of how some of us believe Hell is choosen. We are not banished to desolation, we freely choose it. Obviously not all Christians feel that way but I do and there are more. I think we all need to believe in something, sometime. My husband likes science better than a religious being. I like science for information, theory etc but it offers no moral guidance. I remember when the medical profession (suposedly they are scientific) said nothing about the potential harm of tobacco. Dams are built to save water to irrigate crops and pesticides were sprayed to get rid of mosquitoes with yellow fever. All turned out to have devastating effects just as religious ideas turn out all wrong sometimes. Still we keep working at fixing the parts we see as mistaken. I see to many young people who have no hope. All they seek is a new thrill or excitement or diversion. When I was a teen we had a purpose. To give back to life what we had been given and more. If science helps someone find that goal it's great as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 2, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 51
Being ill with a nervous breakdown and being in hospital for a while came from my not believing in myself. Doctors taught me to believe in myself again. Strangely enough it was an evangelical church and their paranoia that helped put me into hospital. I was different and I asked questions and did not agree with a lot of their beliefs. They did not like that. Now, through the help of the doctors, yes I am starting to believe in myself again. I do believe in God but not the Christian God. The God I believe in is a loving and caring God. Not a God who gives you a will of your own, then toasts you for eternity for using it. He is not judgemental. We are as He created us. I do not believe in Hell or a so called Satan. Religion made a game out of them. This soul is mine and that soul is yours. According to religion Hell is going to be a busy place. For a while I stopped believing in any kind of god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 2, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 52
"For a while I stopped believing in any kind of god."
Why did you start again? Was your belief in yourself not enough? (just curious, and honestly interested in your answer, see post 46 above)
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by Zagreb
Post: 53
I'm agnostic, so I don't know the answer to the question. Like everyone else in the world if they were honest with themselves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by Runner
Post: 54
Is it necessary for God to exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 55
...Hang on, I'll ask him...
...No...I'm afraid he seems to be being omnipresent somewhere else at the moment...
...Can we get back to you on this one?
*click*
(In the meantime, why doesn't someone from the Pro-God Tendency just answer Hoovooloo's Question?!?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 56
God is: objective fact. "Since what may be known about God is plain to them [men], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:19,20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 57
Eh?
"God is: objective fact."
I think you may have a rather different definition of "objective fact" than most of the rest of the English-speaking world. Or possibly a different definition of "God". Could be either. Care to elaborate? Honestly interested by what you mean by that.
The quote you supply is objective proof of the fact that some guy wrote those words down once and they've been preserved and translated since then. It's objective proof of nothing else.
""Since what may be known about God is plain to them [men], because God has made it plain to them."
So far the only thing God has made plain to *me* is that he doesn't exist. (This is a joke)
"For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen"
Sorry, say that again? "God's invisible qualities...have been clearly seen"? Er... if the qualities are invisible, that means you can't see them. If you can see them clearly, that means they aren't invisible. Not a complicated concept, really.
"being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:19,20."
Men are without excuse, because they can *clearly* SEE the invisible. This was written by a guy nearly two thousand years ago, and that is the reason you think God's existence is an objective fact? Baffled.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by *** NEW UPDATED NON-MODERATED PROFILE *** Xaero - Keeper of the Hyperintellegent Shades of the Colour Blue.(1*9/9+6)*(-2+8)=42
Post: 58
All religions agree on some issues but disagree on others. most of them suggest things we know cannot be right.
eg. christianity - the garden of eden/creation story doesnt seem to explain dinosaurs.
i think all the religions suggest that something made the world to see what happened, and that we should all be nice to each other, because we have nothing to lose by doing this and there are bribes eg. heaven.
i have read the bible, torah and koran. i have also read parts of the guru granth sahib and the book of the dead.
xaero
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 59
Doesn't "God" flow thru all of us equally? No matter how one chooses to worship or not . Western Religions were born out of Zoroastrianism. This is what the Ancient Greek Aristocracy feared more than anything from the Persians was monotheism. It took the power of god and gave it to the masses. Of the three western religions mentioned above the word of christ is the only one that speaks of non violence. I don't believe you will find anything in the word of christ that justifies the use of violence in any shape or form. Christ did not seek power or control. Gandhi told Churchill that this is what he used to get independence from the UK. The Crowns own belief system. Strangely the major eastern religions Hinduism and Buddhism and there belief system were brought there by the Aryan. The chinese and communism go well together because of confucianism.
The violence in the world is not from god but from man. There are religious leaders around the world teaching hatred and violence in the name of god. The justification for teaching this to childern is purely baseless. The terrorism in the world is born from these teachings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 60
TheMelvin:
"I don't believe you will find anything in the word of christ that justifies the use of violence in any shape or form."
Matthew, Ch 18, v8: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.!
Matthew again, 10:21 "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
Matthew again, 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
All from just the one Gospel. All of these you could use, if you wished, to justify maiming, fratricide, infanticide, war and killing of unruly children. But then again, Jesus had odd ideas about a lot of things.
"Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" : Luke, 10:21. In other words, "thank you God, for making sure that only really naive and stupid people get my message". I'm flattered by this verse - I must be "wise and prudent", eh?
You also said: "The violence in the world is not from god but from man." Right on. Except the excuse given for a lot of the violence - is god. Is that perhaps the real reason people worship a god? To justify their violence or indifference to others?
H.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Zagreb
Post: 61
The quotes you attribute to Matthew, Hoovaloo, are not from Christ but from a book of the Bible. That's quite a different kettle of fish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 62
Call me incredibly dense if you must... but TheMelvin wrote:
"I don't believe you will find anything in the word of christ that justifies the use of violence"
So, Zagreb - I'm on the edge of my seat. I'm desperate to know... if one wants to know what the word of Christ is, and the Bible is not a reliable source:
(a) why are they called Gospels?
(b) why does every Christian minister in the world keep banging on about them as if they bear some relation to some stuff that Christ actually might have said once and
(c) if you can't get the word of Christ from the GOSPELS in the BIBLE, where on earth CAN you get it from?
Those passages were, in every case, alledgedly verbatim reports of things Jesus actually SAID. Some of them appear in more than one of the Gospels - so there's possibly even (incredibly rare for the Bible this) - *objective* corroborating evidence that the guy did actually say these things. I did not attribute those quotes to Matthew. Matthew attributed those quotes to Jesus in the Gospel. People might disagree on the status of Jesus as messiah, or prophet, or nutter. But if you're going to say that I can't refer to the Bible to quote what Jesus taught, we're going to have a hard time debating anything at all on this subject.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 63
Probably my brain washing as a child as I came from quite a religious background, being part of an evangelical church the scars it leafs can be quite daunting. So believing in a none Christian God helps me live with the scars, and gives me someone to talk to when I'm alone. Maybe once the psychiatrist is finished with me I'll believe in myself more and not need anything to talk to when I'm alone. Plus when you talk to God nothing comes back on you. Alright I'm probably talking to myself, But what the hell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 64
Message 63 is my answer to Hoovoolo. From Semaj.Maud'dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 65
Gotcha Semaj, no prob. Threads have a way of running away like that. Thanks for the response.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 66
Hoovooloo
If we are reading from the same King James version:
Matthew, Ch 18, v8: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.!
This is not suggesting you bring harm to any one but yourself.
Matthew again, 10:21 "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
This is not Christ saying to put brother child parent to death but that people will be put to death for believing in his word.
Matthew again, 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Where is this saying anything about violence?
Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
This is a good example of the teachings of christ. This he is speaking to the Pharisees and is the Pharisees tradition not the word of Christ. Christ is not suggesting anyone one should be put to death.
Christ challenges the Pharisees and there interpretation of the word of God the father. Christ challenges the Pharisees and the use of justified violence in the name of the father.
" Except the excuse given for a lot of the violence - is god. Is that perhaps the real reason people worship a god? To justify their violence or indifference to others?"
This is just what Christ refutes in his teachings. Christ is not god. Christ is the conduit to salvation.
I don't mean to sound like some bible thumper here. I am not particularly very pious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 67
"If we are reading from the same King James version:"
I think we are
""...if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off"
This is not suggesting you bring harm to any one but yourself."
That's a lovely idea... (well, actually, it's not, it's suggesting self-harm is a good idea, but we'll skip lightly over that...) BUT what is a pious Christian to do if he sees his neighbour NOT cutting off his hand, or foot? It doesn't take much of a leap of logic to go from cutting off your own hand for your own good, to cutting off your neighbour's hand for *his* own good. Easily justified...
""And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death"
This is not Christ saying to put brother child parent to death but that people will be put to death for believing in his word."
OK, I accept that one. One all?
"Matthew again, 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Where is this saying anything about violence?"
Erm... what are swords for? Legalistically, I would characterise this as language suggestive of incitement.
"Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
...Christ is not suggesting anyone one should be put to death."
I agree... in context, this is Christ defending himself against accusations of not following tradition. The Pharisees criticise his disciples for not washing before eating. Jesus retorts that the Pharisees don't kill unruly children, and calls them hypocrites for it. Now, that's a good way of making a point - but you COULD use it to justify violence. I'm not suggesting that that justification would be valid, but that wasn't the question.
" Except the excuse given for a lot of the violence - is god. Is that perhaps the real reason people worship a god? To justify their violence or indifference to others?"
"This is just what Christ refutes in his teachings. Christ is not god. "
Hmm. Then what of:
John, Ch1, v1? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Jn.1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
Jn.10:30-31 "I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."
Jn.10:38-39 "The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him."
Col.2:8-9 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
All of which seems to imply that Christ *is* God. But wait!
Jn.8:40 "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God."
1 Tim.2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Which would seem to back up your assertion that Christ is NOT God. Tricky thing, believing the Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of an infallible omniscient creator, isn't it?
"I don't mean to sound like some bible thumper here. I am not particularly very pious."
Cool! Neither am I.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 68
Hoovooloo
Remember also that much is also lost in translation from the Aramaic. For example which of coarse in my unpiousness I can not locate the exact verse but it has to do loosely quoted: "To believe in him(Christ) you must hate your mother and your father" this is a poor translation from the Aramaic. The truer translation should read to believe you must set aside your mother and your father. This no doubt leads to most of the confusion in the world. Poor understanding thru translation.
Peace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 69
Hoovooloo
I think what Zagreb meant is what I responded. That the text you quoted is not what Christ says but what the old testament says. And as I suggested it is Christ that refutes alot of what and how the old testament is interpreted by the Pharisee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Miss quixotic
Post: 70
Excellent, hopefully I will become a prominent figure in the debating circle; I love debates purely because it emphasizes the fact that I am always right! Anyway for my inarticulate ramblings on this topic I will state the case that God is fact, to believers, and fiction to sceptics, understandably there are valid arguments for both, and by the way, hell does not exist, it is pure fiction, I have read the bible and there is no statement saying that you will be condemned to hell if you have been naughty, and yes, you will still get your Christmas peasants if you have murdered (everyone has murdered, even if it was an ant in childhood) anyway, I digress, God, is not a fact, if you take fact to mean an idea, or object which can be currently scientifically proven, but the existence of Jesus is a fact, as the Romans inscribed his name, and death date on his tomb stone, this artefact has been discovered, and thus, I will not begin a long, draw out struggle of weather or not God is a matter of fact or fiction, unless, or course, people take an interest in this entry, and as I am always right, wish for my honourable intervention in this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by em's
Post: 71
so was jesus gods son then ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 72
Um... TheMelvin:
You said:"the text you quoted is not what Christ says but what the old testament says"
I said, in fact I quoted: "Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
Last time I checked, the Gospel according to Matthew was in the New Testament, and verse 4 of chapter 15 purports to be a verbatim report of something Jesus said to the Pharisees. We can debate what he meant if you like, but this was a quote from the NEW Testament.
As for things being lost in the translation, are you serious? Are you actually saying that bits of the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously or read literally because the divinely inspired infallible Word of God has been imperfectly recorded?
Because once you start to pick and choose which bits of the Bible that you, an imperfect human, deem to be meaningful and acceptable, and which bits you are happy to write off as not meaning what they say because of translation errors, aren't you just saying that the Holy Bible is just like every other extremely old and unreliable patchwork of semi-historical, semi-fictional documents of debatable authenticity? Either it's the word of God himself, and therefore it's ALL true, even the bits that contradict the other bits, OR it's ALL up for grabs and you can take anything you like the sound of and just ignore the inconvenient bits and say they were badly translated. Me, I'm for ignoring "that shalt not covet thy neighbour's ox", because my neighbour's got a really *cool* ox, you know?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Runner
Post: 73
I am surprised and confused by Christians pointing to the King James Bible of proof of anything. Apart from, as mentioned above, translation issues (doesn't the Aramaic for virgin also mean young woman?), many parts of the book have been written, rewritten, deleted and altered in order to justify vested interests, religious or otherwise. For instance, there are many contradictions between the old and new testaments, not least the idea that Jesus is God. Didn't the Jews of old (and present, I guess) believe that the Messiah is just a man? Isn't this what's stated in the Old Testament? Forgive me for not being able to provide a reference. I saw a programme on the Dead Sea Scrolls once, and a Bible scholar, talking generally, said the easiest way to tell what bits of the New Testament are made up is to see what prophesies of the Old Testament are 'met' in the New Testament. These are all bogus.
My QPR programmes say that Rangers are the best team in the second division and bound to go up. And all my QPR-supporting friends agree. So does that make it fact?
And regardless of what it says in the Bible, surely an important aspect of religion is the impact it has on the actions of the followers of that religion (isn't that the point?)? Well, looking at the state of humanity today, and the last 2000 years, religious types haven't exactly made a good job of it, have they? Of course, I expect Christians to point to the Devil or the original sin or whatever to explain away the obvious, but considering most of the brutual, barbaric acts in the last two millenia have been done specifically in God's name, by explicitly religious people. So what's wrong? Why all the prejudice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 74
Hoovooloo
"Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
Yes this is a statement from the New Testament.
And Yes that is what I am saying. They did a shoddy job translating from the original Aramaic. Go figure. ;>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 75
TheMelvin:
"And Yes that is what I am saying. They did a shoddy job translating from the original Aramaic. Go figure."
What's amazing is *not* that the translation job is shoddy - that's obvious. What's amazing is that, knowing that, and knowing the myriad contradictions, failed prophecies, barbaric laws, absurdities, historical inaccuracies, intolerance, injustice and just general ghastliness of it all, that anyone chooses to base a large part of their inner life and behaviour on its contents. Go figure THAT.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Zagreb
Post: 76
Hoovaloo,
The Bible is not the "word of Christ" it is a collection of Christian writings that was compiled at the council of Nicea in the 4th century under the orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Many of the writings were left out, as the Roman bishops thought them "unsuitable". It was only turned into the "word of God" by the established Church. It is infamously contradictory, that's why the Roman Catholic clergy got nervous when the Protestants insisted on translating it into non-Latin languages. They thought the ignorant rabble would pick it to pieces. They needent have bothered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 77
Hoovooloo
The crux to it is that the faithful are very much unaware. It is only relatively recent that 1. Services are not done in latin 2. That people on a whole even know how to read.
What Christ had to say is not what the problem is but the people that get in the way of interpreting his word.
Zoroaster kept it simple. Be kind to your neighbor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 78
Runner
This statement: "And regardless of what it says in the Bible, surely an important aspect of religion is the impact it has on the actions of the followers of that religion (isn't that the point?)? Well, looking at the state of humanity today, and the last 2000 years, religious types haven't exactly made a good job of it, have they? Of course, I expect Christians to point to the Devil or the original sin or whatever to explain away the obvious, but considering most of the brutual, barbaric acts in the last two millenia have been done specifically in God's name, by explicitly religious people. So what's wrong? Why all the prejudice?"
Goes back to what I originally said concerning the state of affairs in the world today when I said "The violence in the world is not from god but from man. There are religious leaders around the world teaching hatred and violence in the name of god. The justification for teaching this to childern is purely baseless. The terrorism in the world is born from these teachings" Until the community that this hatred is being taught faces up to the problem within their clergy and the evil that they are teaching things will not get any better but will spiral even worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 79
I had this reply in another forum elsewhere about religion. Seems to fit here.
The guy was trying to tell me that the books that didn't make the final cut for the bible at the Council of Nicea were merely paint scratches and meant nothing.
"And I would offer this one last thing. If all you've read about Jesus begins and ends at the bible, you have a biased view. You read what revision after revision has filtered. You read a watered down version of Jesus. I say this without fear because the Diaspora-later to become Christians were not the only ones to have ideas about what Jesus said(did not say) and what is written about him. The earliest dissenters from the established Christian faith as we know it, were the Gnostics. In fact, one of their bishops, Valentinius(I believe that is his name, I'll check should anyone be curious) was martyred/murdered because of his beliefs about Jesus.
"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you"
--the Gospel of Thomas.
It was the belief that the Kingdom of God was within each and every one of us, that lead to his death. And this is only one of many things that Jesus has in the Apocrypha and Nag Hammadi codices that the established church of Christianity killed to surpress.
"The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
--Gospel of Thomas"
The other guy is telling me that Jesus was not a revolutionary for his time.
"You've said that Jesus came to tell the Jews they were doing everything wrong. The Jews followed their laws, they way the always had. Prophecy spoke of Jesus(or someone else, depending on your inclination) coming to be the King of the Jews. Prophecy never said he would come and force them to change traditions they had maintained over centuries.
An example?
Ok. How about sacrifice?
Abolished because of Jesus.
Don't dismiss this out of hand. Sacrifice was man's tithe to god in atonement for his sins. Abraham was ready at one point to offer his own son in tithe to God. Sacrifice is serious business. And now, on the word of Jesus, the only way to get atonement from god is through Jesus. This is a 180 turn ladies and gentlemen and I'm telling you, the people couldn't have viewed as anything other than revolutionary.
Jesus's ideas were revolutionary. Believe it. It wasn't just an elite few that clamored for his death."
And now to the violence part that some of you were talking about. Taken from the Apocrypha of the bible.....
"Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes"
"Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."
--Gospel of Thomas"
There is more in this vein, but it serves to point out that ther is moe to this Jesus guy than people think. Particularly if they get all their info from just one book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 80
Also should anyone be curious I had an interesting conversation with della about this stuff, check out the conversation here......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F71014?thread=150374&skip=0&show=20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 81
people who discard religion as wrong are wrong - there may or may not be truth in it, which cannot be determined from a strictly philosophiocal point of view.
people who say 'all christians believe the bible is truth' are also wrong - many are moderate christians weho see the bible as a book with some guidelines in and a lot of rubbish and a lot of contextual and hostorical chaff to be got through. those christians who say that the bible is true in its entirety are very wrong. and have the wrong end of the stick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Runner
Post: 82
Yes, quite interesting thread. Personally, I am quite strongly of the belief that religion's primary raison d'etre is political, regardless of whatever the motivation of its (human) creators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 83
RE: post 66
"Christ is not god."
Whoa, major point here. Christ is God, the Son. He could not have atoned for the sins of the world and therefore have been "the conduit to salvation" if he wasn't. There's no point in believing in him if he is not God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 84
RE: post 81
The bible IS true in its entirety. "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Timothy 3:16 The consequence of this: Scripture is infallible, since God is perfect. And it does say "ALL."
I know that this is a major point, so I'm ready for a debate here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 85
RE: post 57
Objective: "of or having to do with a known or perceived object, as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking."
God: The "I AM WHO I AM" or "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." The one who was and is and is to come.
The whole point here is that God is, and that doesn't need explanation.
You dislike the fact that I refer to the Bible, which is the Word of God, written by men divinely inspired. How else could so many who did not know each other write about God and always make him out to be the same as the others? To what do you appeal to make your arguments, besides your own beliefs?
"Invisible qualities" means uncommunicated properties, i.e. those aspects of God which he did not give also to man when he created man in his image. Invisible meaning not seen on earth. Besides, you're using the word 'seen' equivocally: it can mean more than just "perceiving with your eyes," you know.
Rome existed two thousand years ago; do you not believe in it? You have committed the fallacy of chronological snobbery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 86
We are all Gods children. Just as Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 87
Children?....or parts of the same thing?
Sometimes I think Children was used because the truth was either unacceptable to most people or the words simply don't exist to explain the reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by shagbark
Post: 88
Most Scientists will admit the Universe had a beginning.
If so what is so hard about admitting that it also had a creator?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by AlecTrician...[**=] [>+<] just part of the weitverzweigteswurzelwerk ...Five More Years Tony?? WOOHOO!!
Post: 89
Just look around you...
Does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that all this happened by accident.
The evidence for creation is right under our noses all the time.
shagbark
alec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 90
oh no.
the point is that just cos the bible says it is true, and i know it fdoes, doesnt make it true.
what if i claim to be the messiah? who is there to say im not? if i wrote it down and called it scripture that doesnt make it true does it.
the bible has many contradictions and wrongnesses in. pi = 3, it says at one point. the gospels dont agree with each othe r(jesus attacks the temple at the end in matthew mark and luke, but he does it at the start of john)
some of it is true, but not all of it
especially as we have a letter (from eusebious) from about the 3rd century AD which says that at that time Paul's letters were not the word of God, but merely the word of a good man. thus, if the canon has not always been considered canon, how can it all be definitionally true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 91
my own view is that cos everything has a cause, the universe must have a cause too - we dont know what it is. it may, or may not be a God. but if it is a God, he does not intervene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Flying Monkeys.....
Post: 92
Well, you've succeeded, and it looks as if both sides of the argument have been presented. I think, personally, that religion is different for everyone (even if they both go to the same church) because it implies faith in something, and faith means taking a leap into the unknown and, therefore, into your own soul. To have faith in God, you have to have faith in you first. It wouldnt make sense to believe in God and think you're helpless.
Personally, I'm comfortable with God where He/She/It/They forgive mistakes and teach people to be better. From me that's important. But, I'm not up for saying that unbelievers go to hell or anything. I think belief has to come from each individual, and we're all different.
Also, a good book that really puts "real" (unquestionable) belief into perspective is called ARENA, by Karan Hancock. It really makes you understand what is asked by christianity. Basically, trust and paience, and both can be good. Or they can be your downfall.
Anna *mystified by what mayhem religion can cause*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Ste
Post: 93
"Does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that all this happened by accident."
Yes, I do. The word "accident" misleads slightly though, things weren't just jumbled up and hey presto! we get the universe. If you replace "happened by accident" with "evolved" (not in the strict biological sense of course) that is more the way things seem to have happened.
Isn't it strange alec, that the evidence that you cite as being for creation is also my evidence against it? From my point of view, the only difference is that I have come to the conclusion from what I have learnt and experienced and you seem to have come to your conclusion despite what you have learnt.
I honestly don't see the need for a creator. He is obsolete.
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 94
but that doesnt mean there isnt a creator. concede that, at least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 95
RE: post 90
Well... I am not interested in arguing with other Christians. I do not believe that it is possible to be a Christian mentally if you don't believe that the Bible is absolutely true, but I see that you know quite a lot about the history of the Bible that I don't, so you may understand something that I don't. I doubt that very much, but shall we agree to disagree, and will you pray about it?
<the bible has many contradictions and wrongnesses in. pi = 3, it says at one point>
No-one knows the exact value of pi. When I say that the Bible is absolutely true, that does not mean that I read it differently than any other piece of literature. Context, syntax, grammar, translation, and the culture of the writers must all be taken into account. Taking all those into account does not make any part of the Bible untrue! The Bible includes poetry, prophecy, history, biography, and many other forms of literature, all of which should be read as literature. It would be stupid to treat it otherwise. Again, reading it as literature still does not make any of it untrue.
<the gospels dont agree with each othe r(jesus attacks the temple at the end in matthew mark and luke, but he does it at the start of john)>
There are two possible explanations for this: 1. There were two separate cleansings, one at the beginning of his ministry, the other at the end. There are different details in both accounts that support this theory. 2. There was only one cleansing, but John placed it at the beginning of his narrative for theological reasons. John is not one of the synoptic gospels, you know.
<especially as we have a letter (from eusebious) from about the 3rd century AD which says that at that time Paul's letters were not the word of God, but merely the word of a good man.>
How is it that you are putting this man's words ahead of Paul's? Paul said that he had been given "surpassingly great revelations." If God can divinely inspire Scripture, he can make sure that the canon is complete, with no excess or omission.
If you put more study into the supposed "contradictions and wrongnesses" in the Bible, you would find that no-one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong. It is interesting that your name rebukes those of little faith. I would encourage you to heed your own warning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Ste
Post: 96
The last bit was a personal opinion so I would only concede a slim, tiny chance that there is one, sneakily hiding away in the dark corners of the holes in our understanding of the universe. But the fact there is no need for a creator to explain everything doesn't *strictly* mean that there isn't one, yes, but it isn't looking too likely now is it?
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 97
RE: post 92
That is a very dangerous outlook to take. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In another place, we are warned not to be fooled by the spirit of this age, but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The spirit of this age is precisely the one that you profess, a subjectivism that says to each his own. True, a relationship with God means knowing him personally, but those who know him all know the same God, and know him to be just the same as all the others who know him.
Another good book that puts "real belief into perspective" is the Bible. You either believe or you don't. End of story.
And you're right about religion. "Religion" is a crutch, a thing of this world, like politics or science. Knowing Christ is what is important, and that is what makes Christianity different from all other "religions:" it is a friendship, not a practice, or in other words, not a "religion."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 98
RE: post 296
Not to you, perhaps. To others of us, it is impossible for it to be otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 99
Sorry, that last should have been RE: post 96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Runner
Post: 100
"Christianity different from all other "religions:" it is a friendship, not a practice, or in other words, not a "religion." "
Try telling that to the Jews, Moors and all the others that Christians have put to the sword in the name of Christ. With friends like those, who needs enemies, right?
And as for quoting the Bible to justify the authenticity of the Bible, well, that's the most moronic (and Mormonic, hehehe) thing I've ever heard. Did thEntity work in Enron's Accounting and Compliance department, perhaps?
And as for pointing to the world around and using that as justification for a creator, well, the nastiest thing on this planet is man, so if we are made in His image, God, as they say, help us!
And what makes you <insert religious sect> right? Don't you ever get the sensation that you've been brainwashed since birth, or become addicted to a drug?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Runner
Post: 101
And "knowing Christ" isn't what's important, even for Christians. It's "not being bigoted but treating all of humanity with respect, regardless" that's important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 102
I don't feel that I've been brainwashed. Go to post 41 for why I don't think that, or go to my space to the more recent of the two conversations for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 103
RE: post 100
The Crusades were perpetrated by misguided Christians, assuming they were Christians at all. Many of them were doing it for the money, not for Christ.
Appealing to the Bible as my final authority is not at all moronic (and I'm not a Mormon). I have discussed this at length in another thread which I don't have a link to right now... I'll get back to you.
Man is fallen. God is perfect.
God makes me right. I don't mean that he makes me always right, I mean that I am sharing his Word. No, I don't feel brainwashed. If I did, do you think I would believe? Perhaps I should ask you whether you ever feel enslaved to sin, whether you do not do what you know is right, but instead do what you know to be wrong, because you have no power for good?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Ste
Post: 104
If you were brainwashed do you think you'd know you were brainwashed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 105
RE: post 101
How is it that you know what is important for me, or Christians in general? Your halfway answer of respect will not save you or anyone else. Besides, can you fulfill even that demand perfectly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 106
RE: post 104
No, and I think that fact reflects more on the person who asked the question, not me, eh?...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 107
The other thread I referred to is here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F27390?thread=190977
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by AlecTrician...[**=] [>+<] just part of the weitverzweigteswurzelwerk ...Five More Years Tony?? WOOHOO!!
Post: 108
i would ask ste that same question...how do you know you haven't been brainwashed by all the evolutionary theories and the so-called 'evidence'
i think that atheism is more of a 'religion' than Christianity, requiring a huge leap of faith.
alec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 109
re. the Crusades:
misguided they may have been, but that was the state of the whole Church in those times. And they were doing it because they believed in it, certainly not for money (those who profited, i.e. the actual organisation of the Church, didn't get its hands dirty.) An example is the Children's Crusade, where many little 'uns went off to fight for their religion, and were of course slain without trace. They were definately not in it for profit.
It seems a very convenient excuse to say 'They weren't Christians'. But they were, if they are to be measured by the average standards of the time (not judged by today's, which of course should never be done when discussing history). It's just that your Church has evolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Ste
Post: 110
It was a joke
I would use a different word rather than "brainwashed". In your question, replace "brainwashed" with "convinced beyond all doubt" and replace "so called 'evidence'" with "multidisciplinary, convergent lines of over a century and a half of solid evidence" and you would probably get an answer. But that's just an opinion isn't it?
I think that anyone thinking that atheism is a religion has a good point, I'd tentatively agree to that, but it requires a leap of logic rather than faith. Any faith placed anywhere is in other people' humanity.
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 111
Atheism is not a religion.
Religions are characterised by faith.
Atheism is characterised by a rejection of faith.
People who characterise atheism as another religion betray themselves as narrow-minded religious people who can't see beyond their deeply ingrained mindset and conceive of other people being different from themselves, actually thinking in a completely different way.
Atheism and religion are not two sides of the same coin. Different religions are two sides of the same coin. Atheism is the recognition that currency and coinage are arbitrary concepts invented by man to deal with our temporary scarcity of resources.
What's scarce now is intelligence and reason. The currency we use to replace it is religion. Not everyone chooses to play along with this game.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 112
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Crusades were first undertaken because Christians were not able to pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Runner
Post: 113
It's no good pointing at Crusaders or anyone else and say they weren't true Christians. What they did WAS in Christ's name, whether they were paid for it or not. And enough Popes/clergy have been dodgy as well. Pope Pius XII all but started the 2ndWW by selling out the Catholic Party in Germany to the Nazis (because he wanted to centralise Catholic power in the Vatican), not to mention allowed millions to die in concentration camps without even saying a word, despite controlling the will of millions of people (source: Hitler's Pope, by J. Cornwell (a Catholic)).
I agree completely that man is fallible. But the only evidence I have for the existance of a God is second hand reports from man. Personally, between believing in an all powerful deity or deities that control the fate of man for reasons unknown, OR believing in man's vivid imagination and the desire to find meaning in this world, I'd rather go for the latter.
The question about me being brainwashed by evolution theory etc. is a valid question. My answer is this; evolution theory presents itself as exactly that - a theory. The theory has been updated since Darwin to take into account further analysis and debate, and indeed, there is more than one evolution theory knocking around (e.g. the aquatic ape theory). Evolution theory has been subjected to review and criticism by scientists and others, with the aim of finding the truth - it's proponants welcome criticism, as intelligent debate sparks deeper analysis which furthers the accuracy of the theory. As I am led to believe, this is common with most scientific research and is known as the scientific method (correct me if I'm wrong). [I don't pretend to understand all of evolution theory, and there's parts of it that I don't necessarily believe in. But just because I can't explain it, or where humanity comes from, or what the meaning of life is (42), doesn't mean I have to invent an explanation, or believe in one at all.]
This differs from theology which essentially does not change, and is not subject to review. Anyone who goes up against the accepted wisdom is trashed in some way (in times past put to the sword by some barbaric means). And who determines what the accepted wisdom is? The clery; the political power of the religion, the folks with most to lose. The only exception to this as I understand it is Buddaism, which has as a central tenet a necessity to question everything.
I am no expert in anthropology or sociology (I can't even spell 'em right!), but I find the human need to create god(s) more compelling than the other way round.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Runner
Post: 114
Re post 105: "How is it that you know what is important for me, or Christians in general? Your halfway answer of respect will not save you or anyone else. Besides, can you fulfill even that demand perfectly?"
which was in reply to post 101: "And "knowing Christ" isn't what's important, even for Christians. It's "not being bigoted but treating all of humanity with respect, regardless" that's important."
I agree that I'm in no position to say definitively what's important for everyone. But if I'm not, then neither are you, so saying "Knowing Christ is what's important" is as meaningless as my rebuttal.
And secondly, what do you mean by 'save'? Do you mean 'save me from the bigoted elitists who think that a belief-set entitles them to inflict their will on others'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Kaz, needed a new start. Moved over here U1025853
Post: 115
It makes a change, I met a bigoted, small-minded druid last night!
He got very upset, when I said that I believed I was Pagan, not Druid afterall, and couldn't give it up. I told him I truely hadn't found out after a few years reasearch, exactly what the difference was between wiccan, druidry and paganism. Which was why I was now calling myself a Pagan.
He said that Druids like to do ritual during the day, wiccans at night, if you upset a wiccan they will blank you, but druid will try to understand you
There was more, but you get the idea, I shall say to him next month, that people have too many bigoted ways of defining pagan subgroups, which is why I'm happy the way I am!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 116
My answer to being brainwashed. Are you Catholic?, are you Protestant?, are you Mormon? Etc. They all believe they are right and their religion is true and they are going to heaven. Why? Because they have been brainwashed by their parents to believe that. I don't believe in hell. People get saved as they call it. Not because they love God but because they are frightened they will go to the very hot place called hell if they don't. I don't believe there is a God of love would be sadistic enough to toast souls for eternity. I have met a lot of lovely people who are not Christian. I have also met nice people who are Christian. I have also met people who are Christian and have been really nasty people. I have not had a bad turn done on me by my non-Christian friends who seem to be very level-headed people. I have had bad turns done on me by Christian people who seem to be very mixed up. They think everything they do, they do it for God. It seems they can't think for themselves, they need God to do it for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 117
Semaj,
Just thought I'd point out that I became a Christian at 20 years old and my parents are both basically Agnostic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 118
Good for anyone who has been allowed to select their own path, whatever it is. I wouldn't say all religions are brainwashing, since it is natural in a survivalist sort of way to want to be the only one in the right. However, there is room for open-mindedness even in the religions which say this (after all, it's what you personally believe so what does it matter to anyone else? or their beliefs to you?)- brainwashing would be someone blindly brought up (by parents or their community, if it is overwhelmingly one-sided there's not much chance of their being different) to believe what is 'right' without ever questioning the authority of those who teach them, examining their beliefs closely or even listening to alternative views. However I can't blame them personally for this, but the conditions that made them that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by em's
Post: 119
Dumb all over yes we are, dumb all over near or far, dumb all over black or white us religious fanatics have not got it right. Saying we all know the story, but dont we make the details sound real gory. So what if they dont like what we got in our book over here does that make em bad ? No but instead we revenge an deploy burn an destroy, did our god say this is the way ? No! is it meant to be this way No! so you see if this carry's on soon they wont be no street for you joggers to jog on our doggys to dog on one day it will be all gone.
do i believe in god ? well lets just say i hope we all go to a better place!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by Chicken
Post: 120
My friend and I came up with this little theory, it mainly applies to people who don't beleive in God and people who are so stuck to their religion that they have no other life to live, no disrespect is to be caused by the follwing I am just posting a message that I have some beliefs in I do respect other peoples religions and cultures and I hope no one gets mad at this:
'The bible is a story book, made up by old men who didnt know what else to do, why should we live by a book of stories? Why should we be told by people in churches what is right and what is wrong? The whoel idea that God created us and the earth in 7 days is highly unlikely and most scietific evidence proves otherwise. I am fed up of hearing "you should live by the 10 commandments" "sin this sin that".
We suggest you pick your own pen and write your own story as you live it!'
NO disrespect what so ever to those who believe in God and the Bible this is just my point of view which I am entitled to as a human being!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 121
aye.
the 10 commandments are pretty universal, and provide an obvious guide to things it's better not to do. (oooh, those graven images!) The rest of it, i.e. things not set in stone and open to multitudes of (mis)interpretation, is best left to the individual and not forced on anyone who might have a different understanding of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 9, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 122
Mandagora. I agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Researcher 200294
Post: 123
A belief in invisible men and/or women living in the sky so that we may justify our continued actions on this planet and simply fulfill our role as humanity? No. We are merely one culture in thousands ... not "advanced", but perhaps mentally damaged.
I'm an animist. How's that?
I might be wrong, but that's my song, so it is written, so it is danced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 124
"my own view is that cos everything has a cause, the universe must have a cause too - we dont know what it is. it may, or may not be a God. but if it is a God, he does not intervene."-uncle henry
What you've just described is called determinism.
However there is a catch. Because you believe that everything has a cause, than there is no such thing as a first cause, nor is there such a thing as free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 125
*arrives on thread a little belatedly*
It seems a little odd that in 124 postings nobody has thought to ask explicitly
1) What do you mean by God?
2) When you say he exists/doesn't exist what do you mean by the term exists?
These may seem like foolishly simple questions, but if by God you mean the Standard Theological Metaphysical Model (incorporeal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc) and by existence you mean that something affects in some way (any way at all) other things that exist, then the STMM is logically at odds with the concept of existing. And if you think otherwise then you mean something different by these terms than I do.
A reflection on the nature of doubt (and therefore of certainty) would also be in order. Why is it that some things are capable only of hypothetical doubt (doubt for the purpose of intellectual exercise), while other things can be genuinely doubted? What makes the difference?
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 126
I think there's a very good reason why people haven't asked the question, "what do you mean by 'god', and what do you mean by 'exist'?"
The question, basically, only has three words in it ("Does God Exist?"), and the only one that most people can agree on a definition of would be "Does".
The problems start right there: those who believe in what they call a god don't necessarily define it in the same way as other people who believe in other gods (or come to that, what they call the same god).
All of the above may define "exist" differently from one another.
Then a third group comes along, who don't believe in any gods at all. They have to synthesise for themselves a definition of "god" from the natterings of all the "believers", since lacking belief of their own they have none of what the believers characterise as direct experience of gods. And lacking that direct experience, they lack belief. And so on.
So they look for proof that gods "exist", in the way they understand existence. Sadly, "proof" seems to be another concept for which those with "belief" have wildly differing definitions, often bearing no relation to anything normally denoted by that word. (I've often thought it would be funny to put a Fundamentalist Christian on trial for a capital crime they haven't committed, and put it to them that the text of "Ulysses" by James Joyce is irrefutable *proof* of their guilt, by their OWN STANDARDS AND DEFINITION OF PROOF. I think they just *might* start to complain about saying "proof" is something written in some old book rather than the evidence of reality if put in that situation, but hey, judge not...)
I think the reason nobody asks for strict definitions is that most of us come to conversations with our own definitions and assume that these are the generally accepted ones. Some people may come to a conversation KNOWING that their definition of "god" is different from most people's, and may take care to make this clear from the outset. Others arrogantly assume that since they've seen the light and KNOW things because of divine revelation, they can just start using the language their way and all the benighted heathens just better learn to keep up or burn in hell for all eternity. Whatever.
Others start from the position of assuming the best of people, and when someone says "ah yes, but he didn't die, he lived on for another 930 years" they assume the person is joking, or being ironic, or any number of other things before they come to the conclusion that the speaker honestly believes it to be the literal truth. It can take some time before it is obvious that you're dealing with a person like that. Once it is obvious, niceties like definitions are really irrelevant, since such a person is obviously so detached from reality - often deliberately so - that there really appears to be very little to be gained by talking to them.
As someone else pointed out, they can have nothing useful to say on the subject, since they are manifestly speaking a different language, albeit confusingly using the same words as we do. But there's no point trying to agree definitions with them, any more than there would be any point trying to agree definitions of "yellow" and "blue" with a blind person. Sure, a blind person could hear the phrase "yellow is electromagnetic radiation between x and y nanometres wavelength, and blue is e-m radiation between these two other wavelengths" and understand intellectually that for a sighted person perceiving a difference is possible - but the CONCEPT will mean NOTHING to them.
In exactly the same way, some believers may, possibly, be able to intellectually process the words "does God exist?" as being an interrogative, but the substance of the question will mean nothing to them, and they are incapable of discussing it in any meaningful way or giving a valid answer.
So, in order to have a conversation at all, it's necessary to pretend that we're all speaking the same language (we're not), and that we're all equally capable of thinking about the question (we're not). Otherwise, no discourse is possible.
With most conversations on this site and elsewhere, the slight differences in people's definitions of things can be a slight barrier to communications - e.g. an American may at first be somewhat perturbed if an English correspondent observes that they aren't themselves until they've had their first fag of the day. But in the majority of cases, such linguistic oddities are slight and easily cleared up - it's difficult to picture an American stating outright that "fag" does NOT mean cigarette and never could, say. But that's exactly the attitude you get from believers. This word means this, and nothing else, and can't mean anything else, ever, for anyone.
There are a number of reasons why conversations like this go on so long. Non-believers read the odd statements of those with belief and are amazed that people who clearly have the mental wherewithal to operate a PC with an internet connection apparently manage to also believe, for instance, people can live for 900 years or more. It's a bit like looking at a road accident - the urge is to say "oh, come on, get real - you don't REALLY believe that, do you? You're kidding, right?". Then, when they appear seriously to believe this stuff, you have to ask why? And the answers are often quite entertaining. Also entertaining is watching them trying to defend the more ludicrous inconsistencies, absurdities and just sheer nonsense on which they base their beliefs.
I do know that the VAST majority of "believers" look at most of their book as a fairy story, and when you say "you don't really believe *this*, do you", the answer is usually "well, no, not really, it's an allegory isn't it? It's not meant to be taken literally." Which is fine. I don't take it literally either, why should they? We can all pick and choose which bits of it to take notice of. I personally like to observe the commandment "thou shalt not steal". It's the people who take it all literally who are the odd ones, and if you ask them for their definitions of "god" and "exist", you won't really get anything useful back, so it's best to just try to maximise their entertainment value by, say, pointing them at things like 2Kings2:23-25 and ask them to explain why children who call bald men "bald head" deserve to be disemboweled by bears.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 127
On the ball as usual H., though I had been hoping for the entertainment value of watching someone "explain" why it is impossible to doubt X when it's quite obvious that millions of us have no trouble doubting X at all. But no doubt you're right; the actual question as asked would have been ignored. Unless someone out there is willing to prove me wrong...
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 128
Besides, the object of a thread like this isn't for one side to convince the other (can't be done). It's to convince the neutrals and waverers.
Also, as a philosopher, I want to make amends for the role of all too many philosophers, especially "philosophers" of religion, in giving credence to such questions. I mean, there are "philosophers" who think the ontological argument should be taken seriously (though they seem to have taken the Fifth on the nature of necessity). The main function of philosophy is (should be) to show how most philosophical questions are in fact pointless. It's understanding why that constitutes enlightenment.
So I say again. It's not the answer to the question Does God exist? that's wrong. It's the question itself that lacks any content.
But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise IF someone can demonstrate where I'm mistaken. Any takers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 129
I keep trying to ignore this thread, but it's kind of compulsive. Here's a suggestion, then :
After about three weeks of occasional tinkering, here's my definition of "God" : something humanity can never understand but which is nevertheless necessary to explain the universe.
The question "Does God exist?" is therefore equivalent to the question "Do we need to accept the existence of something beyond human comprehension in order to explain our universe?"
On this version of the question, I find myself at odds with both Hoovooloo (who seems to believe that science will cover it all in the end) and most of the Christians (who seem to think that they "know" God - which I've just deemed impossible)
I'll make a decisive philosophical position out of agnosticism yet!
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 130
I wouldn't say that I "believe that science will cover it all in the end". But I *do* think that we will one day achieve what someone taller than me once called "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty".
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 131
<Something humanity can never understand but which is nevertheless necessary to understand the universe.>
On a standard use of language you could be talking about the human mind, but not God. Unless you mean understand the existence of the universe. In which case I don't see how it differs from saying We can't explain the existence of the universe. Period.
Necessity and omnipotence are mutually exclusive as explanations.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 132
<We can't explain the existence of the universe>
Yes, that is what I meant. I think it is the same thing, or at least the first part of the same thing.
Now the second part : is it necessary to postulate the existence of some agency to account for this inexplicable phenomemon?
If you say yes, you've accepted the existence of God.
If you say no, you've denied the existence of God.
I'm sure you're going to put me straight on this one too, but this point at least looks fairly clear-cut to me.
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 133
If you say yes, the problem is How do you account for this agency?
If you then say you don't have to, or can't, account for this agency then unless the postulation is genuinely explanatory (ie it contains a logical proof that the agency in question could not have failed to create the universe) then you're really back to saying no, there is no need of an explanation. (Or at least to agreeing that no explanation is going to be forthcoming and the existence of the universe is as far back as explanation goes).
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 134
You can't account for the agency/God. It surpasses your understanding - that's what makes it God.
It doesn't need to be explanatory, genuinely or otherwise. It stands in place of an explanation. That's what God is, isn't it?
Thinking this way is fundamentally different from the "no" answer. The "no" answer is a conclusion that no mystery exists to explain. The "yes" answer is a conclusion that there is a mystery, and accepts that no explanation is humanly possible.
So what use is a God we can't understand, you might ask? Not a great deal if your looking for a prescriptive saviour, which is of course exactly why religions have anthropomorphised God. There should be some important benefits of believing in such a God, though, such as recognition of the limitations of mankind and respect for the rest of life, the universe and everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 12, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 135
The no answer is the conclusion that no EXPLICABLE mystery exists to explain. Together with an explanation of why there is no explanation.
Which is pretty much what Hoovooloo said about defined limits to certainty.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 136
Nope. After several attempts and wanders through the backthread, I still don't get the point you're making here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 137
If the only point of postulating a creator is to explain the universe, then showing that this postulation is not explanatory removes the justification. It's called Ockham's razor.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 138
2,000 years ago, plus, according to the book called the Bible, there was a virgin called Mary gave birth to a son called Jesus. He was God in the likeness of man. The family moved to Nazareth. The next we hear about Jesus is when he was a boy at the temple talking to the high priests. Then he disappears. The next we hear of Jesus is when he is 30 years old being baptized by John the baptist. Then he goes into the wilderness for 40 days, then comes from there and starts to preach. Then he is crucified and is risen from the dead. Three days later he visits his disciples and is then risen into heaven. It says he ascended into heaven and disapeared into a cloud of smoke. Where did he go? At that time people thought heaven was beyond the blue. They also thought the world was flat then, and all the planets went round the earth. Modern technology has changed that. Man has gone out into space and dicovered it goes on for ever and that all our planets go round the sun not the earth. So where are heaven and God? Technology has also discovered that there are 18,000,000 stars to one grain of sand and yet Christians still believe Jesus ascended into heaven. Was the smoke he ascended into from the engine of a spaceship?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 139
A bit ironic to invoke a Franciscan monk to deny the need for God, but let's let that one pass...
I think I get you know, but I don't agree.
<showing that this postulation is not explanatory> is not a fair test.
It's "not explanatory" only in the sense that it can't be explained in terms comprehensible to Man. If you can accept the premise that some things that Man can't understand might just be perfectly real, then you can apply Occam the other way round - if what a God was capable of doing viz-a-viz governing a Universe was explicable in other more mundane terms (accepted Science, for example), then you wouldn't need to postulate God's existence and would discard Him as an unnecessary assumption.
But, on the contrary, Science can't fully explain the Universe, so God has to exist. This is the idea that Hoovooloo found unsatisfactory earlier in the thread, the idea of God existing to account for everything beyond the bounds of scientific knowledge. Sure, it is a bit of a contradiction to acknowledge a God that you're trying to diminish, but how much of a contradiction depends on whether or not you believe that Science will ultimately explain everything.
I happen to believe that Science can never explain everything, and so I have no difficulty in believing in God at this level. God not only exists but will always exist. As Science answers some questions, it uncovers more questions. Man is destined never to know everything.
Of course this leads to a pretty abstract God, one that mainly stands for the idea that Man is limited and should be more careful with his world. Of all the major world religions, I find Buddhism easiest to reconcile. Any religion which proclaims Man as a being in the image of God (thereby deifying ourselves) I find repugnant and indeed downright dangerous.
But I also fear a world of self-assured atheists, because cock-sure humans tend to do such stupid things. That's why I questioned Hoovooloo in the first place. That's why I'd rather believe in a superior entity that somehow judges us, than surrender control to self-avowed "supreme beings" here on earth. Maybe a cop-out, but there you go...
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Runner
Post: 140
"I'd rather believe in a superior entity that somehow judges us"
This tends to lead to people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions ("if I did bad then God will punish me, but as he hasn't, I must have done good"), because there's very little accountability in relying on God to punish you in the next life, and not much in this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 14, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 141
<in terms comprehensible to man..> For humans what other comprehensible terms are there?
<some things man can't understand might be perfectly real> Like conscious awareness, for example. But these things can't include anything that we don't have empirical experience of.
<science can't fully explain the universe> And you won't find a scientist who says otherwise. (Or only rarely - and they're the second rate ones.)
The problem with God as a mere cipher, a something that stands in place of an explanation, is that this is not what religious believers actually MEAN when they use the word.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Apple Adelaide: Cat Woman. Flip the Switch, Froggy!
Post: 142
God = Fact. I'd say more, but I am running out of time and must come back later...By and large, I agree with you, ThEntity, but as I say, I'll be back later.
BTW, I don't accept 'man' as a generic, but that's a subject for another thread...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 143
A fact is a fact (whether true or false) only within a framework of theoretical assumptions. The existence (or non - existence) of god is part of such a framework and therefore is not a fact (true or false), at all. The key questions involve the meaning, coherence and intelligibility of the frameworks.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 144
About 200,000,000 years ago maybe more, there was a single cell organism swimming about in warm, muddy water, which eventually became a Homo Sapiens, (human being). I think there is a mistake when it comes to the creation in the bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 145
Response to Posts #140 (Runner) and #141 (NN)
Yes, people using God as an excuse for a lack of personal responsibility is a bad thing, and it really happens. But I don't agree that being religious particularly invites it. There are secular ideas that are just as bad in this respect. Business scandals in the US have intriguing parallels, for example. A greater entity to whom we are all beholden; anything goes in its service. For Enron executives, say, the greater power is Mammon (in the form of corporate stakeholders) rather than God, but doesn't the logic sound familiar?
God as a cipher : of course that's not what most religious people mean by God. I am not a religious person in that sense. I was explaining the God I believe in, and using Him as an explanation why (in my view) Hoovooloo's ideas (NN's too, probably) won't wash. Science is not an alternative to God. Science is the collective understanding by man of his world, and it's incomplete (I think eternally so). Therefore I reason that there is an agency responsible for my experience of the world, and that agency is implicitly beyond my understanding. This agency I call God. Simple as that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 146
RE:117
oooooooh You rebel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 147
In the beginning there was the Word.
And the Word was with God.
And the Word was God.
Hmmmm. Where Word = Media and God = Power.
Ain't that a fact?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 148
Am I mad?
I think it was Lily Tomlin who said:
"If you talk to God - you are pious, if he talks to you - you are schizophrenic." She was being sarcastic. However, there are many in our culture who believe this, even amongst the outwardly pious. The realisation of this led me to ask;
I talk to gods and spirits on a daily, even hourly basis. I carry on silent (admittedly, mostly one-sided) conversations as I drive, type on the PC, work, eat, look after my children. Am I mad?
I see them in the trees, the rivers, the faces of people, in the light that precedes the dawn, the movement of cats? Am I mad?
I feel their joy within me and their sadness. Am I mad?
I hear their voices in the wind, the babbling of streams, the songs and cries of children. Am I mad?
They surround me as I meditate and as I perform my quiet rituals. Am I mad?
Am I mad to thank Brigidh for the fire in my head, Arawn for his comfort in the face of death, the Green Man for the peace of his forests, Dianecht for the health of my children, and Ceridwen for what little wisdom I possess?
I feel the Awen as I walk in a garden, in a forest glade, by the water's edge, on the hilltop, before my altar. Am I mad? When it is so strong that it makes me gasp and brings me to my knees, am I hysterical?
Quite possibly I am.
But what if I am right?
More importantly, what if I'm wrong?
Blessings,
Matholwch /|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 149
I was going to rectify my mistake last night, but the Internet Cafe system crashed and we had all to leave. I said it was 200,000,000 years ago or maybe more there was a single-cell organism swimming in muddy water. It was actually 3.5 billion years ago (or more)and all life came from that including Homo Sapiens ( human beings).What did God have to do with that? Christians believe the world is only about 17,000 years old, well, the ones I know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 150
Pinniped:
"Science is not an alternative to God."
Didn't say it was. Category error.
"Science is the collective understanding by man of his world, and it's incomplete (I think eternally so)."
We agree. Science is even able to quantify to a high degree of accuracy certain things it is impossible to know. This is not a problem.
"Therefore I reason that there is an agency responsible for my experience of the world, "
Whoah! Hang on. "Therefore"??? You've made and ENORMOUS leap there.
All Cretans are liars, Epimenides is a Cretan, THEREFORE Epimenides is a liar. That follows. That's logic. That's correct use of "therefore".
Uncertainty exists in science, therefore an angency exists which is responsible for your experience? There's NO connection there at all! They're two completely unconnected statements, and you can't put "therefore" between them and make any kind of sense.
Gods, as far as I can tell from what people have been posting on this and other threads, are things people use to explain gaps, stuff they don't understand. These people (YOU people, in fact) seem unable to deal with the concept that actually, the universe doesn't *need* to make sense. It has no obligation to be in any way explicable or understandable to you or anyone else. We've made great strides over the centuries in looking at the world and realising that it appears to follow certain rules, but there's no suggestion that those rules mean anything or come from anywhere - they're just there. The universe is NOT a puzzle with an answer, it's not a jigsaw with some fantastic picture which we could see if we only knew enough. Every bit of evidence we have suggests that we are a tiny, insignificant speck of almost nothing in a universe which *doesn't* make any kind of coherent sense and that we have no hope of ever understanding. The rational approach to this is to try to understand as much as possible, to quantify where possible what we don't know, and to use what we do know to make the lives of ourselves and others as good as possible. The IRRATIONAL response is to assume that there is some overall purpose, some pattern we're just too limited to comprehend, and to imbue that pattern or purpose with divine origins.
Some of the people on this website might possibly have heard of an obscure writer of humour called Douglas Adams. He wrote a book once, I'm told. One of the less well-known jokes in it was the concept that a computer could sit and think about things for a while, and come up with an Answer to Everything, and the punchline is that the Answer could be a simple number, 42. It's quite a good joke, because the possibility that the universe makes so much sense that you can reduce the whole of it to a number is so obviously, mind-bendingly preposterous that you can't help but laugh at the ridiculous characters who believe such a thing is possible.
The even more hilarious thing is that, in the real world, religious people read this joke, recognise the grinding stupidity of thinking that could be such an explanation for Everything and laugh at it - and then, without any sense of irony whatsoever, go to church and/or pray to *their* explanation of it.
One other thing I find slightly funny here - positing an "agency responsible" for your experience of the world. You even SOUND like a paranoid conspiracy theorist!
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 151
I am assuming that we are talking here about more than the Abrahamic monotheistic interpretations of the Divine (i.e. the great grandfather in the sky?). If not, ignore what follows.
It is a common theme amongst the so-called rationalists or scientists in our world that 'we' cannot prove that a god, any god, exists. Therefore it does not.
Hardly good science, or even good logic if I may say so. If this was a reasonable hypothesis then there would be no more developments in science, ever. For if it cannot be proved here and now, then it does not exist, and shall never exist. Such arrant nonsense.
These are the same people who claim we are nothing more than electrically-stimulated, preambulating bags of chemicals. They cling to their little dogmas, such as evolution and the big bang, and are just too scared to think outside the box. Luckily for us most mathematicians are brighter than the scientific community they lead and can think in more than three dimensions.
To such limited people I ask the following:
1. What was before the universe came into existence, and what shall follow its eventual fall? Please do not reply 'nothing', even Isaac Newton wasn't daft enough to fall for that pat answer.
2. If evolution is an absolute, then no creature will evolve features that do not support the reproduction of the species. Should such a mutation should occur then it shall be extinguished within a few generations at least. If so then why has art, song and poetry grown over the past million years and not diminished? What possible evolutionary advantage does the appreciation of aesthetic beauty bring?
3. Why is the personal experience of billions of humans in their daily interactions with various deities and other 'unproven' beings not scientific, yet a statistical sample of political opinion is? And please don't tell me that belief in New Labour's promises is any less ludicrous than religion.
I am Druid (that is your get out clause by the way - I am a certifiable nutter obviously) and as such I am a seeker after truth, many truths. I support good science and believe in the general principles of such theories as evolution, DNA and chaos theory. However, I am opposed to putting on blinkers in my search. I do not discount out of hand the experiences and beliefs of others, just because I cannot find empirical evidence to support them here and now.
So come on you poor blinkered rationalists, throw off your prejudices and be more open-minded. You have nothing to lose because if I am wrong you'll know soon enough (or rather you won't, death being final and all). But if we are right, well that's going to be fun ain't it?
Blessings,
Matholwch /|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 152
Hi Matholwch, welcome to the discussion!
"I am assuming that we are talking here about more than the Abrahamic monotheistic interpretations of the Divine (i.e. the great grandfather in the sky?)."
I think we're *mostly* talking about that, since when people say "god", singular, that's what *most* people think of. Perhaps the subject line "GODS, fact or fiction", would have been more appropriate - but then you'd have had all the Abrahamic god-botherers coming here to say "obviously YOUR fairy story is fiction, whereas MY fairy story is Revealed Truth, and therefore fact", and getting into arguments with other theists, rather than with rationalistsm, which, while it would have been entertaining, would have possibly been less of an interesting debate.
"It is a common theme amongst the so-called rationalists or scientists in our world that 'we' cannot prove that a god, any god, exists. Therefore it does not."
Not strictly accurate I think. What IS a common theme is not that we can't prove it, but that there is not even one shred of evidence for it. I can't, sitting here at my keyboard, prove to you that people have walked on the moon. But there is considerable evidence to that effect, and it is feasible (although incredibly expensive) to prove it beyond doubt, by simply (!) visiting the landing sites.
There is no evidence whatever for the existence of a god, and if you can point to some I should be very grateful. If you can even conceive of some way in which the existence of one *could* be proved, even hypothetically, I'd be interested.
"Hardly good science, or even good logic if I may say so."
Well, we'll see what you know about science in a moment.
"If this was a reasonable hypothesis then there would be no more developments in science, ever. For if it cannot be proved here and now, then it does not exist, and shall never exist. Such arrant nonsense."
I'm glad you think that's nonsense. I think so too. But what you've just described has nothing to do with rationalism or science, and sounds far, far more like Creationism, or some other religious fundamentalism to me.
Science had a theory about the "ether", the medium of space. It was assumed to exist. People tried to measure the velocity of the earth through the ether, and failed. Michelson and Morley did a great service to science by doing a proper experiment and not fudging the results. They did their experiment, with an expectation of a particular result, and when they didn't get it, they said so, loud and clear. That indirectly led to the theory of relativity, one of the great triumphs of twentieth century science. A theory we couldn't prove, initially, at all. But it wasn't derided for being unprovable. To the contrary, it was hailed as genius. And when technology made testing it possible, it passed, every time. That is science. What you're talking about sounds more like religion than anything else.
"These are the same people who claim we are nothing more than electrically-stimulated, preambulating bags of chemicals. They cling to their little dogmas, such as evolution and the big bang, and are just too scared to think outside the box."
Hilarious! What *is* the theory of evolution, if not one of the single greatest leaps of scientific imagination in history? How much further "outside the box" would it have been possible for Darwin to think? The wisdom of literally THOUSANDS of years was that species originated in the Creation and were static and unchanging. Darwin turned the accepted notion of the way biology worked right on its head and Judeo-Christian religion has never recovered. The paradigm-shift was almost unprecedented and the theory, far from being "dogma" as you rather disparagingly refer to it, continues to be modified and refined in the light of new evidence. But the underlying principle continues to fit the facts of reality, inconveniently enough for your argument...
Similarly, Galileo was thinking so far outside the box the church threatened to excommunicate him if he didn't recant. The thinking of most Christians is restricted to a box you can fit a bible in. Rationalists' thinking boxes are limited to the size of the universe, and we admit that we don't know how big that is, other than "bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some..."
"Luckily for us most mathematicians are brighter than the scientific community they lead and can think in more than three dimensions."
Eh? Is there *anyone* who can't? Serious question. And what possesses you to think that mathematicians lead the scientific community? Mathematicians are the mechanics, the greasemonkeys of the scientific community. They make tools for physicists, chemists and biologists, but they rarely soil their hands with anything as inconveniently inexplicable as actual reality.
"To such limited people I ask the following:
1. What was before the universe came into existence, and what shall follow its eventual fall? Please do not reply 'nothing', even Isaac Newton wasn't daft enough to fall for that pat answer."
You demonstrate your own limits in the phrasing of the question, since it is meaningless. "The universe" means "everything that exists". It is therefore meaningless to ask what existed before it, because BY DEFINITION if anything existed then it is part of the universe.
This is analagous to the Sorites paradox. Here's a little experiment for you... (no need to really do it, just have a think about it). Set up a fishtank, and put a tadpole in it - just one. Set up a film camera, taking 24 frames per second. Set up a length of film long enough to run continuously for six weeks. Set the camera running, filming the tank. Now wait six weeks. At the end of the time, develop the film, and release the frog into the wild. Now... look at the film. I want you to point to the exact frame in which the tadpole LAST appears, and to the frame next to it where there is undeniably a frog.
You can't can you? Because the change from tadpole to frog is not an event, it is a process. Similarly, the universe is not an event, or an object - it is a process. It's meaningless to talk about "before it existed", because the concept of time is bound up in its existence. If you don't have a universe, you don't have a "before", any more than you have a tadpole one moment and a frog 1/24 of a second later.
"2. If evolution is an absolute, then no creature will evolve features that do not support the reproduction of the species."
Garbage which merely shows that the author knows as much about evolution as the average ignorant Creationist. Wrong, but then so many people misunderstand this it is just about forgivable.
Here, for your education, is how it actually works. Populations arise. Mutations occur. Features which consistently cause reproduction to fail badly are not passed on. And that's it. Features which are only mildly disadvantageous, or which have no net effect on reproductive success at all, will be passed on. There's a MASSIVE difference here. It's emphatically NOT only features which enhance reproductive success which are passed on.
For instance, and this is one of the best examples of evolution being haphazard, purposeless and definitely NOT selecting for good, sensible anatomical features - by pure chance, the ancestor of all land-going animals had a breathing tube that crossed its eating tube. This is a *terrible* design feature, because the practical upshot of it is that it is possible for you to choke to death. There's no particular reason to have the breathing tube cross the eating tube. But here's the thing - although it's a definite DISadvantage to be able to choke to death, it wasn't THAT much of a disadvantage that populations with that feature died out. So it persists, in every single reptile, bird and mammal on the planet, by pure chance.
"Should such a mutation should occur then it shall be extinguished within a few generations at least."
Nonsense, as I've explained above.
"If so then why has art, song and poetry grown over the past million years and not diminished? What possible evolutionary advantage does the appreciation of aesthetic beauty bring?"
Good grief. I'm amazed that a person with the IQ necessary to operate a computer can be so dense as to have to ask this question. Hmm... let me think, what possible evolutionary advantage could there be the ability remember instructive stories passed down from one generation to another (song and poetry)? What possible evolutionary advantage could there be to being able to please large groups of your fellow organisms by daubing pigments on a wall? It's a damn sight easier than hunting tigers, that's for sure. Our appreciation of aesthetic beauty is an expression of one of the basic functions of our brain - pattern recognition. We see patterns everywhere - in the craters on the moon, in the random scattering of stars across the sky - and we see them because our brains are wired to pick out patterns from background, order from chaos, because we were both hunters and hunted and such skills were necessary. Our ability to MAKE patterns, of colour or sound or word, should be no surprise at all, and nor should our valuing of those abilities in others.
Or put another way - bards get chicks, man.
"3. Why is the personal experience of billions of humans in their daily interactions with various deities and other 'unproven' beings not scientific, yet a statistical sample of political opinion is? And please don't tell me that belief in New Labour's promises is any less ludicrous than religion."
The difference being that when New Labour break their promises, you can vote them out and sack them, or in extreme cases put a bomb in their cars. Does anyone dispute the existence of New Labour? Does anyone dispute the existence of people answering opinion polls? Or the existence of their opinions? No. Billions of humans may have daily interactions with various deities, but billions of humans have dreams every night and most of the educated ones understand that they have no effect on external reality. Those "interactions with deities" are an internal metaphor, nothing more.
"I am Druid (that is your get out clause by the way - I am a certifiable nutter obviously)"
Not at all, unless you show yourself to be. I make no prejudgements, and especially not based on things I know absolutely nothing about. (unlike you and your opinions on evolution, say)
" and as such I am a seeker after truth, many truths. I support good science"
How do you support it? Turn out on the terraces on a Saturday and shout "go on science, put the boot in"? Do you PAY for science? Do you DO science for a living, a hobby, or vocation? Do you educate people in it? (Obviously not the latter)
"and believe in the general principles of such theories as evolution, DNA and chaos theory."
How can you believe in the general principle of evolution when you demonstrably don't understand even the most basic of those principles? What do you know about DNA, beyond how to spell it? What do you know about chaos theory, beyond cool multicoloured patterns on a computer screen? I'm just curious what your level is on these subjects, and why, given your obvious very limited knowledge of evolution, you still "believe in" it. (there's no *need* for belief, you know - there's plenty of actual evidence)
"However, I am opposed to putting on blinkers in my search. I do not discount out of hand the experiences and beliefs of others, just because I cannot find empirical evidence to support them here and now."
Nor do I. I entirely believe that many people experience gods on a daily basis. Their experience is entirely real to them, and I have no reason to doubt that. Why would I? I even like to think I understand some of the reasons why our species is prone to these superstitions, and I'm going to write an entry about it real soon now. In the meantime, take your open mind and go read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It could be the beginning of a paradigm-shift of Copernican/Darwinian proportions - possibly bigger. Just read it.
"So come on you poor blinkered rationalists, throw off your prejudices and be more open-minded."
The whole point of rationalism is that it is openminded. My mind is open. Give me evidence. I'm open to it. I'm not prejudiced. You're a Druid? Cool. What does that mean, to you? What do you believe, and why? And more importantly, why would anyone else believe what you do?
"You have nothing to lose because if I am wrong you'll know soon enough (or rather you won't, death being final and all). But if we are right, well that's going to be fun ain't it?"
Do a Guide Search on Pascal's Wager. I'm familiar with it.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 153
Hi Hoovooloo
See you've got another sceptic to convert, but in the meantime, I thought I'd acknowledge your last posting to me.
You might have a point about leaping somewhat. I'll try find a route from one sentence to the other, and get back to you. I'm sure I had one in mind, at the time...
As for sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, this disturbs me somewhat. I always thought I was fairly laid back. Maybe "agency" was an attempt to use somebody's else philosophical vocabulary. I'll stick to my own in future.
(You're a damn good read, BTW )
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 154
Yes. You keep writing the replies I'd have written if I'd got there first (only better).
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 155
And... "As for sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, this disturbs me somewhat."
I was just kidding, really! You *don't* sound like one at all, it's just you do sometimes come across nutters on the internet who mutter darkly about "agencies" responsible for everything from chemicals in the water to alien abductions. References to "agency" make me think of the CIA, NSA, or any number of national espionage bodies, and more humourously of the cancer man from the X-Files.
Looking forward to replies...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by em's
Post: 156
Dumb all over yes we are, dumb all over near or far, dumb all over black or white us religious fanatics have not got it right. Saying we all know the story, but dont we make the details sound real gory. So what if they dont like what we got in our book over here does that make em bad ? No but instead we revenge an deploy burn an destroy, did our god say this is the way ? No! is it meant to be this way No! so you see if this carry's on soon they wont be no street for you joggers to jog on our doggys to dog on one day it will be all gone.
do i believe in god ? well lets just say i hope we all go to a better place!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Apple Adelaide: Cat Woman. Flip the Switch, Froggy!
Post: 157
Semaj, I am surprised that all the Christians you know are Creationists! I am a Christian and I accept the formation of Earth and our Solar System 4 billion or so years ago, and the formation of life on Earth 3.5 billion years back. To me, evolution is the means used by God, and therefore Science and the Bible are not in conflict, *because* some parts of the Bible - creation stories especially, just are not meant to be taken literally! It's simple. (Other Christians disagree) but, for instance, the majority of Catholics acept evolution as God's means...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 158
The interesting corollary to that, Della, is this: if you choose, as you say you do, to believe that certain portions of the Bible (e.g. the two contradictory myths of Creation, Noah's ark etc.) are allegories not meant to be taken literally - where do you draw the line?
On what basis do you pick and choose which bits of the Bible you decide are fairy stories and which are actually real? Surely once you point to one part of that book and say "oh, well, obviously it didn't REALLY happen like that", the WHOLE BOOK is suspect - isn't it? Examples: am I supposed to believe that Jesus LITERALLY revived a dead man, or fed five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes? Surely not meant to be taken literally, just a story. Surely they didn't mean it literally when they said he rose from the dead, that's just meant as a metaphor, right?
If you disagree, if you choose to believe those stories are the literal truth, ask yourself why you're prepared to believe in the reversal of physical death or the spontaneous production of matter from nothing, but not in the ark or the Creation. Is it somehow more credible? And if it is, is that a good reason for trusting the truth of a book you yourself have said doesn't tell the whole, literal truth all the time?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 159
Hello Della. I was a Christian a long time ago, since then I have had an eye-opener. Just now in the UK our top news story for the last twelve days has been the search for two ten-year old girls who went missing. Look at the families of these two girls. Their parents went to church and prayed to God for the safety of their daughters. Did God answer them, it seems not. Where is this so called God of love every Christian seems to talk about, when he can hear the prayers of a family and not listen? And I can't accept when people say it was man that did it, because man is supposed to be made in his image. God could have stopped what happened. He is supposedly the all-powerful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 160
The problem with positing an all powerful entity as the explanation of why things are/happen the way they are/do is that if things were different it could "explain" that too; but it can't explain why this and not that, or tell you what happens next. Evidence is only evidence for something if there is something that would count as evidence against. For the religious, however, God seems to be not so much an explanation as part of the concept of explanation itself. I'd be interested to hear whether any religious believers think that has any truth in it?
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 161
Matholwch - Am I mad?
No, I would guess that most of the things for which you use Deitys or super-natural beings (of whatever rank) are now, if not actually observable, at least explainable by Quantum/Chaos reasoning.(of whatever discipline)
I rekon you could do a big sum to explain why, every so often, your PC will do something you wanted it to do, but before you actually clicked on whatever it was you were about to click. (or is it just me?)
Like, how does a small change (a thought) in the electro-magnetic patterns within my cranium (surrounded by the electro-magnetic field of the monitor) effect the more or less similar structures (but not so wet) and electro-magnetic patterns inside a box two feet away?
And if I flap a butter-flys wing inside my head, can it stir a volcano in the heart of my love. Via the internet?
When I was a child I had a walker, that I could push along and use as support until I could walk un-aided. I now, at 34, manage to walk on my hind legs quite steadily -most of the time
Here's a thought -
Is (or could) the internet (a creation of collective Human thought) be a means by which the Collective Unconscious is attempting to "Lead us to the Light"
Can we learn and evolve to use what we already have inside us (which is all just part of the same big oneness anyway) to directly effect the order and flow of Chaos?
Suppose that would explain the Duality of man and God, InI of Rastafarian theology and Pelagius (and Coptic) etc insistance that Jesus was just a bloke and you can talk to God yourself cos your part of Him (it).
Personally, I prefer to focus my "Spiritual" energy towards images of Women, aspects of the Goddess - I can never remember their names though The Pauline S&M (Handsome young fella -unmarried 30 something rabbi, yeah right!! nailed to a cross) just don't do it for me.
But does it really matter, what the "Point of Focus" is, as long as it allows you to focus ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 162
Absolutely brilliant!
At last a forum and a debate where I get a decent challenge to my 'superstitions' and 'ignorance'.
Thank you Hoovooloo!
I shall return in a couple of days once I have:
a) thought through your arguments thoroughly.
b) re-read my notes on evolutionary theory.
One point though that I notice here that does not happen on the normal pagan noticeboards I inhabit is the lack of courtesy and respect. Your points are well-made and deserve a debate (deep relishing going on over here), but it is unnecessary to be rude. It defeats your purpose and individuals less scarred than me may be put off by it. People who may otherwise appreciate your insight.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 163
A fact is a fact only within a given theoretical framework.
Even "The reason I can see a computer screen in front of me is that there IS a computer screen in front of me" is a theoretical framework {for empirical facts) although we tend not to notice it because it's universal, automatic, and has no obvious workable alternatives.
Space is curved is a fact within a more complex, less universal, non automatic theoretical framework.
Facts about people are facts within an even more complex theoretical framework about human nature.
Moreover the empirical facts of one discipline may be the theoretical framework of another, the two often overlapping in complex ways.
Scientists, and rationalists generally, work within a theoretical framework of formal determinism, that is, the belief that the universe is coherently connected together by consistent rules. The content of the rules, however, is provided by observation.
Formal determinism cannot be proved empirically because it is part of the theoretical framework WITHIN which empirical facts are made.
Nor can it be disproved empirically. We simply have no notion of what an uncaused event would look like.
How do believers in God(s) feel that their beliefs contribute to their understanding of how the universe works?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 164
Hi Matholwch,
I share your same basic faith but see it more this way: we can worship processes like evolution, photosynthesis, cell reproduction, death and everything else *as* deities. For instance, I do not literally (i.e, like it really happened) believe that Persephone (or equivalent) was taken into the Underworld for six months and that is *why* we have seasons, but it is a very good way of portraying the seasons so that they may be worshipped. I tried to explain to a very bad example of Christian tolerance my view by using the example of trees, instead of saying his God makes the tree sprout new leaves, I might say it's the Goddess' work. But by that I mean it's a result of chemical reactions. However, to me it does not make it any less marvellous.
The problem I have with most major religions is that they do not, generally, do this- it's all second-hand, and because God did it there's no room for other explanations. It puts the adherants and their God-given surroundings at a distance. What does it matter how it happened- what happened, or that it happened at all, is bloody amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 165
Greetings all,
Interesting topic you started, only you have not specified the parametres for the discussion: In order for anyone to give a, more or less intelligent, answer to your question it would be necessary to know your definition of "God" or "Gods" or even "deity".Your view and/or opinion may not at all be the same as mine and we would therefor discuss two entirely different subjects.
Speaking for myself, as a practitioner of an Earthbound filosophy, my deities grew from ancestor-worship through time into the triple or triunite deities they are. That most of them have in one form or another a strong connection with nature in all its forms is quite understandable. Earthbound filosophies are just that:they are based on and celebrated within the wheel of the year and the seasons, deities linked to harvest,winter, spring and new life and so on are therefor an essential part. Within the deity one finds the properties and strengths, but also the weaknesses of the season AND of the human living in that season; in short a deity who stands not above the practitioners, but amongst them. It is up to the individual practitioner to accept as much or as little from the deities as he/she wants or can, based on their understanding and their knowledge of the philosophy or religion they choose to be part of.
Always open to discuss this further,
walk in Light,
Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 166
Hi Matholwch (how do you pronounce that, btw?)
"Absolutely brilliant!
At last a forum and a debate where I get a decent challenge to my 'superstitions' and 'ignorance'.
Thank you Hoovooloo!"
You're very welcome!
"I shall return in a couple of days once I have:
a) thought through your arguments thoroughly.
b) re-read my notes on evolutionary theory."
Would it be impertinent to ask who wrote your notes? Evolutionary theory is a constantly changing field, with new ideas being considered all the time... for example the concept of punctuated equilibrium is at odds with the constant gradual change Darwin thought was going on. There are certainly a lot of good books about it available, but make sure whatever you're reading is relatively recent. In an act of shameless self-promotion, I'm going to suggest that you check out A730522 and it's associated entries, too.
"One point though that I notice here that does not happen on the normal pagan noticeboards I inhabit is the lack of courtesy and respect."
Hmm. I've read my reply to you again. It contains the following phrases:
"There is no evidence whatever for the existence of a god, and if you can point to some I should be very grateful."
[in response to your observation that being a Druid automatically marks you out as "a nutter"] "Not at all, unless you show yourself to be. I make no prejudgements, and especially not based on things I know absolutely nothing about."
I also said: "My mind is open. Give me evidence. I'm open to it. I'm not prejudiced. You're a Druid? Cool. What does that mean, to you? What do you believe, and why?"
Now, admittedly I also said these things:
[In response to an erroneous statement about evolution] "Garbage which merely shows that the author knows as much about evolution as the average ignorant Creationist." That I would defend as fact, if bluntly put. The intention was to provoke a reaction, since I assumed you'd be offended to be compared to a blinkered flat-earther Fundamentalist Christian.
And, in response to your questioning the evolutionary point of song, poetry and art: "I'm amazed that a person with the IQ necessary to operate a computer can be so dense as to have to ask this question" - I meant this. You're obviously intelligent. You obviously think about things. The evolutionary advantages were obvious to me almost before I started to think about it. I would, uncharitably perhaps, characterise that as a "dumb question", and responded harshly.
However - here are some things you said in the post I was replying to:
"the so-called rationalists or scientists in our world"
"Such arrant nonsense."
"They cling to their little dogmas"
"Luckily for us most mathematicians are brighter than the scientific community they lead"
"To such limited people I ask..."
"Please do not reply 'nothing', even Isaac Newton wasn't daft enough to fall for that pat answer"
"come on you poor blinkered rationalists, throw off your prejudices"
Do these represent the "courtesy and respect" you say are missing?
"Your points are well-made and deserve a debate (deep relishing going on over here)"
Here too!
"but it is unnecessary to be rude."
Not wishing to be flippant, I disagree. Sometimes it IS necessary to be rude, in my opinion. I may typically be expected to become rude after having been described as "limited", "blinkered" or "prejudiced", say. Since I am one of your "so-called rationalists" (why so-called? Do you think I'm not, really? Am I just pretending?), you *were* having a pop at me with those words. Why are you surprised that I reply in kind?
"It defeats your purpose and individuals less scarred than me may be put off by it. People who may otherwise appreciate your insight."
I try (and I admit I'm not always successful) to write according to the situation. I'm not just blanket rude to everyone. I'd draw your attention to, for instance, from this very thread... F55607?thread=192835&skip=24 . Respectful and courteous posts get, from me, respectful and courteous (and very long... ) replies.
Glad we've got that out of the way...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 167
Greetings,
Sorry for intruding in what seems to be a private discussion , but can't help submit the following :"...dumb question..." There are no dumb questions, the only dumb question is the one not asked.
Brightest Blessings /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 168
Good point there, star... but...
Asking someone a question which they believe to have an extremely obvious answer is forgivable if:
1. the questioner truly does not know the answer for sensible reasons. Children ask questions like that all the time. These are not "dumb questions".
2. the questioner KNOWS the answer, but is asking the question to make a point - example: I could ask a Christian, Jew or Muslim, "is the earth flat?". I KNOW the answer. It isn't a dumb question because I'm asking to test how completely they follow their professed faith. (Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa in 1993 declaring that the world is flat. You did read that date right - 1993, less than ten years ago. And the Christian/Jewish bible states quite clearly that the earth is flat. This is not something which it is possible to be allegorical about. IF you believe the earth to be an oblate spheroid, you are not a true Christian, Jew, or Muslim.)
3. the question is related to an extremely obscure subject in which the person asked is an expert.
None of the above applied to the question Matholwch posed. If a person of demonstrated intelligence and articulacy asks a question with an obvious answer, an answer they should have been able to come up with themselves with barely a moment's thought, and they ask it not to make a point but because they appear not to know the answer - isn't that a dumb question?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 169
Hoisted upon me own petard! Aaargh!
Fair play, upon reading my post again I perhaps was less than gracious to all you 'blinkered rationalists' out there. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. Apologies.
I think this possibly because I have developed oversensitive reactions. You must understand that to declare yourself openly pagan, either in the real world or upon this virtual simulation, is to invite oftimes vitriolic abuse from both the rationalist wing and the supporters of Abrahamic extremism.
Which of course is irrelevant to the debate at hand. So, the game is afoot, let us go on Watson!
One of the differences you will quickly find Hoovooloo between my Abrahamic cousins and the nebulous confederation that is neo-paganism, is that as a whole we are fairly accepting of the scientific and/or rationalist perspective of the universe.
Where we differ, however, is that we are prepared to believe that there really is much more to it than is explained by the present level of scientific knowledge. Most of us see the divine, in many countenances, in just about everything around us. Many of us experience a relationship to this divine presence on a daily basis.
In the druid communities, this experience is often practical. We spend a lot of time out there, on the land, communicating with the spiritual presences that inhabit the trees, groves and streams. Talking to our ancestors through ritual, trance and dream. Being guided by the Awen, the flowing spirit of the divine.
Unlike the Abrahamics, we do not debase ourselves to these presences, nor treat them to abject worship. We work with them as equals, as friends and as students. We believe that the universe is filled with a divine spirit and we try to find ways to work in harmony with it.
One of the problems that our society suffers from today is the moral vacuum left by the collapse of the Churches. Morals and ethics are rarely taught in schools, except as an oddity of history. They are rarely discussed at home. The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die.
As a result new 'cults' take over the space left over by this failure. Cults of self-gratification and over-consumption. Where 'my needs' become more important than that of the land. We are becoming a spiritually-bankrupt people, and the results are heart-breaking to see.
This makes me angry, as you can understand. Thus when someone tries to attack the spiritual paths in this land, then I rise to the bait. It is true though we are easy to attack. Many of our ideas and beliefs seem implausible, even ludicrous to the outsider always used to a simple, logical explanation for everything. When we try to explain that many of our beliefs are based on personal experimentation and experience. That they are grounded in thousands of years of practice across many cultures. We are derided.
The problem for us is that to understand what we believe you have to experience it for yourself. Unlike the Abrahamics we have no great store of dogma to ram down your gullet. To do so would be to break ouer own belief in the sanctity of personal choice. Each person must approach this understanding upon their own terms.
I admit my knowledge of evolution is outdated (college notes about 20 years old), but from what I know I am not at odds with the general theory. I am willing to bone up on it and learn more.
Would you though be willing to spend the time to learn our lore? I myself am seven years along a twenty-one year training course to become a full druid priest. A course that includes science, philosophy, art, prose, history, herbalism, comparative religions, poetry, herbalism, antropology, psychology, counselling, agriculture, astronomy and song.
I hope that this answers some of your questions. In my experience it normally raises many more. I look forward to your dissection of my arguments....
Blessings,
Matholwch /|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 170
"Hoisted upon me own petard! ...Apologies."
Accepted! Onward...
"I think this possibly because I have developed oversensitive reactions. You must understand that to declare yourself openly pagan, either in the real world or upon this virtual simulation, is to invite oftimes vitriolic abuse from both the rationalist wing and the supporters of Abrahamic extremism."
You may find this place a little more tolerant. You may not... But there are quite a few people who would more or less fit the description "pagan" who post here, and I think they'd agree that this is a fairly easy place be pretty much anything.
"we are fairly accepting of the scientific and/or rationalist perspective of the universe."
Good start.
"Where we differ, however, is that we are prepared to believe that there really is much more to it than is explained by the present level of scientific knowledge."
That's not a point of difference. Where I think you differ is that *I* think that most of the things currently unknown to science, and which science does not declare unknowable in principle, will eventually be known. Which doesn't leave much of a gap...
"Many of us experience a relationship to this divine presence on a daily basis."
I'm not denying it. I'm only saying that most of what you're talking about is something which I believe is going on in your head, and nowhere else.
"In the druid communities, this experience is often practical. We spend a lot of time out there, on the land, communicating with the spiritual presences that inhabit the trees, groves and streams. Talking to our ancestors through ritual, trance and dream. Being guided by the Awen, the flowing spirit of the divine."
How is this "practical"? (serious question) What practical benefits do you get out of it? Can you predict the future reliably, as science can? Can you cure disease reliably by non-science based methods? I'm looking here for a practical application of your beliefs to something outside your own mind.
"One of the problems that our society suffers from today is the moral vacuum left by the collapse of the Churches."
There are over a billion Christians in the world, over half a billion Muslims, I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right.
"Morals and ethics are rarely taught in schools, except as an oddity of history."
I went to a church school. Don't they exist any more?
"They are rarely discussed at home."
Any evidence for that?
"The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die."
Leaving aside for the moment that I don't believe that is the case, personally I think that if we WERE leaving behind our primitive superstitions, that can only be a GOOD thing. I've asked elsewhere on this site for people to imagine a world without science (not difficult - it was this world until relatively recently) and then imagine a world without religion. I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got.
"When we try to explain that many of our beliefs are based on personal experimentation and experience. That they are grounded in thousands of years of practice across many cultures. We are derided."
Well, I'm not deriding them. I'm honestly interested in the results of your experimentation and experience.
"The problem for us is that to understand what we believe you have to experience it for yourself."
Well, you're experiencing the fruits of rational enquiry by looking at the screen you're reading this on, so I don't need to even start explaining the benefits of my world-view. Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated.
"I admit my knowledge of evolution is outdated (college notes about 20 years old)"
I *think* that's quite up to date enough, helps if it mentioned punctuated equilibrium, not sure how recent a notion that is. You must understand I've been involved in discussions with Creationists who think it's very clever to point out the mistakes Darwin made in "The Origin of Species", as though that were the last word on the subject. What is with those people and old books?
"Would you though be willing to spend the time to learn our lore?"
Well... yes. Up to a point. What would be the benefits to me? (ooh, there I go, "what's in it for me", my morality has obviously collapsed ). Seriously though - I am interested to know what you believe and why. I'm particularly interested to know how you think someone else would benefit from believing as you do.
I think everyone would benefit from believing as I do because I believe I know the boundaries of my true knowledge better than most. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, and I think the same is not true of people who engage in superstition, be it yourself, or the archbishop of Canterbury, or a person reading their horoscope.
"I myself am seven years along a twenty-one year training course to become a full druid priest. A course that includes science, philosophy, art, prose, history, herbalism, comparative religions, poetry, herbalism, antropology, psychology, counselling, agriculture, astronomy and song."
Strong on the herbalism then.
Interesting list.
"I hope that this answers some of your questions. In my experience it normally raises many more. I look forward to your dissection of my arguments...."
Well, there you go. Onward...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 171
This discussion seems to be going round in circles, and I am starting to get dizzy. God fact or fiction?. It seems to be causing a riot.
Semaj, Be happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 172
Just thought I'd dive in as well. Change God for 'This Universe type stuff we are in, surrounded by and will probably never quite understand' and most religions make a little more sense but are still too blinkered. Humans I think will either succeed in surfing their evolutionary wave or we'll fall off back into the soup.
Does anyone agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a clever mutation of the Roman Empire (political/religious from military/political)?
One Billion .........phew quite successful
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Arthwollipot
Post: 173
All I can say is if God does exist, then He has gone to an awful lot of trouble to make Himself redundant. There is no process in this Universe which requires the presence of God in order to get started or to proceed.
Deity was originally invoked to explain phenomena that were not understood. Why is there a rainbow? Because God put it there as a promise never to flood the world again. Why do we exist? Because God created us in his own image.
There are still questions that science cannot answer (the origin of life for example), but that doesn't mean that the answer has to be supernatural. In fact throughout history, natural explanations have been found for the vast majority of phenomena originally thought to have a supernatural origin. Humans originally thought that earthquakes were caused by God. Now we know that they are caused by tectonic movement.
God is not necessary in this Universe because it works perfectly well without Him.
(note: for 'God' in this post, read 'god, godess or multiple gods or deities of any description' and for 'He' and 'Him' read 'he, she, it or they'.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Ste
Post: 174
However, most people don't believe in God's to merely explain away phenomena that was thought to be supernatural during humanity's dark pre-science days. They seem to have a personal bond or friendship with this thing called God. I'm not sure even describing this as a "crutch" adequetly describes it. The question is, is this thing in their head or is it a part of objective reality? In my opinion the stunning lack of evidence of the latter leads me to believe the former. But I'm sure those with direct "experience" of a God would disagree, but they could not say or do or show me anything that would prove otherwise. God's very nature is elusive to the point of being very suspicious.
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 175
The present versions of God/Religion do seem to allow everyone to be in a 'warm fluffy towel type club' and it seems appealing to be able to tidy up this Spirituality and Universe stuff with letting it be Somebody elses problem!
That gives more time to go to Hooters in San Diego, which if I was God would probably be where I'd do most of my planning.
Do you think we can pass on emotions through our DNA?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Matholwch - Resident Druid of this Parish /|\.
Post: 176
"That's not a point of difference. Where I think you differ is that *I* think that most of the things currently unknown to science, and which science does not declare unknowable in principle, will eventually be known. Which doesn't leave much of a gap..."
I also think that science will one day have access to most of the secrets of the universe (except such things as why navel lint is always blue and where do half-used Biro's disappear to...). However, this is well into the future where science and spirituality may well be closer than either are presently comfortable to believe.
"I'm not denying it. I'm only saying that most of what you're talking about is something which I believe is going on in your head, and nowhere else."
I can assure you that at group events the consensus reality of what I experience is shared and often amplified. Your belief that it goes on in my head and nowhere else is as unsupportable as many of my arguments seem to be to you.
"How is this "practical"? (serious question) What practical benefits do you get out of it? Can you predict the future reliably, as science can? Can you cure disease reliably by non-science based methods? I'm looking here for a practical application of your beliefs to something outside your own mind."
It is practical because we don't accept blindly what we feel. We go out and seek contact with others and try it for ourselves. I doubt many (sorry but I have to use the word) 'rationalists' take the time to do that with scientific theories. The benefits I get from it are manyfold and include greater understanding of my environment, an approach to life that works with the world rather than against it, a spiritual bulwark against the viccisitudes of daily living and more, much more. Science can no more accurately predict the future than I can. But, like I can, it can seek to influence the course of events and hope that something doesn't come out of left field and kick it into touch. Hmmm...curing disease, laying on hands as well I suppose? Puh-lease don't confuse a pagan relationship with the divine with miracles...that's a strictly Abrahamic (and I must say New Age) social control mechanism. On the other hand as someone who has a serious sports knee injury the only things that have given me reliable relief are Acupuncture and Reiki, both unproven hokum, but available on the NHS nonetheless.
"There are over a billion Christians in the world, over half a billion Muslims, I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right."
From the Anglican Churches figures we find that Church attendance and participation in the UK and Europe are now just 16% of what they were 40 years ago. In Wales, where I hail from, there are more Chapels being converted into homes and Carpet Warehouses than left in regular use. And where they are the congregation are aging rapidly. Sounds like a collapse to me. World figures are very misleading as they are based either on Vatican or National figues that are deeply suspect. The Saudi Government, for instance, claims that every single man, woman and child in the country are devout, practising Muslims. The Nigerian government counts everyone as either Muslim or Anglican. The half a million catholics in Biafra are not mentioned. Brazil claims to have more Catholics in its population than the WHO actually knows exist in reality (the Brazilian government are trying to pull in international funds by misrepresenting its population, a common 'scam' amongst developing nations). The Indonesians for years tried to say that the East Timorese were Muslim except for a handful of extremists, and we know the result of that.
"I went to a church school. Don't they exist any more?"
Indeed they do, but are precious little minority of the general school population. My fourteen year old daughter attends a very good Comprehensive and is taking RE to GCSE. The National Curriculum is a joke and teaches religion, and ethics, as history.
I must admit my evidence for morals and ethics being taught at home is anecdotal and based on a 'sample' of a few dozen friends.
"The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die."
"Leaving aside for the moment that I don't believe that is the case, personally I think that if we WERE leaving behind our primitive superstitions, that can only be a GOOD thing. I've asked elsewhere on this site for people to imagine a world without science (not difficult - it was this world until relatively recently) and then imagine a world without religion. I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got."
I'm afraid your imagination has got the better of you for neither of these worlds can exist. You might as well try to wish gravity away.
"Well, I'm not deriding them. I'm honestly interested in the results of your experimentation and experience."
Which is why I am still here. You must understand that modern druidry is not an evangelistic path. We have no desire to convert or convince anyone. But if asked we will try to explain our beliefs.
"Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated."
Here we go with the simple and immediate again . Our world view is neither simple nor immediate. It is grounded in the belief that the universe is more complex than we presently or perhaps can imagine. Our lives are quests for 'truth', a continuous journey towards a receding horizon where the brow of each answer reveals a valley of questions. It's good fun too, for those with an inquiring mind.
"You must understand I've been involved in discussions with Creationists who think it's very clever to point out the mistakes Darwin made in "The Origin of Species", as though that were the last word on the subject. What is with those people and old books? "
'Those people' only have that old book of social tales and laws to fall back on that's why. Any 'truth', other than that expressed by ancient hebrew scholars, is a challenge to the supremacy and power of their belief. Its a bit of a sad life really, living in fear of your deity, living in fear of your inevitable end, clinging to the wreckage of a book that is riddled with errancies and contradictions and that was written to help a people in a society extinct by millenia. Seing the devil behind every bush, and placing responsibility for every wrong at his feet rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. They really need chucking in the Total Perspective Vortex......pant, pant.....rant over. Oooh they do get my goat though sometimes.
In modern druidry we accept that the sum and nature of human knowledge increase with each generation, and we relish it. We do not cling to dogma.
"I think everyone would benefit from believing as I do because I believe I know the boundaries of my true knowledge better than most. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, and I think the same is not true of people who engage in superstition, be it yourself, or the archbishop of Canterbury, or a person reading their horoscope."
'The first step to wisdom is in recognising how little you really know.' Hmmm... a favourite Buddhist quote of mine. How do you define superstition by the way?
Well here I have to leave you for a few days. Off to the states on business. Strangely for a superstitious, tree-hugging peasant, in my daily life I'm a Quality Engineering Manager in a High tech. electronics company...wonders will never cease .
Blessings,
Matholwch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 177
"I also think that science will one day have access to most of the secrets of the universe .... However, this is well into the future where science and spirituality may well be closer than either are presently comfortable to believe."
The fact that it's well in the future doesn't, in my opinion, affect that principle - that gods fill gaps, and eventually there will BE no gaps. The question of when it will happen is really irrelevant if you accept the principle that it will.
"I can assure you that at group events the consensus reality of what I experience is shared and often amplified."
I've personally experienced altered consensual realities at group events, shared and amplified altered perceptions in the presence of others, so I *think* I have some handle on what you're talking about. But I've never experienced anything that I needed any outside force to explain, beyond my own mind and its interaction with others present. Perhaps I'm missing something. I accept it's possible that I am...
"Your belief that it goes on in my head and nowhere else is as unsupportable as many of my arguments seem to be to you."
Not just your head - as you say, sharing a consensual experience can deepen it for the participants. But that doesn't necessarily require a mystical explanation, and if you can have that experience without a mystical element (and you indisputably can) then why do you need to invoke it for any similar event?
"It is practical because we don't accept blindly what we feel. We go out and seek contact with others and try it for ourselves. I doubt many (sorry but I have to use the word) 'rationalists' take the time to do that with scientific theories."
Think back about 12 years. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced to the world at a press conference that they had achieved a fusion reaction in a test tube at room temperature and pressure. If true, this opened the door to an imminent future of unlimited clean energy, and an end to the damaging reliance on fossil fuels and the politically disastrous world dependence on oil from unstable, uncivilised middle eastern states (whoops, bit of politics there). There was an ENORMOUS feeling of WANTING to believe that Fleischmann and Pons were right. And what was the reaction of the scientific community? Did they swallow up the announcement and celebrate? Did they blindly accept what they felt? Absolutely not. People across the planet rushed to their laboratories, some of them half-asleep in the middle of the night - because their FIRST instinct was not "I believe", but "I GOTTA see this for myself". THAT is practical rationalism. And the result was that Fleischmann and Pons were shown to be, to put it delicately, over-enthusiastic. Nobody managed to repeat their results, and as a result we don't have limitless clean energy and the world is still tiptoeing round the royal family of a fundamentalist religious monarchy.
"The benefits I get from it are manyfold and include greater understanding of my environment"
But you could get that from science! In fact, you could clearly get a BETTER understanding of your environment from a study of science, given your previous apparent misunderstandings of the basics of evolution.
"an approach to life that works with the world rather than against it"
What discipline warned us of the dangers of CFCs? Global warming? El Nino? Mad cow disease? No religion offers any practical help to AIDS sufferers. Science does. Science tells you where you and the world are conflicting. Some people choose to fight it, some choose to work with it. But our knowledge, as a global society, comes almost exclusively from the efforts of the rationalists.
"a spiritual bulwark against the viccisitudes of daily living "
Now you're talking. You're describing religion as I see it - a crutch (no pejorative tone intended) for people who cannot otherwise deal with their lives.
"Science can no more accurately predict the future than I can."
Nonsense. I stood on a hillside in Cornwall on August 11th 1999, after twenty five years of anticipation, and the scientific prediction of the future that I had read as a child came true, TO THE SECOND. The sun disappeared from the sky and the world was in twilight for two minutes and eleven seconds PRECISELY - AS PREDICTED. I have a friend who is planning an expensive trip to the other side of the planet this winter, based on nothing more than a prediction of the future - made by science. If she stands in South Australia on the 4th of December and there is no total eclipse, I might concede that science cannot reliably predict the future. Want to bet on it? How accurate a prediction of the future can you make, using only the tools of your spirituality?
"Hmmm...curing disease, laying on hands as well I suppose?"
Not necessarily. Anything you like. The tools of your spirituality, used to do something science can do, reliably and repeatably. Prayer has been tried as a cure for cholera. It doesn't work, I know that. Do you have anything at all in your spiritual toolbox which has *any* comparable success against cholera, leprosy, malaria, bubonic plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, etc. etc. etc. ? How long a list do you want of diseases practically eradicated by the use of science? Can you name ONE condition or disease which is even noticeably affected in double blind tests by prayer or spiritual methods?
"Puh-lease don't confuse a pagan relationship with the divine with miracles..."
I'm not looking for miracles. Miracles are by definition one-off events. Science doesn't produce miracles. It produces solid, repeatable, workaday solutions which can be applied to EVERYONE, not just one lucky person who happened to die near the prophet. Chemotherapy is not a miracle. Heart transplants are not miracles.
"that's a strictly Abrahamic (and I must say New Age) social control mechanism."
Hey! We agree!
"On the other hand as someone who has a serious sports knee injury the only things that have given me reliable relief are Acupuncture and Reiki, both unproven hokum, but available on the NHS nonetheless."
Hang on... "unproven hokum"? Hokum, perhaps. But proven. I don't pretend to know how acupuncture works and I don't think most scientists do either, but the solid, repeatable evidence suggests that it does, and not just on humans either. Reiki I know nothing about, so I won't comment on it, beyond saying that if the NHS is funding it, I can only hope that it too has been double-blind tested and found to be of help.
"I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right."
"Church attendance and participation in the UK and Europe are now just 16% of what they were 40 years ago."
What's the percentage difference of bishops in the House of Lords? Has that changed at all?
"Sounds like a collapse to me."
I don't hear an answer to my point about the power of the religious right in the US...
"The National Curriculum ...teaches religion, and ethics, as history."
I have to say - good, about religion. Not so good about ethics...
"I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got."
"I'm afraid your imagination has got the better of you for neither of these worlds can exist. You might as well try to wish gravity away."
No imagination is required to picture a world without science. It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist. Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago. Look at the world of William the Conqueror for a world without science. Would you want to live there? Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there. And I agree, I might as well wish gravity away. Funnily enough, that might happen sooner than you think... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...
"Which is why I am still here. You must understand that modern druidry is not an evangelistic path. We have no desire to convert or convince anyone. But if asked we will try to explain our beliefs."
I'm asking.
""Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated."
Here we go with the simple and immediate again . Our world view is neither simple nor immediate."
I'm not asking for your world-view, and I understand that to appreciate that in all its complexity would take years - BUT... The monitor of your computer is NOT my world-view. It is, however, a simple, tangible PRODUCT of my world-view. Are you telling me there is NOTHING you can show or tell me which is a tangible, demonstrable product of yours? Because if you are - if there is nothing you can point to and say "here is a benefit derived from my beliefs" - then I must shake my head and wonder what would make anyone start down the long road you've taken.
"It is grounded in the belief that the universe is more complex than we presently or perhaps can imagine."
So's science. Isn't it?
"Our lives are quests for 'truth', a continuous journey towards a receding horizon where the brow of each answer reveals a valley of questions."
Still sounds like science to me.
"It's good fun too, for those with an inquiring mind."
STILL sounds like science to me.
"Oooh they do get my goat though sometimes."
Mine too. I could make a comment here about Druids and goats, but it would be cheap, and more importantly and less forgivably, probably not funny...
"How do you define superstition by the way?"
WOW! There's a GOOD question. I'm going to have to think about that one and get back to you if I'm to do it any justice...
"I'm a Quality Engineering Manager in a High tech. electronics company..."
Never mind! I'm sure one day you'll transcend engineering and get a proper job!
H.
Engineer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 178
Doesn't he live on his own, in a small house, on a lonely planet and is totally unaware of who he is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 179
Greetings again,
Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know,but I hope you allow me my two cents worth from time to time.
I think it is only fair H. to let you know that I am following the path of the Druid as well, my opinions and comments therefor would be similar, if not always identical to M.'s.
One passage of your last entry really had me thinking (yes, we do think for ourselves it is actually encouraged...).
"No imagination is required to picture a world without science.
It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."
It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time. I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone.I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era.
That most of the Western world was primarily ruled by religion is true, but although I am openinded towards every religion and filosophy, I don't neccesarily have to like the fact that wise and knowledgable people were tortured, maimed and killed because they refused to subscribe to a religion which tried to rule their minds and threatend them with eternal damnation if they didn't comply. "Wise and knowledgable" could stand for..erm...lets see..."wytche" maybe or "druid"(shaman,runemaster,and so on).I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more.
"Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago."
Far from saying that I look down on or even disagree with the enormous evolution especially medical science has made, one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years.With growing population ways needed to be found to feed everyone...true, but allow me: first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?
"Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there."
No crusades? Agreed.
No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear.
No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power.
September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion. In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks.
... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...
I will, as I said, always open to learn...
Walk in Light /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 180
Greetings again,
Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know,but I hope you allow me my two cents worth from time to time.
I think it is only fair H. to let you know that I am following the path of the Druid as well, my opinions and comments therefor would be similar, if not always identical to M.'s.
One passage of your last entry really had me thinking (yes, we do think for ourselves it is actually encouraged...).
"No imagination is required to picture a world without science.
It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."
It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time. I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone.I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era.
That most of the Western world was primarily ruled by religion is true, but although I am openinded towards every religion and filosophy, I don't neccesarily have to like the fact that wise and knowledgable people were tortured, maimed and killed because they refused to subscribe to a religion which tried to rule their minds and threatend them with eternal damnation if they didn't comply. "Wise and knowledgable" could stand for..erm...lets see..."wytche" maybe or "druid"(shaman,runemaster,and so on).I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more.
"Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago."
Far from saying that I look down on or even disagree with the enormous evolution especially medical science has made, one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years.With growing population ways needed to be found to feed everyone...true, but allow me: first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?
"Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there."
No crusades? Agreed.
No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear.
No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power.
September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion. In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks.
... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...
I will, as I said, always open to learn...
Walk in Light /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Refuting Hell
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Swoosh - maker of puddings, keeper of dribbly pets, known for disappearing frequently
Post: 181
Well is my little piece:
I don't believe in hell.
Heres why: The word hell is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read 'the grave' 'the world of the dead' and so forth. Other bibles simply transliterate the original languauge words that are sometimes rendered hell; thta is they express them with the words of our our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. Those words are the Hebrew she'ohl and the Greek equivalent hai'des which refer not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the greek ge'en'na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction.
What the bible says about the state of the dead:
Ecclessiastes 9:5,10 The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are concious of nothing at all... All that your hand finds to do, do with your power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.
(So if they are conscious of nothing they obviously feel no pain.)
The Bible also makes no mention of a soul that survives the body to then go to hell. In fact Ezekial 18:4 says that the soul that is sinning, it itself will die. In other bibles this is rendered as the man or the person.
The concept of 'soul' meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, seperate from the body... does not exist in the bible. (La Parole de dieu (Paris 1980) Georges Auzou, profesor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary France p. 128.)
So people who go to hell simply die, therefore both the righteous and the wicked go to hell, for it is simply a place of death. In fact Job prayed to God to protect him in hell. He would not have done this because he believed that he had sinned badly in fact he was known as a man blameless and upright, why would he choose to burn indefinately in hell?
Do people ever get out of the bible hell? Revelation 20:13,14 The sea gave up the dead which were in it and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into it)
So are the wicked eternally punished? The bible says that they will be eternally destoyed. (maththew 25:46, 2 Thess 1:9, Jude 7) The very idea of eternal torment does not fit with Gods personality. 1 John 4:8 says that he is Love. Surely a God of love would no more burn his creations eternally then we would burn a childs hand to punish them for a wrong doing? Furthermore Jeremiah 7:31 talks about how apostate Judeans put their sons and their daughters through fire. It goes on to say that this was not a commandment of God, it had not even come into his heart. How could He then turn around and do the same thing on a much larger scale?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Apple Adelaide: Cat Woman. Flip the Switch, Froggy!
Post: 182
As a coincidence, Semaj, I heard just this *second* a news item about how a second person has been charged in the murder of Holly and Jessica.
What a question! What my brother would say, is that God always answers prayers - sometimes the answer is 'no'. I know what he means - and I think that sometimes what seems like 'no' to us here-and-now, is a kind of 'yes'. I have a friend in her 30s who blew an aneurysm as few weeks ago, and I learned of what happened weeks later and went to see her in the Rehab unit. I have been praying for her, for her recovery *and* for her emotional state, which is very bad! To be honest, I didn't expect *any* improvement in her physical condition, but when I went to see her yesterday, a week later, she *had* had a physical improvement, tho' not a cure.
Another point I would make, is, that death is not the worst thing that can happen! God's will for someone may be their death - for them, and for their family - for reasons which will only become clear years later, if ever. But there may well be a reason! (I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with Holly and Jessica) We can't know.
In answer to the posting b4 yours, yes, I *do* believe in the Resurrection. There is evidence in favour of it, as against the Genesis accounts of Creation. I believe those accounts are myths in the literary sense of the word, and never meant to be taken factually!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 183
Does anyone agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a clever mutation of the Roman Empire (political/religious from military/political)?
Yup, it certainly looks like it to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 184
Hiya star...
"Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know"
Not at all, the more viewpoints the more interesting this is.
"One passage of your last entry really had me thinking"
Now that warms the cockles...
"...a world without science...was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."
It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time."
Purely arbitrary, I assure you, based on the fact that the Western calendar is the one we all understand and use. I also referred to William the Conqueror, since I assume most people can recall at least one of his dates and it comes close to a usefully round number of years ago.
"I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone."
I agree - but if we're to have any basis for communication, certain basic assumptions in common are required, and a commonly understood calendar is one of them. Now I'm as dissatisfied as the next atheist that the calendar we all use is based on the miscalculated birth year of a prophet/messiah I don't believe in. But until the whole western world starts measuring dates from a TRULY significant event (August 6th 1945? July 20th 1969?) I'll stick to referring to the Christian calendar.
"I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era."
True. But the relative positions of science and religion in influencing public policy have only switched within the last few hundred years. There's no point having science if religion takes precedence.
"I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more."
Absolutely. Astronomy, yes. Astrology, no. Many people don't know the difference, or think that astrology is a science. Herbology (at least what I know of it) has many of the characteristics of science. Psychology? I'm not sure that that counts as a science even now.
"one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years."
Why not? Those diseases were out there, causing misery and death, and religion did NOTHING. Like I said, prayer was offered as a cure for cholera. I absolutely blame religion for the illness or death of anyone told to look to gods for the cures to their troubles.
"first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?"
Correct. I'm glad and interested to note that you didn't say "we can't". Because we can, can't we? If we choose to. We choose not to, for reasons of politics, and that choice does not reflect well on us as a species.
"Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?"
No, I'm not. And it seems to me that genetic manipulation of crops is less to do with feeding a mass of people and more to do with enriching a few. Then again, are you so sure that genetic manipulation is a BAD thing? And if so, how do you know that? How do you hope to have an informed opinion (which is, after all, the only kind of opinion which is any use) without proper scientific trials of these things? (and I know I'm being hopelessly idealistic here, too - the trials being performed in the UK are not, by my judgement, properly scientific, and the reasons for that are to do with profit. Bugger.)
"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it."
But in a world without religion, it could not have been sold that way. In a world without religion, where people do not have it driven into them every day since infancy that authority is not to be questioned, that kind of action would be much harder to sell. Also, if you want to get into history, why is the Jewish population vilified? And how do they come to be in positions of class, power and influence way beyond their proportion in the general population? Because, going back hundreds of years, Christians were forbidden by religious law from lending money. So if you wanted a loan, you had to go to a non-Christian, which in Western Europe at least, meant a Jew. Nobody likes people they owe money to. Nobody likes people who seem to be doing well with little physical effort, as would a moneylender. So resentment grew. This is of course a vast oversimplification - but it's a commonly given reason for one of the roots of anti-Semitism, and it simply could not have existed in a world without stupid religious rules like "if you're a Christian you're not allowed to lend money".
"No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power."
And without the HUGE influence of religion, how long could that situation have been maintained? Could it even have got started? Slavers used the Bible to justify their actions - the Bible explicitly condones slavery in several places. Without that justification, would it even occur to an otherwise civilised man to enslave another?
"September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion."
If you had a world without religion, there'd be no concept of an afterlife. No Valhalla for the heroes to go to when they've completed their self-sacrificing task. No paradise of endless pleasure. Just nothing. How do you persuade someone to train for months and undertake great risk, in return for oblivion? That'd be some sales job, if there was no such thing as religions...
"In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks."
I agree. But would a rational, non-religious world consider globalisation to be a threat, and if so, to what?
"I will, as I said, always open to learn... "
Excellent. Me too. Thanks for responding...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 185
"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it."
Since when was it sold as religious?, seems to me it always had more to do with Eugenics. A science which branched out into Genetics and through major funding from The Rockerfella Foundation/Ford/Du Pont/Harrimans/Dillon Reed etc, the pseuedo-science of population control.Not so un-coincidencially, the same folks who provided the Capital Investment for the Third Reich.
Few thoughts on the God thing:-
There is a God. It exists within the Collective Human "Reality"
Reality is a product of the Individual "Awareness" and "God" exists within that framework.
"God" by effecting the actions of individuals can effect "Reality" as perceived by other individuals.
Therefore - God is Fact. (or at least as real as everything anything else in your head)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 186
Maybe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 187
In my personal opinion every person that has ever lived long enough has taken one of three paths. All paths start the same:
First we try to understand the world. We take our conclusions, whatever they may be and we...
1) Try to do what we think is best.
2) Try to do what we think is best for ourselves.
3) Get lost somewhere between paths 1 & 2.
Everyone who choses path 1 deserves love and understanding, even if their views conflict with yours.
Everyone who choses path 2 deserves what they get.
Everyone on path 3 needs guidance and support, and if possible should be brought closer to path 1.
No view is right. But we all necessarily seek to surround ourselves with people who share our views.
There is no answer, only attempted solutions.
Marcus Aurelius
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Jordan -- am *I* Tony Curtis?
Post: 188
I saw this, and I saw red... (interesting, since the font was black... No, no! I meant it metaphorically, didn't I? Oh, I can't remember. Let's just continue, shall we?)
Psychology: not a science. That is the most insulting thing it could be possible to say to someone who seriously misjudged the content of his psychology course, finishing after two years with a better insight into the scientific method than anyone who ever took one or more of the so-called 'hard sciences'. So what: you work with rocks and chemicals and particles, psychologists work with brains and diseases and minds. By the end of those two years, I came to know the scientific method intimately. In a single lesson, I was expected to identify issues and search out potential confounding variables and evaluate methodologies with more rigour than I, or anyone else for that matter, was ever encouraged to employ in the course of two whole years of physics. Just read the recent, meticulously examined and criticised (I mean, these things are taken apart with toothpicks) studies on schizophrenia, or perhaps the rigidly applied diagnostic critera to which it is subject, and you might just begin to understand the care these people take in their work. They never give a diagnosis when there is more than the tiniest chance that it may be something similar, and categories are applied even to this. Physicists shift paradigms every century or less and there is uproar; psychologists don't blink an eyelid.
Another thing: could you kindly stop using the word 'Religion' (or 'Christians') when what you really mean is 'Catholics'? It gets really annoying at times. Sometimes, you mean another group: when you do, why don't you refer to it rather than to everyone who has any kind of religious belief? I'm getting mighty tempted to start saying '...and those scientists have pretty sick ideas - I mean, the Jewish Holocaust and ethnic cleansing, that's all because of genetics.' When I refer to scientists, I mean eugenicists. We all have to pussy foot around the failures of a few nasty skeletons in the closet of scientific objectivity, so will you please start extending the same courtesy to us religious types?
And the only reference to slavery I can find is in Philemon. It's not even a justification, it's just a poor, heartbroken apostle making a difficult decision about what to do with a slave whom he loves as a brother, and wishes dearly to help. He does not, anywhere, say that slavery is good - he simply implies that it happens, and we have to live with it.
I think good ol' Uncie Nick has a good point: unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are. People should have the right to think what they want to, so long as it does not put others - or themselves - at serious risk. And, sometimes, people suffer from disorders like schizophrenia or depression (which, by the way, are largely genetic), and need a helping hand.
Which, by the way, would be a fourth path - not doing either. What do you think we ought to do for them, Aurelius?
That sounded awful! I'm sorry if I sounded a bit nasty - I'm just a mite annoyed at some stuff that's going on around me. Just hope that passion isn't offensive.
- Jordan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 189
A word on reality in responce to Uncle Nick.
"Reality is a product of the Individual "Awareness" and "God" exists within that framework."
I disagree with the theory of 'Reality' which you put forward Uncle Nick. I know it's a well founded theory blah blah but it also doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in my opinion.
We are merely human and with the few senses that we have (including reason) the best we can ever hope for is to formulate a *perception* of reality. Each and every one of us has a different *perception* of reality based upon our individual experiences. But it is only this *perception* which changes for each individual. The object which we attempt to perceive is solid. Reality is what it is. The problem is that the our perceptions are flawed. None of us is quite right.
Therefore the arguement that 'God' exists merely because 'He' exists in some of our perceptions of reality is asking us to stretch the boundary a little too far beyond reason.
At least that's my view.
Marcus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 190
Hi there Jordan,
A fourth path, hey? Ok, lets see.
Schizophrenia. Where a person's personality is divided? Well, I wouldn't describe that as doing neither path 1 nor path 2. I would imagine that they jump rather randomly between paths. Therefore they fit path 3. Of course I'm just taking a rather steriotypical view as I am not educated in psychology.
Depression. I had that. Clinical depression for 6 years. I was still able to determine between right and wrong as I saw them. Don't see that makes any difference there, really. However, you do tend to withdraw and lose hope when your depressed. Yes, you take a back seat from life. I see what you're getting at.
Thinking about it, yes, there are many people who opt out of the moral side of life. I'm not sure if this fits in path 3 or if we need to have a new path but as far as I'm concerned it still makes very little difference to the way they should be treated - with love, support, guidance.
Jordan, what's your point?
Marcus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 191
Oh, and while I'm here may I just voice my support for Jordan's claim that Psychology is a true science. Thanks.
MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 192
Hiya Jordan!
"Psychology: not a science. That is the most insulting thing it could be possible to say"
And if I said that, I'd apologise. What I said was "I'm not sure it counts as a science, even now", and I said that for several reasons.
(1) I'm not sure, because I don't follow its progress as closely as I do other sciences
(2) My current understanding of it is that it is at a very early stage of its development as a science, much as, say, physics was in 1650, for instance. All I know of psychology (i.e. not much) suggests that it is making the painful transition from reasonably coherent set of old wives tales to concrete body of knowledge useful for making reliable predictions about reality. The fact that it is in this transitionary period may explain some of the caution you describe:
"...you might just begin to understand the care these people take in their work. They never give a diagnosis when there is more than the tiniest chance that it may be something similar"
"Physicists shift paradigms every century or less and there is uproar; psychologists don't blink an eyelid."
Which backs up what I would say about psychology being relatively early in its journey towards being a science in the accepted sense. If you're at the stage where you can upset the whole basis of your knowledge every couple of years, doesn't that say something about the maturity of your area of study? Paradigm shifts in physics are rare now because all the good ones happened three hundred or more years ago, and the body of knowledge solidified into a Newton's-Laws-shaped rock for two hundred years. Einstein put a bomb under that rock, and it TOOK a bomb to shift it. You imply psychology is still an insubstantial cloud of condensing smoke, blown left and right by competing interpretations of the evidence. It doesn't make it not a science, I accept that. I'm sorry for any implication it did. I think we think more alike about it than different, and I don't mean to belittle the subject or its study in the least.
"Another thing: could you kindly stop using the word 'Religion' (or 'Christians') when what you really mean is 'Catholics'?"
When I mean Catholics, I'll say Catholics. When I mean Christians, I'll say Christians. When I mean those who hold the Old Testment to be the Word of God, I'll say Judeo-Christians. And when I mean people who are required, if they profess true faith, to believe in a flat earth, I'll say "Religious people", with apologies to any non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim people out there, because when I say "religion" what I generally mean is "anything to do with Christianity, Judaism or Islam". I choose my words with care, and define them when asked. I don't think I've EVER meant "Catholics" when I've said "Christians". I could understand it if I'd said "what's wrong with Christians, eh, thinking their Pope is infallible?". But I haven't.
"When I refer to scientists, I mean eugenicists."
Is Eugenics science or politics? Discuss. (in fact I'm tempted to start another thread with that title...)
"We all have to pussy foot around the failures of a few nasty skeletons in the closet of scientific objectivity, so will you please start extending the same courtesy to us religious types?"
Science does not ask that you pussyfoot around its failures. It asks that you understand that it has repudiated them utterly.
Religion - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - asks that you pussyfoot around any number of rationalisations and exceptions and "interpretations" and mistranslations and allegories and does not admit what it doesn't know. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe the world is a sphere?
"And the only reference to slavery I can find is in Philemon."
Then you haven't been looking very hard. I suggest a glance at Exodus Chapter 21 for starters. God has the whole Bible in which to condemn the barbaric practice of slavery. Instead...
"He does not, anywhere, say that slavery is good - he simply implies that it happens, and we have to live with it."
God doesn't say that rape is good, either. He implies that it happens, and that we have to live with it. Oh, hang on, he actually DOES imply rape is OK... Genesis 19:8, where Lot offers a crowd his daughters, preferring them to be raped than two people he doesn't know (who, unknown to him, are actually angels). What goes around comes around though, of course, because in verse 33 Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him.
God, when inspiring those who wrote the Bible, had, over the course of those 66 books plenty of opportunity to condemn slavery, and didn't do it even once.
"I think good ol' Uncie Nick has a good point: unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are."
Which makes Santa Claus and the tooth fairy JUST as real as your god to most four year olds. What's the difference?
"People should have the right to think what they want to, so long as it does not put others - or themselves - at serious risk."
Agreed. But how many wars have used religion as justification?
"That sounded awful! I'm sorry if I sounded a bit nasty - I'm just a mite annoyed at some stuff that's going on around me. Just hope that passion isn't offensive."
Not to me. What I said about psychology was poorly phrased, mea culpa. As for the rest, I need only look at my desk calendar for today. The pithy words of wisdom on there are, I kid you not, as follows:
"It's a pretty safe rule that the fellow who always agrees with you is not worth talking to".
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 193
Hello again
Just wanted to add something that I see as clarification and many other people will probably see as a load of hogswash. But anyway...
Along with my earlier point on reality and our perceptions, I voice my support on Hoovooloo's point about Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
"unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are" Well, no. That comment is a sandwich short of a picnic.
If I believe that Santa exists then he is just as real *TO ME* as chocolate is *TO YOU*. It doesn't necessarily tally that just because Santa is part of *MY* perception of reality, he is real. That's crazy. That's like saying, just because I start really believing in banana-aliens they're going to suddenly start existing.
I believe in many things that you might not. I might be wrong. You believe in God. You too might be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 194
...and hello again ,
Couldn't help but come back on it: Every time some one uses the word "god", it is assumed that Christianity would be discussed. I don't think that was the case here (as a matter of fact I am quite sure). Could we agree that by religion we mean the mainstream worldreligions and all their aspects (I wouldn't want any Lutheran,Koptic Christian,Greek-Orthodox-Christian,Baptist,Methodist,a.s.o. to feel as if they have to react now or as if I purposely exclude them.... ) ..Please?
For the record: I feel that there doesn't have to be a rift between "us religious people "(I would prefer filosophy-orientated here, but let's not split hairs )and "them science-people".
Wither the power of the human mind is used in a strictly scientific way or as a part of a spiritual path, is not even such an issue, as long as it is used at all, at least to investigate ways and means to improve all life. (hey, give me a break here ok, I am a treehugger, what can I say... )If I can improve the life of existences around me by knowing my path and walking it, then I hold that just as important as the improvement the quality of life through...erm...say chemotherapy.
As for the question wither I have proof of the negative effects of genetic manipulation, well...no I don't, but neither do the scientists, or do they? 30 odd years ago science was sure that there wouldn't be any negative effects from "the pil". As it turns out the oestrogen in the pil doesn't break down all that easily and scientist now assume that the deteriarating quality of the human sperm is due to large amounts of oestrogen in our drinking water...that says something about "long-term-effects", does it not? As an inhabitant of this planet I am worried, aren't you?
In reply to the entries on "hell"...*sigh*.First of all: I don't believe in "hell", at least not as a place. Please take it for what it is: a way of scaring people into obedience. Even if the bible gives reference to it or not, that does not necessarily make it a real place. The bible is not to everyone "the Good book"of eternal and ultimate truth (sorry, it isn't to me).If I have learnt anything then it is that truth is only temporary, what was true today maybe proven wrong tomorrow (and that goes for science just as it goes for my filosophical path).
The place "where the dead rest": that concept is as old as the world itself; maybe to take some of the fear of death and dying away from people, maybe for some completely different reason,I don't really know, but I do know that many a culture (from way before the Christian era) had and still has there own form or name for the place where the dead go: Hades,Otherworld,Valhalla,Tir-na-n'Og,Nirvana and so on...
On a sarcastic note let me put on my robes, go dance under the moonlight and hug a tree...never know what I may come up with next...
Walk in Light /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Refuting Hell
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by EggsER
Post: 195
I don't understand why you quote the Old testment (Until Christ died for us there was no reprieve from "Hell" then jump to Revelation in the new testament and ignore the many comments made about the promise of eternal life.
I think that probably "Hell" is what we make for ourselves by ignoring God's many warnings to know him and have faith. Sin is turning away from God and if you turn far enough you may end in hell. Not so much a punishment but just the consequences. Like if you drive a car with bald tires down the free way at excessive speed and a tire blows, you have an accident. While you may be hurt seriously or even killed it is basically the result of pushing the limit of you options. Jesus came to give us an example of how to treat each other (h2g2 talks about it too) and if we hear the warnings and listen we will be saved. Many these days hear the warning and are like the person with the bald tires and big engine, Ooops, now it's to late once the skid starts. But the New Testament tells us that Christ loves us and will even intervein in the skid. Hense no one know but you if you are saved or not and Hell is where you go if that is what you want to do.
Atheists are daredevils at heart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Refuting Hell
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Runner
Post: 196
"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear."
Nonsense. Religion had a big part to do with it. And here's how. 1900 years of explicit Catholic anti-semitism and a few hundred of explicit protastant anti-semitism gave rise to the bigotry that caused the Holocaust. Millions of Germans didn't turn round one day and say "Hey! Let's kill the Jews!". Germans, like most Christians in Europe had been told in the churches and in the homes that the Jews killed Christ, that they were damned because they didn't follow Christ etc. etc. Of course, not all Christians were anti-semitic (and took Jesus at face value when he said love thy neighbour), and the folks responsible for starting the Holocaust, the Nazis high command, probably weren't doing it for relegious purposes. BUT the environment created in Europe by the Church is what ALLOWED the SS to get away with it. Why didn't Pope Pius XII condemn it, despite having known about the persecution of the Jews (if not the actual ins and outs of the death camps)? Because he, and the Christian establishment were anti-semitic.
This kinda thing demonstrates the pointlessness of discussing whether God exists or not. Who cares what anyone believes in anyway? I can believe the moon is made of cheese if I want. The problem is when people decide that I should be made to suffer for my beliefs. Religious types should not be trying to distance themselves from events like the Holocaust. They should admit to themselves, and to others, "Having a belief-set such as mine, even fluffy and cuddly ones, and encouraging others to do so, creates an environment of elitism, distrust and hatred, no matter how well intended my actions".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Blessed are the Big Noses
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 197
He's not the Messiah!......He's a very naughty boy!
Follow the Gourd
Follow the Sandal
You don't have to follow anybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Hell and that
Posted Aug 23, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 198
I'm not going to Hell, because I do not believe in such a place. Right? Even the CofE (which is what I'd by default be if I were organised-religious) has abolished it as a physical place.
Following on from the reality subject (not necessarily that if you believe in something, it begins to exist- can, open, worms everywhere...) since the soul (which goes to hell) is a construct of the brain/mind, it can only be affected by similar. Hence, hell has to be believed in, otherwise your soul cannot go there. (Course, you have to believe in a soul also... more worms.)
I am not 'ignoring God's warnings'. For a start, I've heard nothing as convincing as the fact that bad tyres probably are not a good bet, secondly I didn't opt to 'disobey' God or confound him or even to annoy Christians, but made a conscious decision to follow a path that I'm more comfortable with (more up my leyline, so to speak.)
Quandary- what of those who haven't ever come across God's apparent warnings? not so much now- those missionaries get around- but in the past before such things were spread. Seems a bit harsh to toss them into hell since it wasn't their fault and they could never have altered their situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 23, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 199
"Therefore the argument that 'God' exists merely because 'He' exists in some of our perceptions of reality is asking us to stretch the boundary a little too far beyond reason."
I was really pushing towards the idea that because the 'God' thing has such an effect on the way that some individuals perceive reality and ultimatley on how they interact with and affect the fabric of the Universe. 'God' must be accepted as a 'Fact'
But that is not to suggest that 'God' is, in anyway, shape or form a thing that exists as an entity seperate from Human Perception. That really would be stretching it.
Father Christmas and God.
The only difference between Santa and God is that grown ups should know better
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 23, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 200
And on that note, and just before I go offline for a while, I must insert two weak attempts at humour -
(1) Did you hear the one about the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?
(2) Did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac, who'd lie awake at night wondering if there was a dog?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 1, 2002 by Doubting Salmon Post: 1
right people, here you go. I want your opinions, views, speeches, etc.
but most of all I want controversy!!! mwahahahahah!!!!
for instance, did you know all of us, non-christians are actually satan worshippers because we dont believe in god? And even though God loves us all if we dont believe in him he sends us(lovingly) to hell to burn? But actually, all hell is is total separation from god, so in theory, for non-christians, its not that bad anyway!!
well, I've started it, now you continue it.
go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 2, 2002 by Kaz, needed a new start. Moved over here U1025853
Post: 2
Take the christian view if you want to!
Some of us Non-christians are fed up with christian propaganda, ie pagan means godless, no it doesn't. Bored of explaining. I'll set Cernunnos on anyone who still has that view!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 2, 2002 by Doubting Salmon
Post: 3
...
maybe it was sarcasm but I don't take the christian view!!
well, great response from everyone else I must say.(that WAS sarcasm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 2, 2002 by Mina
Post: 4
>>all of us, non-christians are actually satan worshippers
I'm a non-christian, as are most of my friends, and most of Asia, and plenty of peopla all over other parts of the world. And the majority don't even believe in satan. Christian invention - you have to be Christian to think it exists.
How's that for a response?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 3, 2002 by the wag
Post: 5
the essence of the matter is that belief in God or Satan is allegorical, the good and bad it represents is in every individual. By siding with God you are promoting the goodness in yourself. A totally existential world, without belief of any kind, would be an immoral nightmare!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 3, 2002 by Abi
Post: 6
Why can't everyone just accept that everyone is entitled to their own view? I know plenty of Christians who don't think that pagans are godless heathens and in fact are coming round to that most faith systems are born out of each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 3, 2002 by Z Phantom [ACE] (jedi master Gr-sim Den'new)mynameisthislongtoupsetyour<viewer>
Post: 7
I myself go for the whole big bang/evoloution theory, however I also respect the views of others on creation/god/being sneezed out of somethings nose, as I find that the less you impose your views on others the less they do the same to you, making the world a much nicer place. (the exeption being those religious fanatics you get in town centres, the ones that grab hold and seem to latch on to you throwing leaflets about how you will be "eternally dammed" unless you imediatly turn to their religion under your nose. when it comes to them I have to admit I just put my head down and )
Z P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 4, 2002 by The Rogue aka Phoniex
Post: 8
I'm surrounded by christians and i am one but the fact that others dont have the exact same faith as me doesnt bother me! If people wosh to force their beliefs on others thats there buisness. Maybe God is there maybe not but people need something to believe in its part of human nature whether that is a religious belief of not is up to the person. Non- Christians are people and maybe if they believ in reincarnation that'll happen to them. Its all about BELIEF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Whatever suits
Posted Jul 4, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 9
There was a character in a forgotten book (maybe by William Gibson) who was a kind of existential counsellor. For those people who had opened up that box we all keep ignored inside our heads called 'death' and had a good look at the black depths inside, he provided them with a belief system in order to help them deal with it and live happy lives. They weren't all the same.
Most people just ignore it until they are confronted by it. Then they have to either ignore it again, or resolve it somehow. For me, I have (after reading a lot of stuff about various religions, and studying physics) come to my own conclusions. Basically, I have tried on a lot of different hats (including determinism, which was an odd but interesting experience), and have found the one that fits me best. And, believe it or not, I am actually happy!
So (if you need to), go try on those hats.
orbitsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PS
Posted Jul 4, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 10
I should just add that I am not a member of any organised religion. To overuse the same metaphor, I have made my own hat. It's a bit woolly, but it's lovely and warm and comfortable.
orbitsville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 11, 2002 by Bisquick
Post: 11
I myself used to be a strict evolutionist but I read a peice on the existance of "a god" in THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO by ALLAN BLOOM. It was very convincing and I can't find anyway to agrue this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 14, 2002 by 2.hot.2.handle(f)
Post: 12
there is no such thing as god!!!
if there was a god why would people be born with disabilities?? why are some people in the world dying of starvartion??? why is there terrorist attacks?? why is there war?? if there is a hell we live and breath in hell every single day of our lives!! earth is hell!!! there can't be no place worse than earth!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 16, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 13
Nice to see you went for the multiple exclamation marks (and question marks!) option for your rant. So much better than the much overused use of CAPITAL LETTERS FOR THE WHOLE MESSAGE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 17, 2002 by unloved
Post: 14
I have a devoted methodist family, although i don't believe s**t about hell or heaven and i would rather think that we when we die we're just dead no biggy.And if life keeps going the way it's going it may be the best piece of sleep i ever get in this life time!Lifes hard enough with out thinking about going to heaven and "living" or existing in peace forever, or burning in hell forever if u didn't do all the bible tells u to! Also u can ask for forgivness and u get it no questions asked! For gods sake i could be a ax murderer then say forgive me and i am in heaven! if u ask me (and u kinda did) heaven is just a bigger form of goverment that screws over the people!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Kaz, needed a new start. Moved over here U1025853
Post: 15
I'm training to be a Buddhist, its refreshing that one of the tenets is not to believe in a God.
It also works very well with my very strong pagan views.
I was bemused to find out that Buddhists met on the full moon, so do Pagans especially Wiccans. I shall have to choose!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Jam (especially Blackberry)
Post: 16
Only this moment exists, no past no future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Researcher 198852
Post: 17
Great debate. Any God that put us here & gave us free will, cannot & will not condemn us to eternal damnation for making the wrong choices. We're here to evolve our souls, not learn lessons. In fact we are all one - there is no separation, not even from God. A fantastic book to give a greater insight into what I'm talking about is "CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD" By Neale Donald Walsh. Go buy it. If nothing else it gives you hope that hell isn't an option!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 19, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 18
woo! the man above me speaks the truth. christianity, as a religion, is rather problematic. but that doesnt mean there cant be a God...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 20, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 19
There almost certainly is a God, in the sense that there is an agency responsible for the workings of the Universe, and that this agency is beyond mankind's understanding.
There almost certainly isn't a God, in the sense of a being who created us in its own image, and with whom we can somehow communicate and ultimately "come to".
Scientists are pretty arrogant, believing they can reason such a God out of existence. But the ultimate heretics were the primitive men who defined God in human terms in their religions, closely followed by the modern-day practitioners of these religions.
The Western set (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are the worst of the lot in this respect. They idealise long-dead charlatans who have little to teach us that has present-day relevance. Worse, They admit no interpretation and prescribe a way of living which harms the planet and its people (if you want an example of this, think about the rightness of a religion that forbids birth control in a world where most of the problems ultimately derive from overpopulation). They have no real function in the modern world except to focus and articulate malice, making them the principal fuel of war. They delude people and stifle rationalism. They create false expectations of salvation and forgiveness which diminish individual responsibility. They obstruct change in a world that must change to survive.
In short, Western religions not only have nothing to do with God, but are the principle force for Evil (in its real sense) in the world today.
Wooh. Glad I got that of my chest. Just an opinion, you understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 25, 2002 by Chupacabra
Post: 20
I tell you what, I was glad to get rid of that George Carey a*****e.
Now, don't misunderstand me here.
I am not a Christian.
What really got me about him was that after 9/11, he poo-poohed
people who put their faith before their country.
So, according to him, (in order) we should praise,
the Queen,
the Prime Minister,
God.
What a complete an utter t**t. I don't believe in hell, but if there
is one, I hope he roasts on the hottest flame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 27, 2002 by Jake Denotsko
Post: 21
All religions are pathetic crutches. If people were truly willing to face the results of their decisions, they wouldn't need a god. Gods were invented in a time when there were no better explanations for the way things are. There was a time when people thought the word was flat. Now we know better and set aside silly ideas.
Over time, polititions learned to manipulate religion towards their own agendas. There is true power to be had in mind control.
When a religion dies it is called mythology. Be it Greek, Roman, Hebrew or Arab; It's all a big load of s**t. The day the world wakes up and takes responsibility for itself and it's actions is the day all people are free. If you don't have that crutch of a god to come and make everything alright, will you live the same way?
I'm an atheist and think in terms of today and tomorrow. How will what I do today effect the world my kids inherit tomorrow. Plain and simple. No fear of hell or a plague. Just refusal to fail the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 27, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 22
The only trouble with a mass debate is that a lot people end up talking a load of w**k. So here I go...
God? Fiction.
Got to thinking today - imagine a world that had religion but had never had science. Don't need much imagination really, it existed right here for centuries. Result - massive infant mortality and an average lifespan in the thirties or forties, intolerance, superstition, mass slaughter based on minor differences of mode of worship and prayer as the cure for cholera.
Now imagine a world that had science, but had *never* had religion - none at all. *Not* a world where it was suppressed - a world where it had simply never occurred to anyone to blame anything on or ask anything of a god. No Judaism, no Christianity, no Islam, nothing. What would that world look like?
No fundamentalists. No Creationism. No Northern Ireland problem. In all probability, no September 11th. No astrology. No Holocaust. No Inquisition. No Crusades. Morality based on pragmatism, and hence rooted in the past but not so unrealistic as to be stuck there - able to adjust to changes in the nature of reality. Example: Pragmatic morality does not ban or even condemn contraception - it DEMANDS it, for everyone, whenever they want it, for free, because increasing population is a threat to the planet. Pragmatic morality does not require circumcision, because people nowadays have enough water to wash every day.
Better, or worse? Just to put my cards on the table, I'm an atheist, and I've thought just a tiny, little along this particular line, and I can't see any way in which a world with religion in it is in any way preferable to a world where it had just never happened. I think we'd all be a lot better of without it.
Of course, now it's here, it's too late (and if what I've read about a theory of the development of the mind is even close to accurate, you couldn't have conscious humans without religion - it's kind of a side effect of the species developing consciousness). You can't suppress it - the Soviet Union tried and failed, among others, and in any case, if people want to believe the moon is made of green cheese and that the tooth fairy is in the pay of the British Dental Association they should have that right.
But wouldn't the world be *better*, if NOBODY had religion? I don't know, and I'm interested what people think...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Jake Denotsko
Post: 23
WOW! I wish I had said that. Bravo, bravo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 24
Hi Hoovooloo and All
I think you're right in most respects, particularly on the evil that flows from Western Religions (my take in Post 19).
But I don't think atheism is a very intelligent stance either.
Can all this be explained by science? Manifestly not. A lot of it can, but there are some crucial pieces of man's knowledge missing. Man needs some humility about the Limit Of (his) Scientific Knowledge, or the highly-scientific people your religion-free world would just find another excuse for perpetrating atrocities - and possibly self-destruction. There are examples of the Evil of Science as well as the Evil of Religion too, remember. (Just don't get me started on the Evil of Money, that's all)
LOSK is a pretty odd God. His worshippers strive legitimately to diminish him, but fear the last remaining vestiges of his wrath. In the meantime, though, they respect their planet and (because their knowledge is incomplete) they consider themselves no better than their fellow men. Inculcating such respect is just about all a religion can contribute, really.
I'd call myself agnostic. I haven't ever quite decided whether Buddhism or Wicca are the truest religions. I just know that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are very bad for mankind, and that we can only hope that their ultimate decadence and decline passes off reasonably peacefully.
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 25
Hiya Pinniped,
Glad to see at least some of what I said gets your seal of approval (sorry, couldn't resist ).
>But I don't think atheism is a very intelligent stance either.
What's unintelligent about it? I look at the world and don't see any evidence of any gods. People used to look at the sun and see a god. Now most intelligent people look at the sun and see a ball of fusing hydrogen and helium nuclei a little over 90 million miles away. People used to look at the moon and see a goddess. Now most intelligent people look at the moon and see a ball of rock a quarter of a million miles away. People used to see lightning and blame it on the gods, now most intelligent people see lightning and blame it on a difference in electrical potential.
Atheists look at this progression, and look around at the world, and ask, "isn't the idea of gods just something we made up to fill in the gaps?".
>Can all this be explained by science? Manifestly not. A lot of it can, but there are some crucial pieces of man's knowledge missing.
Yes, absolutely, and there always will be. Science, unlike religion, does NOT claim to be able to answer everything. But why do you need a god to fill in the gaps, and doesn't it tell you something that year by year, this god gets smaller and smaller?
>Man needs some humility about the Limit Of (his) Scientific Knowledge,
But one of the achievements of science is that it not only recognises the limit of its knowledge, in one area at least it has actually QUANTIFIED it. Any physicist will tell you there are certain things one can know, and as a result certain other things which will be forever *unknowable*. That's a fundamental feature of the universe, and science pointed it out.
>or the highly-scientific people your religion-free world would just find another excuse for perpetrating atrocities - and possibly self-destruction.
Name one atrocity, just one, perpetrated in the name of "science". Careful, now - various people have used "science" as a cover. I don't want to hear about things perpetrated in the cause of politics (e.g. use of nuclear weapons), I'm not interested in things done out of racist bigotry (e.g. medical experiments in concentration camps), and don't bring up anything where scientific results were turning a profit, because it's the profit that's the problem, NOT the science (e.g. Bhopal).
Science gives us the means for self-destruction, sure - but more importantly it gives us the means to recognise and AVOID the possibility self-destruction. Not one of the world's religions warned us about global warming or the environmental consequences of the use of CFCs, for example. Religion has so far proven to be next to useless as a cure for AIDS, malaria, cholera, measles, smallpox etc. etc. etc.
>There are examples of the Evil of Science as well as the Evil of Religion too, remember.
No, there aren't. There are examples of the evil of politics, economics, capitalism, socialism, racism, bigotry and ignorance, and a lot of the perpetrators of these evils have used the tools of science to achieve their ends. BUT saying that, for instance, those killed at Hiroshima are an example of the evils of science is like saying that the women killed by the Yorkshire Ripper are an example of the evils of hammers. DIY tools are not evil. People can choose to use them for evil ends, sure, but in and of themselves they have no moral value, good or bad. They're just tools, and so is science - it's a tool to understand the world, and tool which inherently recognises its own limitations and doesn't pretend to have answers to questions when it doesn't.
>(Just don't get me started on the Evil of Money, that's all)
Iain M. Banks writes science fiction, and very good it is too. Much of it is set in a utopian galactic society called "the Culture". One of the sayings they have in that society is "money is a sign of poverty". We here today live in an age of scarcity - not enough food, not enough fuel, not enough space, not enough transport. One day, if we're lucky, (and if you believe K. Eric Drexler it'll be sooner than you think) we will transcend all that. We'll be in a position to give everyone anything they want. Energy will be for all practical purposes unlimited. Food will be available in abundance, everywhere. Transport to anywhere you want will be available more or less on demand, free. And when that happens, money will become obsolete. There's no point having a medium of exchange when your society has progressed to the point where everyone can have anything they want. Now - given that such a society is POSSIBLE (and there's no reason that I can see to suppose that it is not), how do you get there from here? Prayer? Or research and development?
>LOSK is a pretty odd God. His worshippers strive legitimately to diminish him, but fear the last remaining vestiges of his wrath.
No idea what you mean by this. Limit of Scientific Knowledge is not a "god". Nobody worships it. And what "wrath"?
>In the meantime, though, they respect their planet and (because their knowledge is incomplete) they consider themselves no better than their fellow men. Inculcating such respect is just about all a religion can contribute, really.
Haven't you just said that there's no NEED to inculcate such respect, because it's already there? Unsure of what you're getting at here. Scientists do not consider themselves no better than their fellow men because their knowledge is incomplete. Scientists generally, to pinch a phrase, hold this truth to be self-evident - that all men are created equal. Completeness of knowledge is irrelevant - are you saying that if a scientists knowledge WAS complete he'd be somehow a better person?
>I'd call myself agnostic. I haven't ever quite decided whether Buddhism or Wicca are the truest religions.
Don't know much about Wicca (most of what I know comes from watching "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", which I do not consider to be a reliable source of facts... ), and Buddhism to me doesn't count as a religion. It seems more like a set of instructions on how to be happy and peaceful - like a suggested operating manual for the mind. Nothing I've heard about Buddhism speaks of gods. I can even picture a day, far in the future, where science and Buddhism coincide, and science can say "yeah, Buddhism works, and here's *why*". But that's on the far shore, and we're a long way from that level of scientific self understanding - but I don't think it's unknowable. Science understands how the liver, kidneys, heart, lungs and everything else works to a greater or lesser extent, and I have no doubt that sooner or later (probably later) we'll have as complete an understanding about the brain.
For now, it's enough to know that Buddhism seems to work for a lot of people.
>I just know that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are very bad for mankind, and that we can only hope that their ultimate decadence and decline passes off reasonably peacefully.
Amen to that. Sadly they don't seem to be declining. Part of the power of religion as a meme is that it is self-replicating and protects itself from outside influences. Admittedly, religion as a concept is now under the most sustained and comprehensive attack in history, being challenged on all sides by the incredible successes of science in explaining and controlling the world and making life better for almost everyone who lives in it.
And yet, do you see people turning to their priests and saying "in two thousand years your religion achieved NOTHING to improve the life of my ancestors, made it worse in some cases and was directly responsible for the deaths of many of them, and in two centuries or less science has DOUBLED my life expectancy, practically destroyed infant and child mortality and conquered one deadly disease after another - so take your useless superstition and tell it to someone else"?
No, you don't. In fact, in the latter years of the last century, if anything we saw MORE people turning to superstition - psychic hotlines, crystal healing, astrology, and many others.
Unfortunately, religion isn't going away. It's like a virus, infecting our minds - a virus which makes us want to believe in some higher power we can't see. Over the last couple of hundred years we've started inoculating ourselves with real knowledge of the world, systematically gathered and explained in theories which were ruthlessly tested and discarded when found to be incomplete. But the religion virus is mutating, adapting to this new threat. You can see it in the new beliefs - spoon bending, alien abductions, government conspiracy theories and the like. All the characteristics of a religion (higher powers, explanations for the otherwise inexplicable, charismatic people doing the explaining to the fascinated masses, and all kinds of wacky explanations as to why there's no scientific evidence at all - compare that with, say, Creationism, or for that matter, Catholicism).
I think religion's going to be around for a while yet...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 26
Like I said, I mostly agree.
I do think you're a bit optimistic about the purity of scientists. If you're going to claim that death-camp surgeons and A-bomb physicists weren't scientists, then it's just as reasonable to argue that the 9/11 hijackers weren't Muslims.
I think your central point is that religion is unnecessary and sterile, and that conversely science is vital and potentially mankind's salvation. With that I agree completely.
If you're denying any possibility that scientific ideals are corruptible, and that mankind is somehow incapable of perpetrating evil through science, then we differ. Blaming some other nasty human characteristic (greed, thirst for power etc) for the evil, while admitting that science provides the means of causing the problem doesn't exactly get science off the hook.
There are also some examples of what I'd call scientific evil that derive principally from the arrogance of the scientific establishment. Without their over-confidence, there would have been no commercial opportunity. Prematurely-introduced drugs such as Thalidomide provide a poignant example. Unless proper care is exercised, bioengineering has the potential lead to something far worse for far more people.
This is where LOSK comes in. Of course LOSK is not a God - but I mentioned him to try to explain the desirable mindset of a community that replaces religion with science. To elaborate on an earlier point, most religions do at least propose two fundamentally good ideas for a fair and safe world. One is, we don't know everything so we'd better be careful. The other is, no one of us is any better or worse than anyone else.
Good science makes a virtue of both, and Worshippers of LOSK would know that implicitly. Bad science can get over-confident and the domain of an elite.
I'm a scientist myself, with a physics degree and a profession in engineering. A majority of the people I count as close friends are also scientists. But I do recognise a propensity for elitism in many of us, an attitude to others that goes "they're not equipped to think, so we must think for them". In my opinion, that mindset is not only ugly - it's dangerous.
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 27
"I do think you're a bit optimistic about the purity of scientists."
I don't make any claims for scientists individually. I do make optimistic claims for the scientific establishment in general, because it's set up in a way to self-correct. It's only when external factors such as politics and profit become involved that those self-check measures are bypassed, and you can't blame science, or scientists in general, for that. Example: GM crops. If the experiments to check the safety of GM crops were in the purview of pure science, there'd be huge separation distances, LONG (decades long) trials, and results you could have confidence in. But because the prize for getting it right is massive profits, the government and the companies developing them are sidestepping conventional scientific methods - which is one of the things giving science a bad name with the public.
>If you're going to claim that death-camp surgeons and A-bomb physicists weren't scientists, then it's just as reasonable to argue that the 9/11 hijackers weren't Muslims.
Many Muslims have said that the 9/11 hijackers were NOT good Muslims by any definition they recognise. Interesting parallel indeed. Unfair, I think, to include A-bomb physicists in that list. They were scientists. They delivered a weapon of awesome power into the hands of the military. In the event, the military had no need at all to use it. They used it anyway. Were the scientists to blame?
>If you're denying any possibility that scientific ideals are corruptible, and that mankind is somehow incapable of perpetrating evil through science, then we differ.
This is rapidly turning into more of an agreement than a debate. Scientific ideals ARE corruptible. Evils perpetrated with the fruits of scientific research are legion. We agree.
>Blaming some other nasty human characteristic (greed, thirst for power etc) for the evil, while admitting that science provides the means of causing the problem doesn't exactly get science off the hook.
Depends what you think science is. My definition would be a world view that works on looking at evidence, building a theory that makes predictions, testing the predictions and changing the theory if it fails to predict accurately. It's a morally neutral world-view, because it offers no guidance on what to do with the results of those predictions. For that you need to look elsewhere.
>Prematurely-introduced drugs such as Thalidomide provide a poignant example.
Profit, again. This kind of problem with scientific advancement is only possible in this age of scarcity where people need to be paid money to do research. This is not a problem with science, it's a problem with economics. Drugs cost billions to develop, so there's a lot of pressure to get them to market early. Mistakes are made. But the driving force which causes those mistakes is not the scientific method, but the shareholder value.
"... most religions do at least propose two fundamentally good ideas for a fair and safe world. One is, we don't know everything so we'd better be careful. The other is, no one of us is any better or worse than anyone else."
Point one seems diametrically opposed to what a lot of fundamentalists believe. They DO know everything, because it's written in their book (whatever book it is). Anything not in the book isn't worth knowing.
Point two, also, seems diametrically opposed to what many religions teach. They mostly seem to be based on the idea that there are the Chosen, and then there's everyone else. They differ as what particular mode of painful death is appropriate for "everyone else", but they generally don't seem terribly well-disposed towards them.
>I'm a scientist myself, with a physics degree and a profession in engineering.
Me: engineering degree, career in engineering. Purely for interest's sake.
>A majority of the people I count as close friends are also scientists. But I do recognise a propensity for elitism in many of us, an attitude to others that goes "they're not equipped to think, so we must think for them". In my opinion, that mindset is not only ugly - it's dangerous.
I entirely agree. My own attitude, and you can call this elitist or at the very least arrogant if you like, is more along the lines of: "They're not equipped to think, so we must EQUIP them". Several times on this site I've encountered people who demonstrably don't even know what science is, what it's FOR, but think they do. And because of their wrong-headed idea about it, they embrace superstition. I try, occasionally, to point out what science is, its power, why it's useful, and why everyone should use it as a base mindset for interacting with the world. I don't think I've been very successful. It doesn't stop me trying.
I'd become a science teacher tomorrow, if I thought for a second I'd be any good at it and it didn't mean cutting my salary in half. It's the old saying isn't it - give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you can get rid of him for the whole afternoon...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 28
...but have to leave it there for now. The Weddell's on the warpath...
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 29
I believe in God but not the Christian God. The Christian God is a bit of a sadist. He gives you a will of your own. Then toasts you in hell for eternity for using it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 28, 2002 by cactusklaw
Post: 30
Is it possible that going beyond self and trying to format a set of ethics wedding tolerance,compassion and the interconnectedness of all life might benefit us all on a very small planet.Perhaps even the internet might be a small step to raising the sacred interdependence of all life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Jake Denotsko
Post: 31
Couldn't the argument also be made that if it were not for profit(not prophet), politics, and power etc... religion would be pure and good? These are also to blame for the evils of god, arent they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 32
Hi Hoovooloo!
I've been looking back at your Posts, #27 and earlier, now I've some time. I can't find much that I disagree with in #27!
Maybe 2 points overall :
- About Buddhism not being a proper religion, just a set of rules for right living. Isn't that what a religion is? Or is it the worship of a deity that characterises a religion? My own definition would be the first. I think the second is just an unnecessary (and disastrous) convention that most of them have adopted.
Everything hinges on whether you believe religions to be God-made or man-made, doesn't it? We seem to differ only very marginally. You say there is no God, and that everything's man-made (or at least made by agencies which are the same stuff as man). I say there is a God, because the agencies can never be entirely explicable - my God is (just!) a creative force beyond our understanding.
We both think that religions are human creations, though. Very human, in fact. Like nothing could be more base and less divine.
I guess you're going to come back and say something like True Science manages with axioms for the job I seem to need a God for. Well, maybe so. Maybe science goes beyond my philosophical flexibility on that point.
2. Your earlier point :
<But the religion virus is mutating, adapting to this new threat. You can see it in the new beliefs - spoon bending, alien abductions, government conspiracy theories and the like...
Interesting idea! But what's really going on here? Is mankind's susceptibility to religion a unique failing of his reason? I think the truth is more like :
- there are charlatans around who will try manipulate the thinking of masses for their own gain (that's democracy, after all!)
- they'll try anything that people are potentially gullible about. Religion is only one candidate.
- Pseudo-science is at least as good. Your examples are rather extreme, but public perceptions of a lot of important issues are unhelpful : genetic engineering, clean and safe energy, the morality (and reliability) of space defence. I don't have a rigid view on any of these, but I deplore the standards of debate.
(Confession : I'm currently banned from one local pub. There was a bit of a scene after some guy said we needed a referendum on GM foods, and I pointed out he wasn't intellectually entitled to vote... )
So I really like your Mission to EQUIP, from the last paragraph in #27...
(and, yes, you are arrogant!)
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 33
>I've been looking back at your Posts, #27 and earlier, now I've some time. I can't find much that I disagree with in #27!
Is this the five minute agreement or the full half hour?
- About Buddhism not being a proper religion, just a set of rules for right living. Isn't that what a religion is?
To me, religion implies some belief in at least one being of some sort which is in some way responsible for the way the world works, a belief which requires faith. If you don't believe in a god, or gods, then to my mind you have a philosophy, an approach to life, rather than a faith.
>Or is it the worship of a deity that characterises a religion?
Not necessarily worship - just belief in. For instance, people who describe themselves as "lapsed Catholics", say - I would characterise them as being religious. They clearly BELIEVE in their god, since they persist in characterising themselves in a religious way - but they don't worship it.
> my God is (just!) a creative force beyond our understanding.
Interesting position. How do you worship that? Or don't you?
>I guess you're going to come back and say something like True Science manages with axioms for the job I seem to need a God for.
Actually, I was going to come back and say if you characterise God as a creative force beyond our understanding, I would just add the words "for now"
><But the religion virus is mutating, adapting to this new threat. You can see it in the new beliefs - spoon bending, alien abductions, government conspiracy theories and the like...
Interesting idea! But what's really going on here? Is mankind's susceptibility to religion a unique failing of his reason?
I don't think it's a failing of his reason, I think it's a feature of almost everyone's psychology. We have this monkey curiosity, a need to know the answer to everything. Science DOESN'T have those answers. Sure, it has more now than it ever has before - but it's still a single candle in a huge dark room. Religion seems to fill the gaps - unless you decide you are comfortable with the gaps.
>- there are charlatans around who will try manipulate the thinking of masses for their own gain (that's democracy, after all!)
That's priests since time immemorial...
>- they'll try anything that people are potentially gullible about. Religion is only one candidate.
Absolutely. Which is why I mention the other things above...
>- Pseudo-science is at least as good. Your examples are rather extreme,
Are they? Really? MILLIONS of people believe in them, in the teeth of the evidence. I don't think they're extreme at all.
>but public perceptions of a lot of important issues are unhelpful : genetic engineering, clean and safe energy, the morality (and reliability) of space defence. I don't have a rigid view on any of these, but I deplore the standards of debate.
Agreed. Which is a failing of the representatives of science to communicate, and a failing of the liberal arts mafia in the media to allow any semblance of a balanced story to be told. As long as television companies keep making documentaries about ghosts, it's going to be an uphill struggle.
Here's another observation: imagine a TV cop show. Every week, a crime is committed. The attractive and intelligent double act of FBI agents investigates. Every week, they narrow it dow to two suspects - a black man and a white man. And EVERY SINGLE WEEK it turns out the black man is the perpetrator. EVERY WEEK. How long would that show last?
The white man is a simple scientific explanation. The black man is a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory alien abduction explanation. And the show has lasted NINE YEARS on prime time.
>(Confession : I'm currently banned from one local pub. There was a bit of a scene after some guy said we needed a referendum on GM foods, and I pointed out he wasn't intellectually entitled to vote... )
Well done! I'm still bothered by the fact that next time there's a general election, Jade from Big Brother is entitled to vote - Jade, who thinks "East Angular" is in the Mediterranean. BUT Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) had this to say on the subject of democracy. Take the hundred smartest people in the world, and ask them a question on which the public is evenly divided. There are two possible outcomes. (1) They're evenly divided too, in which case intelligence is irrelevant to democracy, OR (2) They all vote the same way, in which case intelligence IS relevant but is hopelessly diluted. Either way, ouch.
Hence the mission to equip - stupid people get to vote. You can't take the vote off them, so you have to do your best to take the "stupid" off them.
>(and, yes, you are arrogant!)
I knew that!
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 34
It's hard work being controversial round here...
But 2 (related) things worry me (possible cracks in Hoovooloo's edifice?)
>Actually, I was going to come back and say if you characterise God as a creative force beyond our understanding, I would just add the words "for now"
...So you (H) believe that science will solve everything, given long enough? What about your own earlier nod towards Heisenberg, which suggests you already acknowledge the absolute nature of uncertainty at least on a small scale? Maybe that observation is pedantic, but I don't think I want to believe in a universe where everything is explicable. I like the later "comfortable with the gaps" slant on this much better.
>As long as television companies keep making documentaries about ghosts, it's going to be an uphill struggle.
...There goes this certainty thing again. First you're categorically an atheist (a philosophical position of absolute certainty). Now the inference is that you don't believe in ghosts (another one). Don't you think there's a basic inconsistency in denying the validity of others' (religious) faith while seemingly having turned your own views into conviction?
Don't get me wrong - I think your reasoned position is far more coherent than a religious one, but that only means you're probably right. To claim that you're certainly right undermines your own argument.
At least, I think it does...
Let's simplify. Do you think the view that "there probably isn't a God" is an intellectual cop-out - or is it a rational position?
P.
(and poor old Jade! OK, she's pretty thick, but I never heard any suggestion that she's taken in by religion, or that she's intolerant in a malicious way. The problem with democracy comes down to DNA's 3 spaceships - the iffy group's the middle group. Not those who can't think, or those who can think, but those who think they can think)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 35
><snip>"for now"
...So you (H) believe that science will solve everything, given long enough?
For a given value of "everything", yes.
> What about... Heisenberg...? Maybe that observation is pedantic,
It is!
Heisenberg (and come to that, chaos theory) prevents a future where science can PREDICT everything. And since one of the fundamental powers of science is its ability to predict (eclipses, earthquakes and the weather, etc.) that's a pretty big limitation. But nothing fundamentally stands in the way of a future where science can look at any observed event in the past and explain it. Is that so bad?
>but I don't think I want to believe in a universe where everything is explicable. I like the later "comfortable with the gaps" slant on this much better.
There will always be gaps in our knowledge *of the future*. There will not necessarily be gaps in our knowledge of the observed past... if we get that far. I don't have a problem with that. There are a lot fewer gaps now than there were two hundred years ago, but a LOT of people seems quite happy completely ignoring that hard-won information and just going on being superstitious. This will continue to be an option.
>As long as television companies keep making documentaries about ghosts, it's going to be an uphill struggle.
...There goes this certainty thing again. First you're categorically an atheist (a philosophical position of absolute certainty).
Well, I'm absolutely certain I'll be devout Christian the very minute someone presents me with some evidence for the existence of that god that doesn't boil down to "someone else told me he exists and I believe them", "it says so in this book" or "I just KNOW it". My "certainty" comes from, among other things, education in strongly religious church schools, not a single member of staff of which could provide any convincing reason for believing in a god. That included the vicars. Every passing day without any reason at all to believe in a god, any god, makes me more certain - but I'll still change my mind if someone gives me reason to.
>Now the inference is that you don't believe in ghosts (another one).
Correct, I don't believe in ghosts. Introduce me to one, and I'll believe. Introduce James Randi, or Paul Daniels, or Penn and Teller to one, and I'll believe, come to that. (Funny, isn't it, how a lot of serious sceptics of things like faith healing, spoon bending, ghosts and other wacky stuff like that are professional magicians? Usually because they recognise the techniques of stage conjuring being performed by charlatans who claim its for real)
>Don't you think there's a basic inconsistency in denying the validity of others' (religious) faith while seemingly having turned your own views into conviction?
I do not deny the validity of others' faith. I merely point out that it is precisely that - faith. No evidence asked for, and none given. I strongly believe, and state as often as anyone will listen (not often... ), that I would defend anyone's right to believe in leprechauns if they want to. But I don't see any inconsistency at all in my pointing out that a belief in leprechauns is a little, ah, eccentric, while simultaneously "believing" myself in, say, relativity.
There is, I think, a category difference between "believing in" a god, and "believing in" science. Science requires that you believe the evidence. Gods require that you believe DESPITE the evidence. It's a pretty strong difference.
>To claim that you're certainly right undermines your own argument.
Ah, but I don't claim that. All I claim is that my view certainly WORKS. Your kid got leukaemia? Mine too. Tell you what - you try prayer, I'll put my "faith" in chemotherapy. AIDS your problem? Me too. You ask your god for forgiveness, I'll ask my doctor for AZT or whatever. Wife possessed by demons? Mine too. Tell you what, you try an exorcism, I'll get a psychiatrist to prescribe the standard drug treatments for schizophrenia. The weird thing is, one time in ten thousand, your way will work. But I wouldn't bet on it. There's no such thing as a sure thing - but science comes a LOT closer than any religion.
>Let's simplify. Do you think the view that "there probably isn't a God" is an intellectual cop-out - or is it a rational position?
Personally? "There probably isn't a god" seems to me a bit weak. Quite apart from anything else, *whose* god isn't there, probably? There are so damn many of the things knocking about in the past and present belief systems of the world that it's difficult to keep track of them. For instance - do you believe in Odin? Jupiter? Apollo? Shiva? Amaterasuomikami? If you believe in all those, congratulations on covering Norse, Roman, Greek, Hindu and Shinto theologies. A career awaits you as an Electric Monk . If you choose not to believe on ONE of those gods, think about why - and that's most likely the reason I choose not to believe in yours.
More to the point, there's not just no evidence FOR a god, there are perfectly sound reasons why we as a species would concoct the idea, reasons which go far beyond just as a crutch to make ourselves feel better. But I've rattled on at length about the theory of the bicameral mind elsewhere, and it's late and I'm a little tired.
>(and poor old Jade! OK, she's pretty thick, but I never heard any suggestion that she's taken in by religion, or that she's intolerant in a malicious way.
Nor did I imply either of those things. I'm just observing that it's slightly worrying that sooner or later Jade is going to be asked the question "do you want control over interest rates to be passed to a central bank in Brussels, thus depriving the bank of england of the power to control inflation and the chancellor of the exchequer of much of his ability to affect the running of our economy?" - and her answer will MATTER. But, like I said, that's democracy, "the least worst electoral system in the world", as Churchill put it.
>The problem with democracy comes down to DNA's 3 spaceships - the iffy group's the middle group. Not those who can't think, or those who can think, but those who think they can think)
I love that idea - although I think the real problem with democracy is that *nobody* really knows anything!
Anyway, it's late...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Element
Post: 36
fiction - all available data points to this
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by kirriea
Post: 37
i have no idea whether god is fact or fiction but my view is that if it is fact, it is not an entity i'd chose to worship. if it happened the way it says in the bible then i dont consider GOD to be a particularly nice being. as an all powerful all seeing all knowing deity doesnt it strike you as a little odd that he did not forsee the whole apple/serpent thing? which leads me to believe we are part of some cruel experiment(if GOD exsists)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 29, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 38
So you're not absolutely denying the existence of a God. Instead you're asserting that there is no logical necessity to assume a God, and therefore he doesn't exist, because he needn't exist.
You've got me wondering whether everything that exists is necessary to explain something else. Isn't that Kierkegaard, or somebody?
I'm gonna leave this one here, and Lurk around waiting for Hoovooloo to say something else somewhere else that I can really disagree with.
Maybe that's a bit ambitious. Let's aim for something I can actually understand, for starters.
See ya!
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 30, 2002 by em's
Post: 39
ok say you take a block of wood an chuck it. i agree its gonna make a loud "BANG" but it aint gonna make a table! you get me... i dunno but the whole big bang thing dont work for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 30, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 40
I do get you, emmm's. This is a common Creationist argument. It's often phrased to include the image of a tornado blowing through a junkyards and spontaneously building a jumbo jet.
Now, OBVIOUSLY that's nonsense. But the REASON it's nonsense isn't the idea of complex structures arising spontaneously from simplicity. The reason it's nonsense is that that kind of thing doesn't work on a scale you can see. The building blocks of jumbo jets don't spontaneously attach themselves together in regular, useful form if they just happen to pass close enough to each other. BUT ATOMS DO.
Like you say, if you chuck a block of wood, it isn't going to make a table.
But the weird thing is, if you "chuck" atoms together, they DO just make tables. Or rather, big, complex molecules. That's how chemistry works. It's against common sense, because common sense is based on what you can SEE, and you can't SEE chemistry going on. If you could, you'd most likely be complaining that you can't make a table by throwing a block of wood...
It's a deeper understanding of the physical and chemical mechanisms underlying things like reproduction and photosynthesis that means that the "gaps" people use a god to explain are narrowing all the time. Anyone who's still protesting that order can't spontaneously arise from disorder is deliberately ignoring widely available and provable facts, for some reason.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 30, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 41
Well, I guess since I'm here I might as well stand up and be counted. *Deep breath* I'm a Christian.
And I'm a rather old-school one. That is, I believe in one God, formed of the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that (though the evolutionary process) he created the universe and then the human race. I believe that he appeared as an incarnation on Earth 2000+ years ago, lived and then died to forgive our sins, bringing us into relationship with him.
I want you all to know something else. I think of myself as relatively intelligent. I have a Bachelor's degree in English, a minor in Sociology, an IQ of 135 and I've done a lot of reading and philosophizing in my 24 years on this planet.
I'm not here to fight with anyone, but to simply tell another side of the story. A side where I believe in the teachings of Jesus... loving your neighbors, not worrying about tomorrow, trusting in something greater than yourself, being slow to anger. Yes, I know most if not all people fall short, but I still want to keep trying. Because I believe it's right to try and take care of other people.
I may disagree with Agnosticism and Atheism, but that doesn't mean I have no respect for people with those beliefs. I just don't think they're right. If you want to know more about why I believe what I do, or want to debate, I'll be happy to do so. But I'd ask anyone who wants to talk to be polite and respectful. Flaming won't get anyone anywhere.
Peace.
-Eagle1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 42
I was where you are now. I was a Sunday School teacher and a deacon in the church. I believe in God and Jesus but I do not believe the whole Bible. I did at one time. I do not need the Bible to believe in the living God. There has been so many changes to it. For one, there are three books which have been taken out of it. One being the Book of Thomas which would probably abolish all religions. Plus I went through hell by so called Christians when I came out as being homosexual. I was told God hates homosexuals. The word homosexual did not come into the Bible till the mid-19th centuary. You told us of your qualification. Why don't you look into the history of the Bible. I think you will be very surprised. Be happy. God is love
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by EggsER
Post: 43
Maybe earth seems pretty bad if you look at it's faults but it has it's beauty too. That's one of the things the H2G2 points out over and over. There may be better places and there are probably worse places. I am a Christian who believes the difficulties in this world are the result of the choices Man makes, not God. Famines, disasters, etc are the result of what we mess us or expect to be protected from. If we are part of a natural world we must accept that nature is not always kind and forgiving. God created a perfect world and gave man the ability to choose (hense not totally controled by instinct). I am NOT a fundamentalist so I don't pretend that we need to count the days it took to create, or argue over the big bang. The real message is how do we treat each other and do we really take care of the world we are part of? Do we accept that life will be hard for some and easy for others. Only magical imaginary Gods would create a beautiful world and then change it. We are living in a great experiment and some of us suffer. It comes with one guarantee, our bodies will die eventually as all living things do. Some of us believe there is a part that continues on but that doesn't mean that we are excused from responsibility to the world we were all given to care for. Sorry if this sounded like a sermon.
Peace and beauty are what you want them to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 44
Why can't people believe in themselves and be done with it. Or are we brain washed so much as children to believe in God someone better than us. That we have been made to feel inferior towards ourselves. And brought up to believe in this hell place where we will toast if we don't believe in God. Is that why people believe in God because of their fear of the unknown?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 45
Believe in ourselves? Not inferior? Have you seen what happens when the masses try to worship the Self or the State, or anything else associated with something specifically human-made and not something seen as superior to us? Communism and Fascism come to mind. And before anyone starts in about Communism, it doesn't work as a system because of human greed and ambition.
Why is it bad to be humble and fearful about unknown consequences when it comes to unethical behavior? If it weren't for religion, it seems like far from the utopia that Marx envisioned, it would be a pit of State-endorsed opression or a chaos of human Id run amok.
This is just one opinion, of course, but there you have it. Take it for what it's worth.
-Eagle 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Jul 31, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 46
"Have you seen what happens when the masses try to worship the Self or the State...?"
Good point.
I've asked you this question, personally, Eagle1, but it bears asking to a wider audience. I agree that worshipping the Self or the State leads to undesirable consequences due to human greed and ambition - your examples are good ones.
That same human greed and ambition leads to undesirable consequences of worshipping a god - consequences like the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burnings, and September 11th. All the result of "religion" being twisted by people for their own ends.
So - I agree worshipping the Self is bad. I agree, worshipping the State is bad. I further think that worshipping a god is bad. In fact, I think "worshipping" *anything* is bad.
So here's the question - why "worship" anything?
[interjection here: the definition of "worship" is "to show profound devotion and respect to; adore or venerate" or "to be devoted to and full of admiration for". Something I can understand doing to your parents, partner or close friends - but why anyone/anything else?]
What is it with some people that they feel the need to worship *something*, and feel the need so strongly that (from my perspective) they have to invent something that they can't see?
If you think God is a fact - why? Endlessly curious about people's answer to this question.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 1, 2002 by Beegle
Post: 47
As for my answer a resounding "or" would echo... this being from the fact that we only had three options initially, that in itself constraining opinions. The fact there will always be fiction and that some fiction will be construed as fact is unavoidable (the beloved BBCs Spaghetti tree April fool some years ago a good example of fiction misconstrued as fact by many). My own opinion is that religious texts were just a few stories slapped together while someone tinkered with the TV set theory. I also firmly hold the belief that we are not alone in the vast expanse of space... so when the first off-worlders come to say hi (or invade unflinchingly) will those who believe in gods, call the off-worlders gods or call on their omnipotent being to save them? this must be their question... they want god back, but if (and i emphasise that word) god existed would they recognise the sod anyway? i mean if the only omnipotent being in the world turned out to look like a half eaten pilchard would you worship it? and on top of that if it was omnipotent could it create a rock so heavy that it couldn't then pick it up itself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 1, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 48
I did not say worship yourself, I said believe in yourself and do things to help yourself. To believe in yourself (not worship) makes you a better person and more understanding of other humans. I have met some of these so-called Christians and they can be very nasty people. They don't worry about the state of the world because God is going to give them a new one. That's like slapping God in the face and telling him his creation of the first world was not good enough. Some of them also believe they are in the world but not part of it. The fact is we are. We, and everthing else in the universe, are made of star dust. Plus if an atomic bomb was dropped everything on the planet would be dissolved. Then where would religion and Christianity be? Be happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 1, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 49
-What does believing in yourself have to do with making you a better person?
-Being in the world but not of it doesn't mean what you think it does. It means doing your best to act out the characteristics of the Christian faith without being pulled into any Biblically immoral behavior.
-I understand that you may not have had a great experience with Christians, but just know that quite a number of us are not like that at all. I don't think I'm nasty or hypocritical, for instance.
Right, time to head home.
-Eagle 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 2, 2002 by EggsER
Post: 50
If you read C.S. Lewis's book, "The Great Divorse" you will see a different view of how some of us believe Hell is choosen. We are not banished to desolation, we freely choose it. Obviously not all Christians feel that way but I do and there are more. I think we all need to believe in something, sometime. My husband likes science better than a religious being. I like science for information, theory etc but it offers no moral guidance. I remember when the medical profession (suposedly they are scientific) said nothing about the potential harm of tobacco. Dams are built to save water to irrigate crops and pesticides were sprayed to get rid of mosquitoes with yellow fever. All turned out to have devastating effects just as religious ideas turn out all wrong sometimes. Still we keep working at fixing the parts we see as mistaken. I see to many young people who have no hope. All they seek is a new thrill or excitement or diversion. When I was a teen we had a purpose. To give back to life what we had been given and more. If science helps someone find that goal it's great as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 2, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 51
Being ill with a nervous breakdown and being in hospital for a while came from my not believing in myself. Doctors taught me to believe in myself again. Strangely enough it was an evangelical church and their paranoia that helped put me into hospital. I was different and I asked questions and did not agree with a lot of their beliefs. They did not like that. Now, through the help of the doctors, yes I am starting to believe in myself again. I do believe in God but not the Christian God. The God I believe in is a loving and caring God. Not a God who gives you a will of your own, then toasts you for eternity for using it. He is not judgemental. We are as He created us. I do not believe in Hell or a so called Satan. Religion made a game out of them. This soul is mine and that soul is yours. According to religion Hell is going to be a busy place. For a while I stopped believing in any kind of god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 2, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 52
"For a while I stopped believing in any kind of god."
Why did you start again? Was your belief in yourself not enough? (just curious, and honestly interested in your answer, see post 46 above)
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by Zagreb
Post: 53
I'm agnostic, so I don't know the answer to the question. Like everyone else in the world if they were honest with themselves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by Runner
Post: 54
Is it necessary for God to exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 55
...Hang on, I'll ask him...
...No...I'm afraid he seems to be being omnipresent somewhere else at the moment...
...Can we get back to you on this one?
*click*
(In the meantime, why doesn't someone from the Pro-God Tendency just answer Hoovooloo's Question?!?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 56
God is: objective fact. "Since what may be known about God is plain to them [men], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:19,20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 57
Eh?
"God is: objective fact."
I think you may have a rather different definition of "objective fact" than most of the rest of the English-speaking world. Or possibly a different definition of "God". Could be either. Care to elaborate? Honestly interested by what you mean by that.
The quote you supply is objective proof of the fact that some guy wrote those words down once and they've been preserved and translated since then. It's objective proof of nothing else.
""Since what may be known about God is plain to them [men], because God has made it plain to them."
So far the only thing God has made plain to *me* is that he doesn't exist. (This is a joke)
"For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen"
Sorry, say that again? "God's invisible qualities...have been clearly seen"? Er... if the qualities are invisible, that means you can't see them. If you can see them clearly, that means they aren't invisible. Not a complicated concept, really.
"being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:19,20."
Men are without excuse, because they can *clearly* SEE the invisible. This was written by a guy nearly two thousand years ago, and that is the reason you think God's existence is an objective fact? Baffled.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by *** NEW UPDATED NON-MODERATED PROFILE *** Xaero - Keeper of the Hyperintellegent Shades of the Colour Blue.(1*9/9+6)*(-2+8)=42
Post: 58
All religions agree on some issues but disagree on others. most of them suggest things we know cannot be right.
eg. christianity - the garden of eden/creation story doesnt seem to explain dinosaurs.
i think all the religions suggest that something made the world to see what happened, and that we should all be nice to each other, because we have nothing to lose by doing this and there are bribes eg. heaven.
i have read the bible, torah and koran. i have also read parts of the guru granth sahib and the book of the dead.
xaero
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 59
Doesn't "God" flow thru all of us equally? No matter how one chooses to worship or not . Western Religions were born out of Zoroastrianism. This is what the Ancient Greek Aristocracy feared more than anything from the Persians was monotheism. It took the power of god and gave it to the masses. Of the three western religions mentioned above the word of christ is the only one that speaks of non violence. I don't believe you will find anything in the word of christ that justifies the use of violence in any shape or form. Christ did not seek power or control. Gandhi told Churchill that this is what he used to get independence from the UK. The Crowns own belief system. Strangely the major eastern religions Hinduism and Buddhism and there belief system were brought there by the Aryan. The chinese and communism go well together because of confucianism.
The violence in the world is not from god but from man. There are religious leaders around the world teaching hatred and violence in the name of god. The justification for teaching this to childern is purely baseless. The terrorism in the world is born from these teachings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 60
TheMelvin:
"I don't believe you will find anything in the word of christ that justifies the use of violence in any shape or form."
Matthew, Ch 18, v8: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.!
Matthew again, 10:21 "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
Matthew again, 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
All from just the one Gospel. All of these you could use, if you wished, to justify maiming, fratricide, infanticide, war and killing of unruly children. But then again, Jesus had odd ideas about a lot of things.
"Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" : Luke, 10:21. In other words, "thank you God, for making sure that only really naive and stupid people get my message". I'm flattered by this verse - I must be "wise and prudent", eh?
You also said: "The violence in the world is not from god but from man." Right on. Except the excuse given for a lot of the violence - is god. Is that perhaps the real reason people worship a god? To justify their violence or indifference to others?
H.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Zagreb
Post: 61
The quotes you attribute to Matthew, Hoovaloo, are not from Christ but from a book of the Bible. That's quite a different kettle of fish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 62
Call me incredibly dense if you must... but TheMelvin wrote:
"I don't believe you will find anything in the word of christ that justifies the use of violence"
So, Zagreb - I'm on the edge of my seat. I'm desperate to know... if one wants to know what the word of Christ is, and the Bible is not a reliable source:
(a) why are they called Gospels?
(b) why does every Christian minister in the world keep banging on about them as if they bear some relation to some stuff that Christ actually might have said once and
(c) if you can't get the word of Christ from the GOSPELS in the BIBLE, where on earth CAN you get it from?
Those passages were, in every case, alledgedly verbatim reports of things Jesus actually SAID. Some of them appear in more than one of the Gospels - so there's possibly even (incredibly rare for the Bible this) - *objective* corroborating evidence that the guy did actually say these things. I did not attribute those quotes to Matthew. Matthew attributed those quotes to Jesus in the Gospel. People might disagree on the status of Jesus as messiah, or prophet, or nutter. But if you're going to say that I can't refer to the Bible to quote what Jesus taught, we're going to have a hard time debating anything at all on this subject.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 63
Probably my brain washing as a child as I came from quite a religious background, being part of an evangelical church the scars it leafs can be quite daunting. So believing in a none Christian God helps me live with the scars, and gives me someone to talk to when I'm alone. Maybe once the psychiatrist is finished with me I'll believe in myself more and not need anything to talk to when I'm alone. Plus when you talk to God nothing comes back on you. Alright I'm probably talking to myself, But what the hell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 64
Message 63 is my answer to Hoovoolo. From Semaj.Maud'dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 65
Gotcha Semaj, no prob. Threads have a way of running away like that. Thanks for the response.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 66
Hoovooloo
If we are reading from the same King James version:
Matthew, Ch 18, v8: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.!
This is not suggesting you bring harm to any one but yourself.
Matthew again, 10:21 "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
This is not Christ saying to put brother child parent to death but that people will be put to death for believing in his word.
Matthew again, 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Where is this saying anything about violence?
Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
This is a good example of the teachings of christ. This he is speaking to the Pharisees and is the Pharisees tradition not the word of Christ. Christ is not suggesting anyone one should be put to death.
Christ challenges the Pharisees and there interpretation of the word of God the father. Christ challenges the Pharisees and the use of justified violence in the name of the father.
" Except the excuse given for a lot of the violence - is god. Is that perhaps the real reason people worship a god? To justify their violence or indifference to others?"
This is just what Christ refutes in his teachings. Christ is not god. Christ is the conduit to salvation.
I don't mean to sound like some bible thumper here. I am not particularly very pious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 67
"If we are reading from the same King James version:"
I think we are
""...if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off"
This is not suggesting you bring harm to any one but yourself."
That's a lovely idea... (well, actually, it's not, it's suggesting self-harm is a good idea, but we'll skip lightly over that...) BUT what is a pious Christian to do if he sees his neighbour NOT cutting off his hand, or foot? It doesn't take much of a leap of logic to go from cutting off your own hand for your own good, to cutting off your neighbour's hand for *his* own good. Easily justified...
""And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death"
This is not Christ saying to put brother child parent to death but that people will be put to death for believing in his word."
OK, I accept that one. One all?
"Matthew again, 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Where is this saying anything about violence?"
Erm... what are swords for? Legalistically, I would characterise this as language suggestive of incitement.
"Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
...Christ is not suggesting anyone one should be put to death."
I agree... in context, this is Christ defending himself against accusations of not following tradition. The Pharisees criticise his disciples for not washing before eating. Jesus retorts that the Pharisees don't kill unruly children, and calls them hypocrites for it. Now, that's a good way of making a point - but you COULD use it to justify violence. I'm not suggesting that that justification would be valid, but that wasn't the question.
" Except the excuse given for a lot of the violence - is god. Is that perhaps the real reason people worship a god? To justify their violence or indifference to others?"
"This is just what Christ refutes in his teachings. Christ is not god. "
Hmm. Then what of:
John, Ch1, v1? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Jn.1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
Jn.10:30-31 "I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."
Jn.10:38-39 "The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him."
Col.2:8-9 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
All of which seems to imply that Christ *is* God. But wait!
Jn.8:40 "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God."
1 Tim.2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Which would seem to back up your assertion that Christ is NOT God. Tricky thing, believing the Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of an infallible omniscient creator, isn't it?
"I don't mean to sound like some bible thumper here. I am not particularly very pious."
Cool! Neither am I.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 68
Hoovooloo
Remember also that much is also lost in translation from the Aramaic. For example which of coarse in my unpiousness I can not locate the exact verse but it has to do loosely quoted: "To believe in him(Christ) you must hate your mother and your father" this is a poor translation from the Aramaic. The truer translation should read to believe you must set aside your mother and your father. This no doubt leads to most of the confusion in the world. Poor understanding thru translation.
Peace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 69
Hoovooloo
I think what Zagreb meant is what I responded. That the text you quoted is not what Christ says but what the old testament says. And as I suggested it is Christ that refutes alot of what and how the old testament is interpreted by the Pharisee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Miss quixotic
Post: 70
Excellent, hopefully I will become a prominent figure in the debating circle; I love debates purely because it emphasizes the fact that I am always right! Anyway for my inarticulate ramblings on this topic I will state the case that God is fact, to believers, and fiction to sceptics, understandably there are valid arguments for both, and by the way, hell does not exist, it is pure fiction, I have read the bible and there is no statement saying that you will be condemned to hell if you have been naughty, and yes, you will still get your Christmas peasants if you have murdered (everyone has murdered, even if it was an ant in childhood) anyway, I digress, God, is not a fact, if you take fact to mean an idea, or object which can be currently scientifically proven, but the existence of Jesus is a fact, as the Romans inscribed his name, and death date on his tomb stone, this artefact has been discovered, and thus, I will not begin a long, draw out struggle of weather or not God is a matter of fact or fiction, unless, or course, people take an interest in this entry, and as I am always right, wish for my honourable intervention in this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by em's
Post: 71
so was jesus gods son then ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 72
Um... TheMelvin:
You said:"the text you quoted is not what Christ says but what the old testament says"
I said, in fact I quoted: "Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
Last time I checked, the Gospel according to Matthew was in the New Testament, and verse 4 of chapter 15 purports to be a verbatim report of something Jesus said to the Pharisees. We can debate what he meant if you like, but this was a quote from the NEW Testament.
As for things being lost in the translation, are you serious? Are you actually saying that bits of the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously or read literally because the divinely inspired infallible Word of God has been imperfectly recorded?
Because once you start to pick and choose which bits of the Bible that you, an imperfect human, deem to be meaningful and acceptable, and which bits you are happy to write off as not meaning what they say because of translation errors, aren't you just saying that the Holy Bible is just like every other extremely old and unreliable patchwork of semi-historical, semi-fictional documents of debatable authenticity? Either it's the word of God himself, and therefore it's ALL true, even the bits that contradict the other bits, OR it's ALL up for grabs and you can take anything you like the sound of and just ignore the inconvenient bits and say they were badly translated. Me, I'm for ignoring "that shalt not covet thy neighbour's ox", because my neighbour's got a really *cool* ox, you know?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Runner
Post: 73
I am surprised and confused by Christians pointing to the King James Bible of proof of anything. Apart from, as mentioned above, translation issues (doesn't the Aramaic for virgin also mean young woman?), many parts of the book have been written, rewritten, deleted and altered in order to justify vested interests, religious or otherwise. For instance, there are many contradictions between the old and new testaments, not least the idea that Jesus is God. Didn't the Jews of old (and present, I guess) believe that the Messiah is just a man? Isn't this what's stated in the Old Testament? Forgive me for not being able to provide a reference. I saw a programme on the Dead Sea Scrolls once, and a Bible scholar, talking generally, said the easiest way to tell what bits of the New Testament are made up is to see what prophesies of the Old Testament are 'met' in the New Testament. These are all bogus.
My QPR programmes say that Rangers are the best team in the second division and bound to go up. And all my QPR-supporting friends agree. So does that make it fact?
And regardless of what it says in the Bible, surely an important aspect of religion is the impact it has on the actions of the followers of that religion (isn't that the point?)? Well, looking at the state of humanity today, and the last 2000 years, religious types haven't exactly made a good job of it, have they? Of course, I expect Christians to point to the Devil or the original sin or whatever to explain away the obvious, but considering most of the brutual, barbaric acts in the last two millenia have been done specifically in God's name, by explicitly religious people. So what's wrong? Why all the prejudice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 74
Hoovooloo
"Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
Yes this is a statement from the New Testament.
And Yes that is what I am saying. They did a shoddy job translating from the original Aramaic. Go figure. ;>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 75
TheMelvin:
"And Yes that is what I am saying. They did a shoddy job translating from the original Aramaic. Go figure."
What's amazing is *not* that the translation job is shoddy - that's obvious. What's amazing is that, knowing that, and knowing the myriad contradictions, failed prophecies, barbaric laws, absurdities, historical inaccuracies, intolerance, injustice and just general ghastliness of it all, that anyone chooses to base a large part of their inner life and behaviour on its contents. Go figure THAT.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by Zagreb
Post: 76
Hoovaloo,
The Bible is not the "word of Christ" it is a collection of Christian writings that was compiled at the council of Nicea in the 4th century under the orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Many of the writings were left out, as the Roman bishops thought them "unsuitable". It was only turned into the "word of God" by the established Church. It is infamously contradictory, that's why the Roman Catholic clergy got nervous when the Protestants insisted on translating it into non-Latin languages. They thought the ignorant rabble would pick it to pieces. They needent have bothered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 77
Hoovooloo
The crux to it is that the faithful are very much unaware. It is only relatively recent that 1. Services are not done in latin 2. That people on a whole even know how to read.
What Christ had to say is not what the problem is but the people that get in the way of interpreting his word.
Zoroaster kept it simple. Be kind to your neighbor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The ultimate answer
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 78
Runner
This statement: "And regardless of what it says in the Bible, surely an important aspect of religion is the impact it has on the actions of the followers of that religion (isn't that the point?)? Well, looking at the state of humanity today, and the last 2000 years, religious types haven't exactly made a good job of it, have they? Of course, I expect Christians to point to the Devil or the original sin or whatever to explain away the obvious, but considering most of the brutual, barbaric acts in the last two millenia have been done specifically in God's name, by explicitly religious people. So what's wrong? Why all the prejudice?"
Goes back to what I originally said concerning the state of affairs in the world today when I said "The violence in the world is not from god but from man. There are religious leaders around the world teaching hatred and violence in the name of god. The justification for teaching this to childern is purely baseless. The terrorism in the world is born from these teachings" Until the community that this hatred is being taught faces up to the problem within their clergy and the evil that they are teaching things will not get any better but will spiral even worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 79
I had this reply in another forum elsewhere about religion. Seems to fit here.
The guy was trying to tell me that the books that didn't make the final cut for the bible at the Council of Nicea were merely paint scratches and meant nothing.
"And I would offer this one last thing. If all you've read about Jesus begins and ends at the bible, you have a biased view. You read what revision after revision has filtered. You read a watered down version of Jesus. I say this without fear because the Diaspora-later to become Christians were not the only ones to have ideas about what Jesus said(did not say) and what is written about him. The earliest dissenters from the established Christian faith as we know it, were the Gnostics. In fact, one of their bishops, Valentinius(I believe that is his name, I'll check should anyone be curious) was martyred/murdered because of his beliefs about Jesus.
"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you"
--the Gospel of Thomas.
It was the belief that the Kingdom of God was within each and every one of us, that lead to his death. And this is only one of many things that Jesus has in the Apocrypha and Nag Hammadi codices that the established church of Christianity killed to surpress.
"The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
--Gospel of Thomas"
The other guy is telling me that Jesus was not a revolutionary for his time.
"You've said that Jesus came to tell the Jews they were doing everything wrong. The Jews followed their laws, they way the always had. Prophecy spoke of Jesus(or someone else, depending on your inclination) coming to be the King of the Jews. Prophecy never said he would come and force them to change traditions they had maintained over centuries.
An example?
Ok. How about sacrifice?
Abolished because of Jesus.
Don't dismiss this out of hand. Sacrifice was man's tithe to god in atonement for his sins. Abraham was ready at one point to offer his own son in tithe to God. Sacrifice is serious business. And now, on the word of Jesus, the only way to get atonement from god is through Jesus. This is a 180 turn ladies and gentlemen and I'm telling you, the people couldn't have viewed as anything other than revolutionary.
Jesus's ideas were revolutionary. Believe it. It wasn't just an elite few that clamored for his death."
And now to the violence part that some of you were talking about. Taken from the Apocrypha of the bible.....
"Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes"
"Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."
--Gospel of Thomas"
There is more in this vein, but it serves to point out that ther is moe to this Jesus guy than people think. Particularly if they get all their info from just one book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 80
Also should anyone be curious I had an interesting conversation with della about this stuff, check out the conversation here......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F71014?thread=150374&skip=0&show=20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 81
people who discard religion as wrong are wrong - there may or may not be truth in it, which cannot be determined from a strictly philosophiocal point of view.
people who say 'all christians believe the bible is truth' are also wrong - many are moderate christians weho see the bible as a book with some guidelines in and a lot of rubbish and a lot of contextual and hostorical chaff to be got through. those christians who say that the bible is true in its entirety are very wrong. and have the wrong end of the stick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by Runner
Post: 82
Yes, quite interesting thread. Personally, I am quite strongly of the belief that religion's primary raison d'etre is political, regardless of whatever the motivation of its (human) creators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 83
RE: post 66
"Christ is not god."
Whoa, major point here. Christ is God, the Son. He could not have atoned for the sins of the world and therefore have been "the conduit to salvation" if he wasn't. There's no point in believing in him if he is not God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 84
RE: post 81
The bible IS true in its entirety. "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Timothy 3:16 The consequence of this: Scripture is infallible, since God is perfect. And it does say "ALL."
I know that this is a major point, so I'm ready for a debate here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 5, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 85
RE: post 57
Objective: "of or having to do with a known or perceived object, as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking."
God: The "I AM WHO I AM" or "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." The one who was and is and is to come.
The whole point here is that God is, and that doesn't need explanation.
You dislike the fact that I refer to the Bible, which is the Word of God, written by men divinely inspired. How else could so many who did not know each other write about God and always make him out to be the same as the others? To what do you appeal to make your arguments, besides your own beliefs?
"Invisible qualities" means uncommunicated properties, i.e. those aspects of God which he did not give also to man when he created man in his image. Invisible meaning not seen on earth. Besides, you're using the word 'seen' equivocally: it can mean more than just "perceiving with your eyes," you know.
Rome existed two thousand years ago; do you not believe in it? You have committed the fallacy of chronological snobbery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 86
We are all Gods children. Just as Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 87
Children?....or parts of the same thing?
Sometimes I think Children was used because the truth was either unacceptable to most people or the words simply don't exist to explain the reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by shagbark
Post: 88
Most Scientists will admit the Universe had a beginning.
If so what is so hard about admitting that it also had a creator?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by AlecTrician...[**=] [>+<] just part of the weitverzweigteswurzelwerk ...Five More Years Tony?? WOOHOO!!
Post: 89
Just look around you...
Does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that all this happened by accident.
The evidence for creation is right under our noses all the time.
shagbark
alec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 90
oh no.
the point is that just cos the bible says it is true, and i know it fdoes, doesnt make it true.
what if i claim to be the messiah? who is there to say im not? if i wrote it down and called it scripture that doesnt make it true does it.
the bible has many contradictions and wrongnesses in. pi = 3, it says at one point. the gospels dont agree with each othe r(jesus attacks the temple at the end in matthew mark and luke, but he does it at the start of john)
some of it is true, but not all of it
especially as we have a letter (from eusebious) from about the 3rd century AD which says that at that time Paul's letters were not the word of God, but merely the word of a good man. thus, if the canon has not always been considered canon, how can it all be definitionally true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 91
my own view is that cos everything has a cause, the universe must have a cause too - we dont know what it is. it may, or may not be a God. but if it is a God, he does not intervene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Flying Monkeys.....
Post: 92
Well, you've succeeded, and it looks as if both sides of the argument have been presented. I think, personally, that religion is different for everyone (even if they both go to the same church) because it implies faith in something, and faith means taking a leap into the unknown and, therefore, into your own soul. To have faith in God, you have to have faith in you first. It wouldnt make sense to believe in God and think you're helpless.
Personally, I'm comfortable with God where He/She/It/They forgive mistakes and teach people to be better. From me that's important. But, I'm not up for saying that unbelievers go to hell or anything. I think belief has to come from each individual, and we're all different.
Also, a good book that really puts "real" (unquestionable) belief into perspective is called ARENA, by Karan Hancock. It really makes you understand what is asked by christianity. Basically, trust and paience, and both can be good. Or they can be your downfall.
Anna *mystified by what mayhem religion can cause*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Ste
Post: 93
"Does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that all this happened by accident."
Yes, I do. The word "accident" misleads slightly though, things weren't just jumbled up and hey presto! we get the universe. If you replace "happened by accident" with "evolved" (not in the strict biological sense of course) that is more the way things seem to have happened.
Isn't it strange alec, that the evidence that you cite as being for creation is also my evidence against it? From my point of view, the only difference is that I have come to the conclusion from what I have learnt and experienced and you seem to have come to your conclusion despite what you have learnt.
I honestly don't see the need for a creator. He is obsolete.
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Uncle Heavy [sic]
Post: 94
but that doesnt mean there isnt a creator. concede that, at least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 95
RE: post 90
Well... I am not interested in arguing with other Christians. I do not believe that it is possible to be a Christian mentally if you don't believe that the Bible is absolutely true, but I see that you know quite a lot about the history of the Bible that I don't, so you may understand something that I don't. I doubt that very much, but shall we agree to disagree, and will you pray about it?
<the bible has many contradictions and wrongnesses in. pi = 3, it says at one point>
No-one knows the exact value of pi. When I say that the Bible is absolutely true, that does not mean that I read it differently than any other piece of literature. Context, syntax, grammar, translation, and the culture of the writers must all be taken into account. Taking all those into account does not make any part of the Bible untrue! The Bible includes poetry, prophecy, history, biography, and many other forms of literature, all of which should be read as literature. It would be stupid to treat it otherwise. Again, reading it as literature still does not make any of it untrue.
<the gospels dont agree with each othe r(jesus attacks the temple at the end in matthew mark and luke, but he does it at the start of john)>
There are two possible explanations for this: 1. There were two separate cleansings, one at the beginning of his ministry, the other at the end. There are different details in both accounts that support this theory. 2. There was only one cleansing, but John placed it at the beginning of his narrative for theological reasons. John is not one of the synoptic gospels, you know.
<especially as we have a letter (from eusebious) from about the 3rd century AD which says that at that time Paul's letters were not the word of God, but merely the word of a good man.>
How is it that you are putting this man's words ahead of Paul's? Paul said that he had been given "surpassingly great revelations." If God can divinely inspire Scripture, he can make sure that the canon is complete, with no excess or omission.
If you put more study into the supposed "contradictions and wrongnesses" in the Bible, you would find that no-one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong. It is interesting that your name rebukes those of little faith. I would encourage you to heed your own warning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Ste
Post: 96
The last bit was a personal opinion so I would only concede a slim, tiny chance that there is one, sneakily hiding away in the dark corners of the holes in our understanding of the universe. But the fact there is no need for a creator to explain everything doesn't *strictly* mean that there isn't one, yes, but it isn't looking too likely now is it?
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 97
RE: post 92
That is a very dangerous outlook to take. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In another place, we are warned not to be fooled by the spirit of this age, but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The spirit of this age is precisely the one that you profess, a subjectivism that says to each his own. True, a relationship with God means knowing him personally, but those who know him all know the same God, and know him to be just the same as all the others who know him.
Another good book that puts "real belief into perspective" is the Bible. You either believe or you don't. End of story.
And you're right about religion. "Religion" is a crutch, a thing of this world, like politics or science. Knowing Christ is what is important, and that is what makes Christianity different from all other "religions:" it is a friendship, not a practice, or in other words, not a "religion."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 98
RE: post 296
Not to you, perhaps. To others of us, it is impossible for it to be otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 99
Sorry, that last should have been RE: post 96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Runner
Post: 100
"Christianity different from all other "religions:" it is a friendship, not a practice, or in other words, not a "religion." "
Try telling that to the Jews, Moors and all the others that Christians have put to the sword in the name of Christ. With friends like those, who needs enemies, right?
And as for quoting the Bible to justify the authenticity of the Bible, well, that's the most moronic (and Mormonic, hehehe) thing I've ever heard. Did thEntity work in Enron's Accounting and Compliance department, perhaps?
And as for pointing to the world around and using that as justification for a creator, well, the nastiest thing on this planet is man, so if we are made in His image, God, as they say, help us!
And what makes you <insert religious sect> right? Don't you ever get the sensation that you've been brainwashed since birth, or become addicted to a drug?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Runner
Post: 101
And "knowing Christ" isn't what's important, even for Christians. It's "not being bigoted but treating all of humanity with respect, regardless" that's important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 102
I don't feel that I've been brainwashed. Go to post 41 for why I don't think that, or go to my space to the more recent of the two conversations for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 103
RE: post 100
The Crusades were perpetrated by misguided Christians, assuming they were Christians at all. Many of them were doing it for the money, not for Christ.
Appealing to the Bible as my final authority is not at all moronic (and I'm not a Mormon). I have discussed this at length in another thread which I don't have a link to right now... I'll get back to you.
Man is fallen. God is perfect.
God makes me right. I don't mean that he makes me always right, I mean that I am sharing his Word. No, I don't feel brainwashed. If I did, do you think I would believe? Perhaps I should ask you whether you ever feel enslaved to sin, whether you do not do what you know is right, but instead do what you know to be wrong, because you have no power for good?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Ste
Post: 104
If you were brainwashed do you think you'd know you were brainwashed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 105
RE: post 101
How is it that you know what is important for me, or Christians in general? Your halfway answer of respect will not save you or anyone else. Besides, can you fulfill even that demand perfectly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 106
RE: post 104
No, and I think that fact reflects more on the person who asked the question, not me, eh?...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by ThEntity
Post: 107
The other thread I referred to is here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F27390?thread=190977
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by AlecTrician...[**=] [>+<] just part of the weitverzweigteswurzelwerk ...Five More Years Tony?? WOOHOO!!
Post: 108
i would ask ste that same question...how do you know you haven't been brainwashed by all the evolutionary theories and the so-called 'evidence'
i think that atheism is more of a 'religion' than Christianity, requiring a huge leap of faith.
alec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 6, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 109
re. the Crusades:
misguided they may have been, but that was the state of the whole Church in those times. And they were doing it because they believed in it, certainly not for money (those who profited, i.e. the actual organisation of the Church, didn't get its hands dirty.) An example is the Children's Crusade, where many little 'uns went off to fight for their religion, and were of course slain without trace. They were definately not in it for profit.
It seems a very convenient excuse to say 'They weren't Christians'. But they were, if they are to be measured by the average standards of the time (not judged by today's, which of course should never be done when discussing history). It's just that your Church has evolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Ste
Post: 110
It was a joke
I would use a different word rather than "brainwashed". In your question, replace "brainwashed" with "convinced beyond all doubt" and replace "so called 'evidence'" with "multidisciplinary, convergent lines of over a century and a half of solid evidence" and you would probably get an answer. But that's just an opinion isn't it?
I think that anyone thinking that atheism is a religion has a good point, I'd tentatively agree to that, but it requires a leap of logic rather than faith. Any faith placed anywhere is in other people' humanity.
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 111
Atheism is not a religion.
Religions are characterised by faith.
Atheism is characterised by a rejection of faith.
People who characterise atheism as another religion betray themselves as narrow-minded religious people who can't see beyond their deeply ingrained mindset and conceive of other people being different from themselves, actually thinking in a completely different way.
Atheism and religion are not two sides of the same coin. Different religions are two sides of the same coin. Atheism is the recognition that currency and coinage are arbitrary concepts invented by man to deal with our temporary scarcity of resources.
What's scarce now is intelligence and reason. The currency we use to replace it is religion. Not everyone chooses to play along with this game.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by TheMelvin
Post: 112
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Crusades were first undertaken because Christians were not able to pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Runner
Post: 113
It's no good pointing at Crusaders or anyone else and say they weren't true Christians. What they did WAS in Christ's name, whether they were paid for it or not. And enough Popes/clergy have been dodgy as well. Pope Pius XII all but started the 2ndWW by selling out the Catholic Party in Germany to the Nazis (because he wanted to centralise Catholic power in the Vatican), not to mention allowed millions to die in concentration camps without even saying a word, despite controlling the will of millions of people (source: Hitler's Pope, by J. Cornwell (a Catholic)).
I agree completely that man is fallible. But the only evidence I have for the existance of a God is second hand reports from man. Personally, between believing in an all powerful deity or deities that control the fate of man for reasons unknown, OR believing in man's vivid imagination and the desire to find meaning in this world, I'd rather go for the latter.
The question about me being brainwashed by evolution theory etc. is a valid question. My answer is this; evolution theory presents itself as exactly that - a theory. The theory has been updated since Darwin to take into account further analysis and debate, and indeed, there is more than one evolution theory knocking around (e.g. the aquatic ape theory). Evolution theory has been subjected to review and criticism by scientists and others, with the aim of finding the truth - it's proponants welcome criticism, as intelligent debate sparks deeper analysis which furthers the accuracy of the theory. As I am led to believe, this is common with most scientific research and is known as the scientific method (correct me if I'm wrong). [I don't pretend to understand all of evolution theory, and there's parts of it that I don't necessarily believe in. But just because I can't explain it, or where humanity comes from, or what the meaning of life is (42), doesn't mean I have to invent an explanation, or believe in one at all.]
This differs from theology which essentially does not change, and is not subject to review. Anyone who goes up against the accepted wisdom is trashed in some way (in times past put to the sword by some barbaric means). And who determines what the accepted wisdom is? The clery; the political power of the religion, the folks with most to lose. The only exception to this as I understand it is Buddaism, which has as a central tenet a necessity to question everything.
I am no expert in anthropology or sociology (I can't even spell 'em right!), but I find the human need to create god(s) more compelling than the other way round.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Runner
Post: 114
Re post 105: "How is it that you know what is important for me, or Christians in general? Your halfway answer of respect will not save you or anyone else. Besides, can you fulfill even that demand perfectly?"
which was in reply to post 101: "And "knowing Christ" isn't what's important, even for Christians. It's "not being bigoted but treating all of humanity with respect, regardless" that's important."
I agree that I'm in no position to say definitively what's important for everyone. But if I'm not, then neither are you, so saying "Knowing Christ is what's important" is as meaningless as my rebuttal.
And secondly, what do you mean by 'save'? Do you mean 'save me from the bigoted elitists who think that a belief-set entitles them to inflict their will on others'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Kaz, needed a new start. Moved over here U1025853
Post: 115
It makes a change, I met a bigoted, small-minded druid last night!
He got very upset, when I said that I believed I was Pagan, not Druid afterall, and couldn't give it up. I told him I truely hadn't found out after a few years reasearch, exactly what the difference was between wiccan, druidry and paganism. Which was why I was now calling myself a Pagan.
He said that Druids like to do ritual during the day, wiccans at night, if you upset a wiccan they will blank you, but druid will try to understand you
There was more, but you get the idea, I shall say to him next month, that people have too many bigoted ways of defining pagan subgroups, which is why I'm happy the way I am!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 116
My answer to being brainwashed. Are you Catholic?, are you Protestant?, are you Mormon? Etc. They all believe they are right and their religion is true and they are going to heaven. Why? Because they have been brainwashed by their parents to believe that. I don't believe in hell. People get saved as they call it. Not because they love God but because they are frightened they will go to the very hot place called hell if they don't. I don't believe there is a God of love would be sadistic enough to toast souls for eternity. I have met a lot of lovely people who are not Christian. I have also met nice people who are Christian. I have also met people who are Christian and have been really nasty people. I have not had a bad turn done on me by my non-Christian friends who seem to be very level-headed people. I have had bad turns done on me by Christian people who seem to be very mixed up. They think everything they do, they do it for God. It seems they can't think for themselves, they need God to do it for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 7, 2002 by Researcher Eagle 1
Post: 117
Semaj,
Just thought I'd point out that I became a Christian at 20 years old and my parents are both basically Agnostic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 118
Good for anyone who has been allowed to select their own path, whatever it is. I wouldn't say all religions are brainwashing, since it is natural in a survivalist sort of way to want to be the only one in the right. However, there is room for open-mindedness even in the religions which say this (after all, it's what you personally believe so what does it matter to anyone else? or their beliefs to you?)- brainwashing would be someone blindly brought up (by parents or their community, if it is overwhelmingly one-sided there's not much chance of their being different) to believe what is 'right' without ever questioning the authority of those who teach them, examining their beliefs closely or even listening to alternative views. However I can't blame them personally for this, but the conditions that made them that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by em's
Post: 119
Dumb all over yes we are, dumb all over near or far, dumb all over black or white us religious fanatics have not got it right. Saying we all know the story, but dont we make the details sound real gory. So what if they dont like what we got in our book over here does that make em bad ? No but instead we revenge an deploy burn an destroy, did our god say this is the way ? No! is it meant to be this way No! so you see if this carry's on soon they wont be no street for you joggers to jog on our doggys to dog on one day it will be all gone.
do i believe in god ? well lets just say i hope we all go to a better place!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by Chicken
Post: 120
My friend and I came up with this little theory, it mainly applies to people who don't beleive in God and people who are so stuck to their religion that they have no other life to live, no disrespect is to be caused by the follwing I am just posting a message that I have some beliefs in I do respect other peoples religions and cultures and I hope no one gets mad at this:
'The bible is a story book, made up by old men who didnt know what else to do, why should we live by a book of stories? Why should we be told by people in churches what is right and what is wrong? The whoel idea that God created us and the earth in 7 days is highly unlikely and most scietific evidence proves otherwise. I am fed up of hearing "you should live by the 10 commandments" "sin this sin that".
We suggest you pick your own pen and write your own story as you live it!'
NO disrespect what so ever to those who believe in God and the Bible this is just my point of view which I am entitled to as a human being!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 121
aye.
the 10 commandments are pretty universal, and provide an obvious guide to things it's better not to do. (oooh, those graven images!) The rest of it, i.e. things not set in stone and open to multitudes of (mis)interpretation, is best left to the individual and not forced on anyone who might have a different understanding of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 9, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 122
Mandagora. I agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Researcher 200294
Post: 123
A belief in invisible men and/or women living in the sky so that we may justify our continued actions on this planet and simply fulfill our role as humanity? No. We are merely one culture in thousands ... not "advanced", but perhaps mentally damaged.
I'm an animist. How's that?
I might be wrong, but that's my song, so it is written, so it is danced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Perium: The Dauntless /**=/
Post: 124
"my own view is that cos everything has a cause, the universe must have a cause too - we dont know what it is. it may, or may not be a God. but if it is a God, he does not intervene."-uncle henry
What you've just described is called determinism.
However there is a catch. Because you believe that everything has a cause, than there is no such thing as a first cause, nor is there such a thing as free will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 125
*arrives on thread a little belatedly*
It seems a little odd that in 124 postings nobody has thought to ask explicitly
1) What do you mean by God?
2) When you say he exists/doesn't exist what do you mean by the term exists?
These may seem like foolishly simple questions, but if by God you mean the Standard Theological Metaphysical Model (incorporeal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc) and by existence you mean that something affects in some way (any way at all) other things that exist, then the STMM is logically at odds with the concept of existing. And if you think otherwise then you mean something different by these terms than I do.
A reflection on the nature of doubt (and therefore of certainty) would also be in order. Why is it that some things are capable only of hypothetical doubt (doubt for the purpose of intellectual exercise), while other things can be genuinely doubted? What makes the difference?
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 126
I think there's a very good reason why people haven't asked the question, "what do you mean by 'god', and what do you mean by 'exist'?"
The question, basically, only has three words in it ("Does God Exist?"), and the only one that most people can agree on a definition of would be "Does".
The problems start right there: those who believe in what they call a god don't necessarily define it in the same way as other people who believe in other gods (or come to that, what they call the same god).
All of the above may define "exist" differently from one another.
Then a third group comes along, who don't believe in any gods at all. They have to synthesise for themselves a definition of "god" from the natterings of all the "believers", since lacking belief of their own they have none of what the believers characterise as direct experience of gods. And lacking that direct experience, they lack belief. And so on.
So they look for proof that gods "exist", in the way they understand existence. Sadly, "proof" seems to be another concept for which those with "belief" have wildly differing definitions, often bearing no relation to anything normally denoted by that word. (I've often thought it would be funny to put a Fundamentalist Christian on trial for a capital crime they haven't committed, and put it to them that the text of "Ulysses" by James Joyce is irrefutable *proof* of their guilt, by their OWN STANDARDS AND DEFINITION OF PROOF. I think they just *might* start to complain about saying "proof" is something written in some old book rather than the evidence of reality if put in that situation, but hey, judge not...)
I think the reason nobody asks for strict definitions is that most of us come to conversations with our own definitions and assume that these are the generally accepted ones. Some people may come to a conversation KNOWING that their definition of "god" is different from most people's, and may take care to make this clear from the outset. Others arrogantly assume that since they've seen the light and KNOW things because of divine revelation, they can just start using the language their way and all the benighted heathens just better learn to keep up or burn in hell for all eternity. Whatever.
Others start from the position of assuming the best of people, and when someone says "ah yes, but he didn't die, he lived on for another 930 years" they assume the person is joking, or being ironic, or any number of other things before they come to the conclusion that the speaker honestly believes it to be the literal truth. It can take some time before it is obvious that you're dealing with a person like that. Once it is obvious, niceties like definitions are really irrelevant, since such a person is obviously so detached from reality - often deliberately so - that there really appears to be very little to be gained by talking to them.
As someone else pointed out, they can have nothing useful to say on the subject, since they are manifestly speaking a different language, albeit confusingly using the same words as we do. But there's no point trying to agree definitions with them, any more than there would be any point trying to agree definitions of "yellow" and "blue" with a blind person. Sure, a blind person could hear the phrase "yellow is electromagnetic radiation between x and y nanometres wavelength, and blue is e-m radiation between these two other wavelengths" and understand intellectually that for a sighted person perceiving a difference is possible - but the CONCEPT will mean NOTHING to them.
In exactly the same way, some believers may, possibly, be able to intellectually process the words "does God exist?" as being an interrogative, but the substance of the question will mean nothing to them, and they are incapable of discussing it in any meaningful way or giving a valid answer.
So, in order to have a conversation at all, it's necessary to pretend that we're all speaking the same language (we're not), and that we're all equally capable of thinking about the question (we're not). Otherwise, no discourse is possible.
With most conversations on this site and elsewhere, the slight differences in people's definitions of things can be a slight barrier to communications - e.g. an American may at first be somewhat perturbed if an English correspondent observes that they aren't themselves until they've had their first fag of the day. But in the majority of cases, such linguistic oddities are slight and easily cleared up - it's difficult to picture an American stating outright that "fag" does NOT mean cigarette and never could, say. But that's exactly the attitude you get from believers. This word means this, and nothing else, and can't mean anything else, ever, for anyone.
There are a number of reasons why conversations like this go on so long. Non-believers read the odd statements of those with belief and are amazed that people who clearly have the mental wherewithal to operate a PC with an internet connection apparently manage to also believe, for instance, people can live for 900 years or more. It's a bit like looking at a road accident - the urge is to say "oh, come on, get real - you don't REALLY believe that, do you? You're kidding, right?". Then, when they appear seriously to believe this stuff, you have to ask why? And the answers are often quite entertaining. Also entertaining is watching them trying to defend the more ludicrous inconsistencies, absurdities and just sheer nonsense on which they base their beliefs.
I do know that the VAST majority of "believers" look at most of their book as a fairy story, and when you say "you don't really believe *this*, do you", the answer is usually "well, no, not really, it's an allegory isn't it? It's not meant to be taken literally." Which is fine. I don't take it literally either, why should they? We can all pick and choose which bits of it to take notice of. I personally like to observe the commandment "thou shalt not steal". It's the people who take it all literally who are the odd ones, and if you ask them for their definitions of "god" and "exist", you won't really get anything useful back, so it's best to just try to maximise their entertainment value by, say, pointing them at things like 2Kings2:23-25 and ask them to explain why children who call bald men "bald head" deserve to be disemboweled by bears.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 10, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 127
On the ball as usual H., though I had been hoping for the entertainment value of watching someone "explain" why it is impossible to doubt X when it's quite obvious that millions of us have no trouble doubting X at all. But no doubt you're right; the actual question as asked would have been ignored. Unless someone out there is willing to prove me wrong...
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 128
Besides, the object of a thread like this isn't for one side to convince the other (can't be done). It's to convince the neutrals and waverers.
Also, as a philosopher, I want to make amends for the role of all too many philosophers, especially "philosophers" of religion, in giving credence to such questions. I mean, there are "philosophers" who think the ontological argument should be taken seriously (though they seem to have taken the Fifth on the nature of necessity). The main function of philosophy is (should be) to show how most philosophical questions are in fact pointless. It's understanding why that constitutes enlightenment.
So I say again. It's not the answer to the question Does God exist? that's wrong. It's the question itself that lacks any content.
But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise IF someone can demonstrate where I'm mistaken. Any takers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 129
I keep trying to ignore this thread, but it's kind of compulsive. Here's a suggestion, then :
After about three weeks of occasional tinkering, here's my definition of "God" : something humanity can never understand but which is nevertheless necessary to explain the universe.
The question "Does God exist?" is therefore equivalent to the question "Do we need to accept the existence of something beyond human comprehension in order to explain our universe?"
On this version of the question, I find myself at odds with both Hoovooloo (who seems to believe that science will cover it all in the end) and most of the Christians (who seem to think that they "know" God - which I've just deemed impossible)
I'll make a decisive philosophical position out of agnosticism yet!
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 130
I wouldn't say that I "believe that science will cover it all in the end". But I *do* think that we will one day achieve what someone taller than me once called "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty".
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 131
<Something humanity can never understand but which is nevertheless necessary to understand the universe.>
On a standard use of language you could be talking about the human mind, but not God. Unless you mean understand the existence of the universe. In which case I don't see how it differs from saying We can't explain the existence of the universe. Period.
Necessity and omnipotence are mutually exclusive as explanations.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 132
<We can't explain the existence of the universe>
Yes, that is what I meant. I think it is the same thing, or at least the first part of the same thing.
Now the second part : is it necessary to postulate the existence of some agency to account for this inexplicable phenomemon?
If you say yes, you've accepted the existence of God.
If you say no, you've denied the existence of God.
I'm sure you're going to put me straight on this one too, but this point at least looks fairly clear-cut to me.
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 133
If you say yes, the problem is How do you account for this agency?
If you then say you don't have to, or can't, account for this agency then unless the postulation is genuinely explanatory (ie it contains a logical proof that the agency in question could not have failed to create the universe) then you're really back to saying no, there is no need of an explanation. (Or at least to agreeing that no explanation is going to be forthcoming and the existence of the universe is as far back as explanation goes).
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 11, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 134
You can't account for the agency/God. It surpasses your understanding - that's what makes it God.
It doesn't need to be explanatory, genuinely or otherwise. It stands in place of an explanation. That's what God is, isn't it?
Thinking this way is fundamentally different from the "no" answer. The "no" answer is a conclusion that no mystery exists to explain. The "yes" answer is a conclusion that there is a mystery, and accepts that no explanation is humanly possible.
So what use is a God we can't understand, you might ask? Not a great deal if your looking for a prescriptive saviour, which is of course exactly why religions have anthropomorphised God. There should be some important benefits of believing in such a God, though, such as recognition of the limitations of mankind and respect for the rest of life, the universe and everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 12, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 135
The no answer is the conclusion that no EXPLICABLE mystery exists to explain. Together with an explanation of why there is no explanation.
Which is pretty much what Hoovooloo said about defined limits to certainty.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 136
Nope. After several attempts and wanders through the backthread, I still don't get the point you're making here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 137
If the only point of postulating a creator is to explain the universe, then showing that this postulation is not explanatory removes the justification. It's called Ockham's razor.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 138
2,000 years ago, plus, according to the book called the Bible, there was a virgin called Mary gave birth to a son called Jesus. He was God in the likeness of man. The family moved to Nazareth. The next we hear about Jesus is when he was a boy at the temple talking to the high priests. Then he disappears. The next we hear of Jesus is when he is 30 years old being baptized by John the baptist. Then he goes into the wilderness for 40 days, then comes from there and starts to preach. Then he is crucified and is risen from the dead. Three days later he visits his disciples and is then risen into heaven. It says he ascended into heaven and disapeared into a cloud of smoke. Where did he go? At that time people thought heaven was beyond the blue. They also thought the world was flat then, and all the planets went round the earth. Modern technology has changed that. Man has gone out into space and dicovered it goes on for ever and that all our planets go round the sun not the earth. So where are heaven and God? Technology has also discovered that there are 18,000,000 stars to one grain of sand and yet Christians still believe Jesus ascended into heaven. Was the smoke he ascended into from the engine of a spaceship?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 139
A bit ironic to invoke a Franciscan monk to deny the need for God, but let's let that one pass...
I think I get you know, but I don't agree.
<showing that this postulation is not explanatory> is not a fair test.
It's "not explanatory" only in the sense that it can't be explained in terms comprehensible to Man. If you can accept the premise that some things that Man can't understand might just be perfectly real, then you can apply Occam the other way round - if what a God was capable of doing viz-a-viz governing a Universe was explicable in other more mundane terms (accepted Science, for example), then you wouldn't need to postulate God's existence and would discard Him as an unnecessary assumption.
But, on the contrary, Science can't fully explain the Universe, so God has to exist. This is the idea that Hoovooloo found unsatisfactory earlier in the thread, the idea of God existing to account for everything beyond the bounds of scientific knowledge. Sure, it is a bit of a contradiction to acknowledge a God that you're trying to diminish, but how much of a contradiction depends on whether or not you believe that Science will ultimately explain everything.
I happen to believe that Science can never explain everything, and so I have no difficulty in believing in God at this level. God not only exists but will always exist. As Science answers some questions, it uncovers more questions. Man is destined never to know everything.
Of course this leads to a pretty abstract God, one that mainly stands for the idea that Man is limited and should be more careful with his world. Of all the major world religions, I find Buddhism easiest to reconcile. Any religion which proclaims Man as a being in the image of God (thereby deifying ourselves) I find repugnant and indeed downright dangerous.
But I also fear a world of self-assured atheists, because cock-sure humans tend to do such stupid things. That's why I questioned Hoovooloo in the first place. That's why I'd rather believe in a superior entity that somehow judges us, than surrender control to self-avowed "supreme beings" here on earth. Maybe a cop-out, but there you go...
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by Runner
Post: 140
"I'd rather believe in a superior entity that somehow judges us"
This tends to lead to people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions ("if I did bad then God will punish me, but as he hasn't, I must have done good"), because there's very little accountability in relying on God to punish you in the next life, and not much in this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 14, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 141
<in terms comprehensible to man..> For humans what other comprehensible terms are there?
<some things man can't understand might be perfectly real> Like conscious awareness, for example. But these things can't include anything that we don't have empirical experience of.
<science can't fully explain the universe> And you won't find a scientist who says otherwise. (Or only rarely - and they're the second rate ones.)
The problem with God as a mere cipher, a something that stands in place of an explanation, is that this is not what religious believers actually MEAN when they use the word.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Apple Adelaide: Cat Woman. Flip the Switch, Froggy!
Post: 142
God = Fact. I'd say more, but I am running out of time and must come back later...By and large, I agree with you, ThEntity, but as I say, I'll be back later.
BTW, I don't accept 'man' as a generic, but that's a subject for another thread...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 143
A fact is a fact (whether true or false) only within a framework of theoretical assumptions. The existence (or non - existence) of god is part of such a framework and therefore is not a fact (true or false), at all. The key questions involve the meaning, coherence and intelligibility of the frameworks.
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 144
About 200,000,000 years ago maybe more, there was a single cell organism swimming about in warm, muddy water, which eventually became a Homo Sapiens, (human being). I think there is a mistake when it comes to the creation in the bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 15, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 145
Response to Posts #140 (Runner) and #141 (NN)
Yes, people using God as an excuse for a lack of personal responsibility is a bad thing, and it really happens. But I don't agree that being religious particularly invites it. There are secular ideas that are just as bad in this respect. Business scandals in the US have intriguing parallels, for example. A greater entity to whom we are all beholden; anything goes in its service. For Enron executives, say, the greater power is Mammon (in the form of corporate stakeholders) rather than God, but doesn't the logic sound familiar?
God as a cipher : of course that's not what most religious people mean by God. I am not a religious person in that sense. I was explaining the God I believe in, and using Him as an explanation why (in my view) Hoovooloo's ideas (NN's too, probably) won't wash. Science is not an alternative to God. Science is the collective understanding by man of his world, and it's incomplete (I think eternally so). Therefore I reason that there is an agency responsible for my experience of the world, and that agency is implicitly beyond my understanding. This agency I call God. Simple as that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 146
RE:117
oooooooh You rebel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 147
In the beginning there was the Word.
And the Word was with God.
And the Word was God.
Hmmmm. Where Word = Media and God = Power.
Ain't that a fact?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 148
Am I mad?
I think it was Lily Tomlin who said:
"If you talk to God - you are pious, if he talks to you - you are schizophrenic." She was being sarcastic. However, there are many in our culture who believe this, even amongst the outwardly pious. The realisation of this led me to ask;
I talk to gods and spirits on a daily, even hourly basis. I carry on silent (admittedly, mostly one-sided) conversations as I drive, type on the PC, work, eat, look after my children. Am I mad?
I see them in the trees, the rivers, the faces of people, in the light that precedes the dawn, the movement of cats? Am I mad?
I feel their joy within me and their sadness. Am I mad?
I hear their voices in the wind, the babbling of streams, the songs and cries of children. Am I mad?
They surround me as I meditate and as I perform my quiet rituals. Am I mad?
Am I mad to thank Brigidh for the fire in my head, Arawn for his comfort in the face of death, the Green Man for the peace of his forests, Dianecht for the health of my children, and Ceridwen for what little wisdom I possess?
I feel the Awen as I walk in a garden, in a forest glade, by the water's edge, on the hilltop, before my altar. Am I mad? When it is so strong that it makes me gasp and brings me to my knees, am I hysterical?
Quite possibly I am.
But what if I am right?
More importantly, what if I'm wrong?
Blessings,
Matholwch /|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 149
I was going to rectify my mistake last night, but the Internet Cafe system crashed and we had all to leave. I said it was 200,000,000 years ago or maybe more there was a single-cell organism swimming in muddy water. It was actually 3.5 billion years ago (or more)and all life came from that including Homo Sapiens ( human beings).What did God have to do with that? Christians believe the world is only about 17,000 years old, well, the ones I know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 150
Pinniped:
"Science is not an alternative to God."
Didn't say it was. Category error.
"Science is the collective understanding by man of his world, and it's incomplete (I think eternally so)."
We agree. Science is even able to quantify to a high degree of accuracy certain things it is impossible to know. This is not a problem.
"Therefore I reason that there is an agency responsible for my experience of the world, "
Whoah! Hang on. "Therefore"??? You've made and ENORMOUS leap there.
All Cretans are liars, Epimenides is a Cretan, THEREFORE Epimenides is a liar. That follows. That's logic. That's correct use of "therefore".
Uncertainty exists in science, therefore an angency exists which is responsible for your experience? There's NO connection there at all! They're two completely unconnected statements, and you can't put "therefore" between them and make any kind of sense.
Gods, as far as I can tell from what people have been posting on this and other threads, are things people use to explain gaps, stuff they don't understand. These people (YOU people, in fact) seem unable to deal with the concept that actually, the universe doesn't *need* to make sense. It has no obligation to be in any way explicable or understandable to you or anyone else. We've made great strides over the centuries in looking at the world and realising that it appears to follow certain rules, but there's no suggestion that those rules mean anything or come from anywhere - they're just there. The universe is NOT a puzzle with an answer, it's not a jigsaw with some fantastic picture which we could see if we only knew enough. Every bit of evidence we have suggests that we are a tiny, insignificant speck of almost nothing in a universe which *doesn't* make any kind of coherent sense and that we have no hope of ever understanding. The rational approach to this is to try to understand as much as possible, to quantify where possible what we don't know, and to use what we do know to make the lives of ourselves and others as good as possible. The IRRATIONAL response is to assume that there is some overall purpose, some pattern we're just too limited to comprehend, and to imbue that pattern or purpose with divine origins.
Some of the people on this website might possibly have heard of an obscure writer of humour called Douglas Adams. He wrote a book once, I'm told. One of the less well-known jokes in it was the concept that a computer could sit and think about things for a while, and come up with an Answer to Everything, and the punchline is that the Answer could be a simple number, 42. It's quite a good joke, because the possibility that the universe makes so much sense that you can reduce the whole of it to a number is so obviously, mind-bendingly preposterous that you can't help but laugh at the ridiculous characters who believe such a thing is possible.
The even more hilarious thing is that, in the real world, religious people read this joke, recognise the grinding stupidity of thinking that could be such an explanation for Everything and laugh at it - and then, without any sense of irony whatsoever, go to church and/or pray to *their* explanation of it.
One other thing I find slightly funny here - positing an "agency responsible" for your experience of the world. You even SOUND like a paranoid conspiracy theorist!
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 151
I am assuming that we are talking here about more than the Abrahamic monotheistic interpretations of the Divine (i.e. the great grandfather in the sky?). If not, ignore what follows.
It is a common theme amongst the so-called rationalists or scientists in our world that 'we' cannot prove that a god, any god, exists. Therefore it does not.
Hardly good science, or even good logic if I may say so. If this was a reasonable hypothesis then there would be no more developments in science, ever. For if it cannot be proved here and now, then it does not exist, and shall never exist. Such arrant nonsense.
These are the same people who claim we are nothing more than electrically-stimulated, preambulating bags of chemicals. They cling to their little dogmas, such as evolution and the big bang, and are just too scared to think outside the box. Luckily for us most mathematicians are brighter than the scientific community they lead and can think in more than three dimensions.
To such limited people I ask the following:
1. What was before the universe came into existence, and what shall follow its eventual fall? Please do not reply 'nothing', even Isaac Newton wasn't daft enough to fall for that pat answer.
2. If evolution is an absolute, then no creature will evolve features that do not support the reproduction of the species. Should such a mutation should occur then it shall be extinguished within a few generations at least. If so then why has art, song and poetry grown over the past million years and not diminished? What possible evolutionary advantage does the appreciation of aesthetic beauty bring?
3. Why is the personal experience of billions of humans in their daily interactions with various deities and other 'unproven' beings not scientific, yet a statistical sample of political opinion is? And please don't tell me that belief in New Labour's promises is any less ludicrous than religion.
I am Druid (that is your get out clause by the way - I am a certifiable nutter obviously) and as such I am a seeker after truth, many truths. I support good science and believe in the general principles of such theories as evolution, DNA and chaos theory. However, I am opposed to putting on blinkers in my search. I do not discount out of hand the experiences and beliefs of others, just because I cannot find empirical evidence to support them here and now.
So come on you poor blinkered rationalists, throw off your prejudices and be more open-minded. You have nothing to lose because if I am wrong you'll know soon enough (or rather you won't, death being final and all). But if we are right, well that's going to be fun ain't it?
Blessings,
Matholwch /|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 152
Hi Matholwch, welcome to the discussion!
"I am assuming that we are talking here about more than the Abrahamic monotheistic interpretations of the Divine (i.e. the great grandfather in the sky?)."
I think we're *mostly* talking about that, since when people say "god", singular, that's what *most* people think of. Perhaps the subject line "GODS, fact or fiction", would have been more appropriate - but then you'd have had all the Abrahamic god-botherers coming here to say "obviously YOUR fairy story is fiction, whereas MY fairy story is Revealed Truth, and therefore fact", and getting into arguments with other theists, rather than with rationalistsm, which, while it would have been entertaining, would have possibly been less of an interesting debate.
"It is a common theme amongst the so-called rationalists or scientists in our world that 'we' cannot prove that a god, any god, exists. Therefore it does not."
Not strictly accurate I think. What IS a common theme is not that we can't prove it, but that there is not even one shred of evidence for it. I can't, sitting here at my keyboard, prove to you that people have walked on the moon. But there is considerable evidence to that effect, and it is feasible (although incredibly expensive) to prove it beyond doubt, by simply (!) visiting the landing sites.
There is no evidence whatever for the existence of a god, and if you can point to some I should be very grateful. If you can even conceive of some way in which the existence of one *could* be proved, even hypothetically, I'd be interested.
"Hardly good science, or even good logic if I may say so."
Well, we'll see what you know about science in a moment.
"If this was a reasonable hypothesis then there would be no more developments in science, ever. For if it cannot be proved here and now, then it does not exist, and shall never exist. Such arrant nonsense."
I'm glad you think that's nonsense. I think so too. But what you've just described has nothing to do with rationalism or science, and sounds far, far more like Creationism, or some other religious fundamentalism to me.
Science had a theory about the "ether", the medium of space. It was assumed to exist. People tried to measure the velocity of the earth through the ether, and failed. Michelson and Morley did a great service to science by doing a proper experiment and not fudging the results. They did their experiment, with an expectation of a particular result, and when they didn't get it, they said so, loud and clear. That indirectly led to the theory of relativity, one of the great triumphs of twentieth century science. A theory we couldn't prove, initially, at all. But it wasn't derided for being unprovable. To the contrary, it was hailed as genius. And when technology made testing it possible, it passed, every time. That is science. What you're talking about sounds more like religion than anything else.
"These are the same people who claim we are nothing more than electrically-stimulated, preambulating bags of chemicals. They cling to their little dogmas, such as evolution and the big bang, and are just too scared to think outside the box."
Hilarious! What *is* the theory of evolution, if not one of the single greatest leaps of scientific imagination in history? How much further "outside the box" would it have been possible for Darwin to think? The wisdom of literally THOUSANDS of years was that species originated in the Creation and were static and unchanging. Darwin turned the accepted notion of the way biology worked right on its head and Judeo-Christian religion has never recovered. The paradigm-shift was almost unprecedented and the theory, far from being "dogma" as you rather disparagingly refer to it, continues to be modified and refined in the light of new evidence. But the underlying principle continues to fit the facts of reality, inconveniently enough for your argument...
Similarly, Galileo was thinking so far outside the box the church threatened to excommunicate him if he didn't recant. The thinking of most Christians is restricted to a box you can fit a bible in. Rationalists' thinking boxes are limited to the size of the universe, and we admit that we don't know how big that is, other than "bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some..."
"Luckily for us most mathematicians are brighter than the scientific community they lead and can think in more than three dimensions."
Eh? Is there *anyone* who can't? Serious question. And what possesses you to think that mathematicians lead the scientific community? Mathematicians are the mechanics, the greasemonkeys of the scientific community. They make tools for physicists, chemists and biologists, but they rarely soil their hands with anything as inconveniently inexplicable as actual reality.
"To such limited people I ask the following:
1. What was before the universe came into existence, and what shall follow its eventual fall? Please do not reply 'nothing', even Isaac Newton wasn't daft enough to fall for that pat answer."
You demonstrate your own limits in the phrasing of the question, since it is meaningless. "The universe" means "everything that exists". It is therefore meaningless to ask what existed before it, because BY DEFINITION if anything existed then it is part of the universe.
This is analagous to the Sorites paradox. Here's a little experiment for you... (no need to really do it, just have a think about it). Set up a fishtank, and put a tadpole in it - just one. Set up a film camera, taking 24 frames per second. Set up a length of film long enough to run continuously for six weeks. Set the camera running, filming the tank. Now wait six weeks. At the end of the time, develop the film, and release the frog into the wild. Now... look at the film. I want you to point to the exact frame in which the tadpole LAST appears, and to the frame next to it where there is undeniably a frog.
You can't can you? Because the change from tadpole to frog is not an event, it is a process. Similarly, the universe is not an event, or an object - it is a process. It's meaningless to talk about "before it existed", because the concept of time is bound up in its existence. If you don't have a universe, you don't have a "before", any more than you have a tadpole one moment and a frog 1/24 of a second later.
"2. If evolution is an absolute, then no creature will evolve features that do not support the reproduction of the species."
Garbage which merely shows that the author knows as much about evolution as the average ignorant Creationist. Wrong, but then so many people misunderstand this it is just about forgivable.
Here, for your education, is how it actually works. Populations arise. Mutations occur. Features which consistently cause reproduction to fail badly are not passed on. And that's it. Features which are only mildly disadvantageous, or which have no net effect on reproductive success at all, will be passed on. There's a MASSIVE difference here. It's emphatically NOT only features which enhance reproductive success which are passed on.
For instance, and this is one of the best examples of evolution being haphazard, purposeless and definitely NOT selecting for good, sensible anatomical features - by pure chance, the ancestor of all land-going animals had a breathing tube that crossed its eating tube. This is a *terrible* design feature, because the practical upshot of it is that it is possible for you to choke to death. There's no particular reason to have the breathing tube cross the eating tube. But here's the thing - although it's a definite DISadvantage to be able to choke to death, it wasn't THAT much of a disadvantage that populations with that feature died out. So it persists, in every single reptile, bird and mammal on the planet, by pure chance.
"Should such a mutation should occur then it shall be extinguished within a few generations at least."
Nonsense, as I've explained above.
"If so then why has art, song and poetry grown over the past million years and not diminished? What possible evolutionary advantage does the appreciation of aesthetic beauty bring?"
Good grief. I'm amazed that a person with the IQ necessary to operate a computer can be so dense as to have to ask this question. Hmm... let me think, what possible evolutionary advantage could there be the ability remember instructive stories passed down from one generation to another (song and poetry)? What possible evolutionary advantage could there be to being able to please large groups of your fellow organisms by daubing pigments on a wall? It's a damn sight easier than hunting tigers, that's for sure. Our appreciation of aesthetic beauty is an expression of one of the basic functions of our brain - pattern recognition. We see patterns everywhere - in the craters on the moon, in the random scattering of stars across the sky - and we see them because our brains are wired to pick out patterns from background, order from chaos, because we were both hunters and hunted and such skills were necessary. Our ability to MAKE patterns, of colour or sound or word, should be no surprise at all, and nor should our valuing of those abilities in others.
Or put another way - bards get chicks, man.
"3. Why is the personal experience of billions of humans in their daily interactions with various deities and other 'unproven' beings not scientific, yet a statistical sample of political opinion is? And please don't tell me that belief in New Labour's promises is any less ludicrous than religion."
The difference being that when New Labour break their promises, you can vote them out and sack them, or in extreme cases put a bomb in their cars. Does anyone dispute the existence of New Labour? Does anyone dispute the existence of people answering opinion polls? Or the existence of their opinions? No. Billions of humans may have daily interactions with various deities, but billions of humans have dreams every night and most of the educated ones understand that they have no effect on external reality. Those "interactions with deities" are an internal metaphor, nothing more.
"I am Druid (that is your get out clause by the way - I am a certifiable nutter obviously)"
Not at all, unless you show yourself to be. I make no prejudgements, and especially not based on things I know absolutely nothing about. (unlike you and your opinions on evolution, say)
" and as such I am a seeker after truth, many truths. I support good science"
How do you support it? Turn out on the terraces on a Saturday and shout "go on science, put the boot in"? Do you PAY for science? Do you DO science for a living, a hobby, or vocation? Do you educate people in it? (Obviously not the latter)
"and believe in the general principles of such theories as evolution, DNA and chaos theory."
How can you believe in the general principle of evolution when you demonstrably don't understand even the most basic of those principles? What do you know about DNA, beyond how to spell it? What do you know about chaos theory, beyond cool multicoloured patterns on a computer screen? I'm just curious what your level is on these subjects, and why, given your obvious very limited knowledge of evolution, you still "believe in" it. (there's no *need* for belief, you know - there's plenty of actual evidence)
"However, I am opposed to putting on blinkers in my search. I do not discount out of hand the experiences and beliefs of others, just because I cannot find empirical evidence to support them here and now."
Nor do I. I entirely believe that many people experience gods on a daily basis. Their experience is entirely real to them, and I have no reason to doubt that. Why would I? I even like to think I understand some of the reasons why our species is prone to these superstitions, and I'm going to write an entry about it real soon now. In the meantime, take your open mind and go read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It could be the beginning of a paradigm-shift of Copernican/Darwinian proportions - possibly bigger. Just read it.
"So come on you poor blinkered rationalists, throw off your prejudices and be more open-minded."
The whole point of rationalism is that it is openminded. My mind is open. Give me evidence. I'm open to it. I'm not prejudiced. You're a Druid? Cool. What does that mean, to you? What do you believe, and why? And more importantly, why would anyone else believe what you do?
"You have nothing to lose because if I am wrong you'll know soon enough (or rather you won't, death being final and all). But if we are right, well that's going to be fun ain't it?"
Do a Guide Search on Pascal's Wager. I'm familiar with it.
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Pinniped
Post: 153
Hi Hoovooloo
See you've got another sceptic to convert, but in the meantime, I thought I'd acknowledge your last posting to me.
You might have a point about leaping somewhat. I'll try find a route from one sentence to the other, and get back to you. I'm sure I had one in mind, at the time...
As for sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, this disturbs me somewhat. I always thought I was fairly laid back. Maybe "agency" was an attempt to use somebody's else philosophical vocabulary. I'll stick to my own in future.
(You're a damn good read, BTW )
P.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 154
Yes. You keep writing the replies I'd have written if I'd got there first (only better).
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 16, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 155
And... "As for sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, this disturbs me somewhat."
I was just kidding, really! You *don't* sound like one at all, it's just you do sometimes come across nutters on the internet who mutter darkly about "agencies" responsible for everything from chemicals in the water to alien abductions. References to "agency" make me think of the CIA, NSA, or any number of national espionage bodies, and more humourously of the cancer man from the X-Files.
Looking forward to replies...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by em's
Post: 156
Dumb all over yes we are, dumb all over near or far, dumb all over black or white us religious fanatics have not got it right. Saying we all know the story, but dont we make the details sound real gory. So what if they dont like what we got in our book over here does that make em bad ? No but instead we revenge an deploy burn an destroy, did our god say this is the way ? No! is it meant to be this way No! so you see if this carry's on soon they wont be no street for you joggers to jog on our doggys to dog on one day it will be all gone.
do i believe in god ? well lets just say i hope we all go to a better place!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Apple Adelaide: Cat Woman. Flip the Switch, Froggy!
Post: 157
Semaj, I am surprised that all the Christians you know are Creationists! I am a Christian and I accept the formation of Earth and our Solar System 4 billion or so years ago, and the formation of life on Earth 3.5 billion years back. To me, evolution is the means used by God, and therefore Science and the Bible are not in conflict, *because* some parts of the Bible - creation stories especially, just are not meant to be taken literally! It's simple. (Other Christians disagree) but, for instance, the majority of Catholics acept evolution as God's means...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 158
The interesting corollary to that, Della, is this: if you choose, as you say you do, to believe that certain portions of the Bible (e.g. the two contradictory myths of Creation, Noah's ark etc.) are allegories not meant to be taken literally - where do you draw the line?
On what basis do you pick and choose which bits of the Bible you decide are fairy stories and which are actually real? Surely once you point to one part of that book and say "oh, well, obviously it didn't REALLY happen like that", the WHOLE BOOK is suspect - isn't it? Examples: am I supposed to believe that Jesus LITERALLY revived a dead man, or fed five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes? Surely not meant to be taken literally, just a story. Surely they didn't mean it literally when they said he rose from the dead, that's just meant as a metaphor, right?
If you disagree, if you choose to believe those stories are the literal truth, ask yourself why you're prepared to believe in the reversal of physical death or the spontaneous production of matter from nothing, but not in the ark or the Creation. Is it somehow more credible? And if it is, is that a good reason for trusting the truth of a book you yourself have said doesn't tell the whole, literal truth all the time?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 159
Hello Della. I was a Christian a long time ago, since then I have had an eye-opener. Just now in the UK our top news story for the last twelve days has been the search for two ten-year old girls who went missing. Look at the families of these two girls. Their parents went to church and prayed to God for the safety of their daughters. Did God answer them, it seems not. Where is this so called God of love every Christian seems to talk about, when he can hear the prayers of a family and not listen? And I can't accept when people say it was man that did it, because man is supposed to be made in his image. God could have stopped what happened. He is supposedly the all-powerful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 17, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 160
The problem with positing an all powerful entity as the explanation of why things are/happen the way they are/do is that if things were different it could "explain" that too; but it can't explain why this and not that, or tell you what happens next. Evidence is only evidence for something if there is something that would count as evidence against. For the religious, however, God seems to be not so much an explanation as part of the concept of explanation itself. I'd be interested to hear whether any religious believers think that has any truth in it?
<NN>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 161
Matholwch - Am I mad?
No, I would guess that most of the things for which you use Deitys or super-natural beings (of whatever rank) are now, if not actually observable, at least explainable by Quantum/Chaos reasoning.(of whatever discipline)
I rekon you could do a big sum to explain why, every so often, your PC will do something you wanted it to do, but before you actually clicked on whatever it was you were about to click. (or is it just me?)
Like, how does a small change (a thought) in the electro-magnetic patterns within my cranium (surrounded by the electro-magnetic field of the monitor) effect the more or less similar structures (but not so wet) and electro-magnetic patterns inside a box two feet away?
And if I flap a butter-flys wing inside my head, can it stir a volcano in the heart of my love. Via the internet?
When I was a child I had a walker, that I could push along and use as support until I could walk un-aided. I now, at 34, manage to walk on my hind legs quite steadily -most of the time
Here's a thought -
Is (or could) the internet (a creation of collective Human thought) be a means by which the Collective Unconscious is attempting to "Lead us to the Light"
Can we learn and evolve to use what we already have inside us (which is all just part of the same big oneness anyway) to directly effect the order and flow of Chaos?
Suppose that would explain the Duality of man and God, InI of Rastafarian theology and Pelagius (and Coptic) etc insistance that Jesus was just a bloke and you can talk to God yourself cos your part of Him (it).
Personally, I prefer to focus my "Spiritual" energy towards images of Women, aspects of the Goddess - I can never remember their names though The Pauline S&M (Handsome young fella -unmarried 30 something rabbi, yeah right!! nailed to a cross) just don't do it for me.
But does it really matter, what the "Point of Focus" is, as long as it allows you to focus ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 162
Absolutely brilliant!
At last a forum and a debate where I get a decent challenge to my 'superstitions' and 'ignorance'.
Thank you Hoovooloo!
I shall return in a couple of days once I have:
a) thought through your arguments thoroughly.
b) re-read my notes on evolutionary theory.
One point though that I notice here that does not happen on the normal pagan noticeboards I inhabit is the lack of courtesy and respect. Your points are well-made and deserve a debate (deep relishing going on over here), but it is unnecessary to be rude. It defeats your purpose and individuals less scarred than me may be put off by it. People who may otherwise appreciate your insight.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Noggin the Nog
Post: 163
A fact is a fact only within a given theoretical framework.
Even "The reason I can see a computer screen in front of me is that there IS a computer screen in front of me" is a theoretical framework {for empirical facts) although we tend not to notice it because it's universal, automatic, and has no obvious workable alternatives.
Space is curved is a fact within a more complex, less universal, non automatic theoretical framework.
Facts about people are facts within an even more complex theoretical framework about human nature.
Moreover the empirical facts of one discipline may be the theoretical framework of another, the two often overlapping in complex ways.
Scientists, and rationalists generally, work within a theoretical framework of formal determinism, that is, the belief that the universe is coherently connected together by consistent rules. The content of the rules, however, is provided by observation.
Formal determinism cannot be proved empirically because it is part of the theoretical framework WITHIN which empirical facts are made.
Nor can it be disproved empirically. We simply have no notion of what an uncaused event would look like.
How do believers in God(s) feel that their beliefs contribute to their understanding of how the universe works?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 164
Hi Matholwch,
I share your same basic faith but see it more this way: we can worship processes like evolution, photosynthesis, cell reproduction, death and everything else *as* deities. For instance, I do not literally (i.e, like it really happened) believe that Persephone (or equivalent) was taken into the Underworld for six months and that is *why* we have seasons, but it is a very good way of portraying the seasons so that they may be worshipped. I tried to explain to a very bad example of Christian tolerance my view by using the example of trees, instead of saying his God makes the tree sprout new leaves, I might say it's the Goddess' work. But by that I mean it's a result of chemical reactions. However, to me it does not make it any less marvellous.
The problem I have with most major religions is that they do not, generally, do this- it's all second-hand, and because God did it there's no room for other explanations. It puts the adherants and their God-given surroundings at a distance. What does it matter how it happened- what happened, or that it happened at all, is bloody amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 18, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 165
Greetings all,
Interesting topic you started, only you have not specified the parametres for the discussion: In order for anyone to give a, more or less intelligent, answer to your question it would be necessary to know your definition of "God" or "Gods" or even "deity".Your view and/or opinion may not at all be the same as mine and we would therefor discuss two entirely different subjects.
Speaking for myself, as a practitioner of an Earthbound filosophy, my deities grew from ancestor-worship through time into the triple or triunite deities they are. That most of them have in one form or another a strong connection with nature in all its forms is quite understandable. Earthbound filosophies are just that:they are based on and celebrated within the wheel of the year and the seasons, deities linked to harvest,winter, spring and new life and so on are therefor an essential part. Within the deity one finds the properties and strengths, but also the weaknesses of the season AND of the human living in that season; in short a deity who stands not above the practitioners, but amongst them. It is up to the individual practitioner to accept as much or as little from the deities as he/she wants or can, based on their understanding and their knowledge of the philosophy or religion they choose to be part of.
Always open to discuss this further,
walk in Light,
Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 166
Hi Matholwch (how do you pronounce that, btw?)
"Absolutely brilliant!
At last a forum and a debate where I get a decent challenge to my 'superstitions' and 'ignorance'.
Thank you Hoovooloo!"
You're very welcome!
"I shall return in a couple of days once I have:
a) thought through your arguments thoroughly.
b) re-read my notes on evolutionary theory."
Would it be impertinent to ask who wrote your notes? Evolutionary theory is a constantly changing field, with new ideas being considered all the time... for example the concept of punctuated equilibrium is at odds with the constant gradual change Darwin thought was going on. There are certainly a lot of good books about it available, but make sure whatever you're reading is relatively recent. In an act of shameless self-promotion, I'm going to suggest that you check out A730522 and it's associated entries, too.
"One point though that I notice here that does not happen on the normal pagan noticeboards I inhabit is the lack of courtesy and respect."
Hmm. I've read my reply to you again. It contains the following phrases:
"There is no evidence whatever for the existence of a god, and if you can point to some I should be very grateful."
[in response to your observation that being a Druid automatically marks you out as "a nutter"] "Not at all, unless you show yourself to be. I make no prejudgements, and especially not based on things I know absolutely nothing about."
I also said: "My mind is open. Give me evidence. I'm open to it. I'm not prejudiced. You're a Druid? Cool. What does that mean, to you? What do you believe, and why?"
Now, admittedly I also said these things:
[In response to an erroneous statement about evolution] "Garbage which merely shows that the author knows as much about evolution as the average ignorant Creationist." That I would defend as fact, if bluntly put. The intention was to provoke a reaction, since I assumed you'd be offended to be compared to a blinkered flat-earther Fundamentalist Christian.
And, in response to your questioning the evolutionary point of song, poetry and art: "I'm amazed that a person with the IQ necessary to operate a computer can be so dense as to have to ask this question" - I meant this. You're obviously intelligent. You obviously think about things. The evolutionary advantages were obvious to me almost before I started to think about it. I would, uncharitably perhaps, characterise that as a "dumb question", and responded harshly.
However - here are some things you said in the post I was replying to:
"the so-called rationalists or scientists in our world"
"Such arrant nonsense."
"They cling to their little dogmas"
"Luckily for us most mathematicians are brighter than the scientific community they lead"
"To such limited people I ask..."
"Please do not reply 'nothing', even Isaac Newton wasn't daft enough to fall for that pat answer"
"come on you poor blinkered rationalists, throw off your prejudices"
Do these represent the "courtesy and respect" you say are missing?
"Your points are well-made and deserve a debate (deep relishing going on over here)"
Here too!
"but it is unnecessary to be rude."
Not wishing to be flippant, I disagree. Sometimes it IS necessary to be rude, in my opinion. I may typically be expected to become rude after having been described as "limited", "blinkered" or "prejudiced", say. Since I am one of your "so-called rationalists" (why so-called? Do you think I'm not, really? Am I just pretending?), you *were* having a pop at me with those words. Why are you surprised that I reply in kind?
"It defeats your purpose and individuals less scarred than me may be put off by it. People who may otherwise appreciate your insight."
I try (and I admit I'm not always successful) to write according to the situation. I'm not just blanket rude to everyone. I'd draw your attention to, for instance, from this very thread... F55607?thread=192835&skip=24 . Respectful and courteous posts get, from me, respectful and courteous (and very long... ) replies.
Glad we've got that out of the way...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 167
Greetings,
Sorry for intruding in what seems to be a private discussion , but can't help submit the following :"...dumb question..." There are no dumb questions, the only dumb question is the one not asked.
Brightest Blessings /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 168
Good point there, star... but...
Asking someone a question which they believe to have an extremely obvious answer is forgivable if:
1. the questioner truly does not know the answer for sensible reasons. Children ask questions like that all the time. These are not "dumb questions".
2. the questioner KNOWS the answer, but is asking the question to make a point - example: I could ask a Christian, Jew or Muslim, "is the earth flat?". I KNOW the answer. It isn't a dumb question because I'm asking to test how completely they follow their professed faith. (Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa in 1993 declaring that the world is flat. You did read that date right - 1993, less than ten years ago. And the Christian/Jewish bible states quite clearly that the earth is flat. This is not something which it is possible to be allegorical about. IF you believe the earth to be an oblate spheroid, you are not a true Christian, Jew, or Muslim.)
3. the question is related to an extremely obscure subject in which the person asked is an expert.
None of the above applied to the question Matholwch posed. If a person of demonstrated intelligence and articulacy asks a question with an obvious answer, an answer they should have been able to come up with themselves with barely a moment's thought, and they ask it not to make a point but because they appear not to know the answer - isn't that a dumb question?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Matholwch
Post: 169
Hoisted upon me own petard! Aaargh!
Fair play, upon reading my post again I perhaps was less than gracious to all you 'blinkered rationalists' out there. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. Apologies.
I think this possibly because I have developed oversensitive reactions. You must understand that to declare yourself openly pagan, either in the real world or upon this virtual simulation, is to invite oftimes vitriolic abuse from both the rationalist wing and the supporters of Abrahamic extremism.
Which of course is irrelevant to the debate at hand. So, the game is afoot, let us go on Watson!
One of the differences you will quickly find Hoovooloo between my Abrahamic cousins and the nebulous confederation that is neo-paganism, is that as a whole we are fairly accepting of the scientific and/or rationalist perspective of the universe.
Where we differ, however, is that we are prepared to believe that there really is much more to it than is explained by the present level of scientific knowledge. Most of us see the divine, in many countenances, in just about everything around us. Many of us experience a relationship to this divine presence on a daily basis.
In the druid communities, this experience is often practical. We spend a lot of time out there, on the land, communicating with the spiritual presences that inhabit the trees, groves and streams. Talking to our ancestors through ritual, trance and dream. Being guided by the Awen, the flowing spirit of the divine.
Unlike the Abrahamics, we do not debase ourselves to these presences, nor treat them to abject worship. We work with them as equals, as friends and as students. We believe that the universe is filled with a divine spirit and we try to find ways to work in harmony with it.
One of the problems that our society suffers from today is the moral vacuum left by the collapse of the Churches. Morals and ethics are rarely taught in schools, except as an oddity of history. They are rarely discussed at home. The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die.
As a result new 'cults' take over the space left over by this failure. Cults of self-gratification and over-consumption. Where 'my needs' become more important than that of the land. We are becoming a spiritually-bankrupt people, and the results are heart-breaking to see.
This makes me angry, as you can understand. Thus when someone tries to attack the spiritual paths in this land, then I rise to the bait. It is true though we are easy to attack. Many of our ideas and beliefs seem implausible, even ludicrous to the outsider always used to a simple, logical explanation for everything. When we try to explain that many of our beliefs are based on personal experimentation and experience. That they are grounded in thousands of years of practice across many cultures. We are derided.
The problem for us is that to understand what we believe you have to experience it for yourself. Unlike the Abrahamics we have no great store of dogma to ram down your gullet. To do so would be to break ouer own belief in the sanctity of personal choice. Each person must approach this understanding upon their own terms.
I admit my knowledge of evolution is outdated (college notes about 20 years old), but from what I know I am not at odds with the general theory. I am willing to bone up on it and learn more.
Would you though be willing to spend the time to learn our lore? I myself am seven years along a twenty-one year training course to become a full druid priest. A course that includes science, philosophy, art, prose, history, herbalism, comparative religions, poetry, herbalism, antropology, psychology, counselling, agriculture, astronomy and song.
I hope that this answers some of your questions. In my experience it normally raises many more. I look forward to your dissection of my arguments....
Blessings,
Matholwch /|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 170
"Hoisted upon me own petard! ...Apologies."
Accepted! Onward...
"I think this possibly because I have developed oversensitive reactions. You must understand that to declare yourself openly pagan, either in the real world or upon this virtual simulation, is to invite oftimes vitriolic abuse from both the rationalist wing and the supporters of Abrahamic extremism."
You may find this place a little more tolerant. You may not... But there are quite a few people who would more or less fit the description "pagan" who post here, and I think they'd agree that this is a fairly easy place be pretty much anything.
"we are fairly accepting of the scientific and/or rationalist perspective of the universe."
Good start.
"Where we differ, however, is that we are prepared to believe that there really is much more to it than is explained by the present level of scientific knowledge."
That's not a point of difference. Where I think you differ is that *I* think that most of the things currently unknown to science, and which science does not declare unknowable in principle, will eventually be known. Which doesn't leave much of a gap...
"Many of us experience a relationship to this divine presence on a daily basis."
I'm not denying it. I'm only saying that most of what you're talking about is something which I believe is going on in your head, and nowhere else.
"In the druid communities, this experience is often practical. We spend a lot of time out there, on the land, communicating with the spiritual presences that inhabit the trees, groves and streams. Talking to our ancestors through ritual, trance and dream. Being guided by the Awen, the flowing spirit of the divine."
How is this "practical"? (serious question) What practical benefits do you get out of it? Can you predict the future reliably, as science can? Can you cure disease reliably by non-science based methods? I'm looking here for a practical application of your beliefs to something outside your own mind.
"One of the problems that our society suffers from today is the moral vacuum left by the collapse of the Churches."
There are over a billion Christians in the world, over half a billion Muslims, I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right.
"Morals and ethics are rarely taught in schools, except as an oddity of history."
I went to a church school. Don't they exist any more?
"They are rarely discussed at home."
Any evidence for that?
"The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die."
Leaving aside for the moment that I don't believe that is the case, personally I think that if we WERE leaving behind our primitive superstitions, that can only be a GOOD thing. I've asked elsewhere on this site for people to imagine a world without science (not difficult - it was this world until relatively recently) and then imagine a world without religion. I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got.
"When we try to explain that many of our beliefs are based on personal experimentation and experience. That they are grounded in thousands of years of practice across many cultures. We are derided."
Well, I'm not deriding them. I'm honestly interested in the results of your experimentation and experience.
"The problem for us is that to understand what we believe you have to experience it for yourself."
Well, you're experiencing the fruits of rational enquiry by looking at the screen you're reading this on, so I don't need to even start explaining the benefits of my world-view. Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated.
"I admit my knowledge of evolution is outdated (college notes about 20 years old)"
I *think* that's quite up to date enough, helps if it mentioned punctuated equilibrium, not sure how recent a notion that is. You must understand I've been involved in discussions with Creationists who think it's very clever to point out the mistakes Darwin made in "The Origin of Species", as though that were the last word on the subject. What is with those people and old books?
"Would you though be willing to spend the time to learn our lore?"
Well... yes. Up to a point. What would be the benefits to me? (ooh, there I go, "what's in it for me", my morality has obviously collapsed ). Seriously though - I am interested to know what you believe and why. I'm particularly interested to know how you think someone else would benefit from believing as you do.
I think everyone would benefit from believing as I do because I believe I know the boundaries of my true knowledge better than most. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, and I think the same is not true of people who engage in superstition, be it yourself, or the archbishop of Canterbury, or a person reading their horoscope.
"I myself am seven years along a twenty-one year training course to become a full druid priest. A course that includes science, philosophy, art, prose, history, herbalism, comparative religions, poetry, herbalism, antropology, psychology, counselling, agriculture, astronomy and song."
Strong on the herbalism then.
Interesting list.
"I hope that this answers some of your questions. In my experience it normally raises many more. I look forward to your dissection of my arguments...."
Well, there you go. Onward...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Semaj .Muad'Dib Shadow of the mouse of the second moon
Post: 171
This discussion seems to be going round in circles, and I am starting to get dizzy. God fact or fiction?. It seems to be causing a riot.
Semaj, Be happy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 19, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 172
Just thought I'd dive in as well. Change God for 'This Universe type stuff we are in, surrounded by and will probably never quite understand' and most religions make a little more sense but are still too blinkered. Humans I think will either succeed in surfing their evolutionary wave or we'll fall off back into the soup.
Does anyone agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a clever mutation of the Roman Empire (political/religious from military/political)?
One Billion .........phew quite successful
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Arthwollipot
Post: 173
All I can say is if God does exist, then He has gone to an awful lot of trouble to make Himself redundant. There is no process in this Universe which requires the presence of God in order to get started or to proceed.
Deity was originally invoked to explain phenomena that were not understood. Why is there a rainbow? Because God put it there as a promise never to flood the world again. Why do we exist? Because God created us in his own image.
There are still questions that science cannot answer (the origin of life for example), but that doesn't mean that the answer has to be supernatural. In fact throughout history, natural explanations have been found for the vast majority of phenomena originally thought to have a supernatural origin. Humans originally thought that earthquakes were caused by God. Now we know that they are caused by tectonic movement.
God is not necessary in this Universe because it works perfectly well without Him.
(note: for 'God' in this post, read 'god, godess or multiple gods or deities of any description' and for 'He' and 'Him' read 'he, she, it or they'.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Ste
Post: 174
However, most people don't believe in God's to merely explain away phenomena that was thought to be supernatural during humanity's dark pre-science days. They seem to have a personal bond or friendship with this thing called God. I'm not sure even describing this as a "crutch" adequetly describes it. The question is, is this thing in their head or is it a part of objective reality? In my opinion the stunning lack of evidence of the latter leads me to believe the former. But I'm sure those with direct "experience" of a God would disagree, but they could not say or do or show me anything that would prove otherwise. God's very nature is elusive to the point of being very suspicious.
Ste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 175
The present versions of God/Religion do seem to allow everyone to be in a 'warm fluffy towel type club' and it seems appealing to be able to tidy up this Spirituality and Universe stuff with letting it be Somebody elses problem!
That gives more time to go to Hooters in San Diego, which if I was God would probably be where I'd do most of my planning.
Do you think we can pass on emotions through our DNA?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Matholwch - Resident Druid of this Parish /|\.
Post: 176
"That's not a point of difference. Where I think you differ is that *I* think that most of the things currently unknown to science, and which science does not declare unknowable in principle, will eventually be known. Which doesn't leave much of a gap..."
I also think that science will one day have access to most of the secrets of the universe (except such things as why navel lint is always blue and where do half-used Biro's disappear to...). However, this is well into the future where science and spirituality may well be closer than either are presently comfortable to believe.
"I'm not denying it. I'm only saying that most of what you're talking about is something which I believe is going on in your head, and nowhere else."
I can assure you that at group events the consensus reality of what I experience is shared and often amplified. Your belief that it goes on in my head and nowhere else is as unsupportable as many of my arguments seem to be to you.
"How is this "practical"? (serious question) What practical benefits do you get out of it? Can you predict the future reliably, as science can? Can you cure disease reliably by non-science based methods? I'm looking here for a practical application of your beliefs to something outside your own mind."
It is practical because we don't accept blindly what we feel. We go out and seek contact with others and try it for ourselves. I doubt many (sorry but I have to use the word) 'rationalists' take the time to do that with scientific theories. The benefits I get from it are manyfold and include greater understanding of my environment, an approach to life that works with the world rather than against it, a spiritual bulwark against the viccisitudes of daily living and more, much more. Science can no more accurately predict the future than I can. But, like I can, it can seek to influence the course of events and hope that something doesn't come out of left field and kick it into touch. Hmmm...curing disease, laying on hands as well I suppose? Puh-lease don't confuse a pagan relationship with the divine with miracles...that's a strictly Abrahamic (and I must say New Age) social control mechanism. On the other hand as someone who has a serious sports knee injury the only things that have given me reliable relief are Acupuncture and Reiki, both unproven hokum, but available on the NHS nonetheless.
"There are over a billion Christians in the world, over half a billion Muslims, I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right."
From the Anglican Churches figures we find that Church attendance and participation in the UK and Europe are now just 16% of what they were 40 years ago. In Wales, where I hail from, there are more Chapels being converted into homes and Carpet Warehouses than left in regular use. And where they are the congregation are aging rapidly. Sounds like a collapse to me. World figures are very misleading as they are based either on Vatican or National figues that are deeply suspect. The Saudi Government, for instance, claims that every single man, woman and child in the country are devout, practising Muslims. The Nigerian government counts everyone as either Muslim or Anglican. The half a million catholics in Biafra are not mentioned. Brazil claims to have more Catholics in its population than the WHO actually knows exist in reality (the Brazilian government are trying to pull in international funds by misrepresenting its population, a common 'scam' amongst developing nations). The Indonesians for years tried to say that the East Timorese were Muslim except for a handful of extremists, and we know the result of that.
"I went to a church school. Don't they exist any more?"
Indeed they do, but are precious little minority of the general school population. My fourteen year old daughter attends a very good Comprehensive and is taking RE to GCSE. The National Curriculum is a joke and teaches religion, and ethics, as history.
I must admit my evidence for morals and ethics being taught at home is anecdotal and based on a 'sample' of a few dozen friends.
"The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die."
"Leaving aside for the moment that I don't believe that is the case, personally I think that if we WERE leaving behind our primitive superstitions, that can only be a GOOD thing. I've asked elsewhere on this site for people to imagine a world without science (not difficult - it was this world until relatively recently) and then imagine a world without religion. I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got."
I'm afraid your imagination has got the better of you for neither of these worlds can exist. You might as well try to wish gravity away.
"Well, I'm not deriding them. I'm honestly interested in the results of your experimentation and experience."
Which is why I am still here. You must understand that modern druidry is not an evangelistic path. We have no desire to convert or convince anyone. But if asked we will try to explain our beliefs.
"Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated."
Here we go with the simple and immediate again . Our world view is neither simple nor immediate. It is grounded in the belief that the universe is more complex than we presently or perhaps can imagine. Our lives are quests for 'truth', a continuous journey towards a receding horizon where the brow of each answer reveals a valley of questions. It's good fun too, for those with an inquiring mind.
"You must understand I've been involved in discussions with Creationists who think it's very clever to point out the mistakes Darwin made in "The Origin of Species", as though that were the last word on the subject. What is with those people and old books? "
'Those people' only have that old book of social tales and laws to fall back on that's why. Any 'truth', other than that expressed by ancient hebrew scholars, is a challenge to the supremacy and power of their belief. Its a bit of a sad life really, living in fear of your deity, living in fear of your inevitable end, clinging to the wreckage of a book that is riddled with errancies and contradictions and that was written to help a people in a society extinct by millenia. Seing the devil behind every bush, and placing responsibility for every wrong at his feet rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. They really need chucking in the Total Perspective Vortex......pant, pant.....rant over. Oooh they do get my goat though sometimes.
In modern druidry we accept that the sum and nature of human knowledge increase with each generation, and we relish it. We do not cling to dogma.
"I think everyone would benefit from believing as I do because I believe I know the boundaries of my true knowledge better than most. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, and I think the same is not true of people who engage in superstition, be it yourself, or the archbishop of Canterbury, or a person reading their horoscope."
'The first step to wisdom is in recognising how little you really know.' Hmmm... a favourite Buddhist quote of mine. How do you define superstition by the way?
Well here I have to leave you for a few days. Off to the states on business. Strangely for a superstitious, tree-hugging peasant, in my daily life I'm a Quality Engineering Manager in a High tech. electronics company...wonders will never cease .
Blessings,
Matholwch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 177
"I also think that science will one day have access to most of the secrets of the universe .... However, this is well into the future where science and spirituality may well be closer than either are presently comfortable to believe."
The fact that it's well in the future doesn't, in my opinion, affect that principle - that gods fill gaps, and eventually there will BE no gaps. The question of when it will happen is really irrelevant if you accept the principle that it will.
"I can assure you that at group events the consensus reality of what I experience is shared and often amplified."
I've personally experienced altered consensual realities at group events, shared and amplified altered perceptions in the presence of others, so I *think* I have some handle on what you're talking about. But I've never experienced anything that I needed any outside force to explain, beyond my own mind and its interaction with others present. Perhaps I'm missing something. I accept it's possible that I am...
"Your belief that it goes on in my head and nowhere else is as unsupportable as many of my arguments seem to be to you."
Not just your head - as you say, sharing a consensual experience can deepen it for the participants. But that doesn't necessarily require a mystical explanation, and if you can have that experience without a mystical element (and you indisputably can) then why do you need to invoke it for any similar event?
"It is practical because we don't accept blindly what we feel. We go out and seek contact with others and try it for ourselves. I doubt many (sorry but I have to use the word) 'rationalists' take the time to do that with scientific theories."
Think back about 12 years. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced to the world at a press conference that they had achieved a fusion reaction in a test tube at room temperature and pressure. If true, this opened the door to an imminent future of unlimited clean energy, and an end to the damaging reliance on fossil fuels and the politically disastrous world dependence on oil from unstable, uncivilised middle eastern states (whoops, bit of politics there). There was an ENORMOUS feeling of WANTING to believe that Fleischmann and Pons were right. And what was the reaction of the scientific community? Did they swallow up the announcement and celebrate? Did they blindly accept what they felt? Absolutely not. People across the planet rushed to their laboratories, some of them half-asleep in the middle of the night - because their FIRST instinct was not "I believe", but "I GOTTA see this for myself". THAT is practical rationalism. And the result was that Fleischmann and Pons were shown to be, to put it delicately, over-enthusiastic. Nobody managed to repeat their results, and as a result we don't have limitless clean energy and the world is still tiptoeing round the royal family of a fundamentalist religious monarchy.
"The benefits I get from it are manyfold and include greater understanding of my environment"
But you could get that from science! In fact, you could clearly get a BETTER understanding of your environment from a study of science, given your previous apparent misunderstandings of the basics of evolution.
"an approach to life that works with the world rather than against it"
What discipline warned us of the dangers of CFCs? Global warming? El Nino? Mad cow disease? No religion offers any practical help to AIDS sufferers. Science does. Science tells you where you and the world are conflicting. Some people choose to fight it, some choose to work with it. But our knowledge, as a global society, comes almost exclusively from the efforts of the rationalists.
"a spiritual bulwark against the viccisitudes of daily living "
Now you're talking. You're describing religion as I see it - a crutch (no pejorative tone intended) for people who cannot otherwise deal with their lives.
"Science can no more accurately predict the future than I can."
Nonsense. I stood on a hillside in Cornwall on August 11th 1999, after twenty five years of anticipation, and the scientific prediction of the future that I had read as a child came true, TO THE SECOND. The sun disappeared from the sky and the world was in twilight for two minutes and eleven seconds PRECISELY - AS PREDICTED. I have a friend who is planning an expensive trip to the other side of the planet this winter, based on nothing more than a prediction of the future - made by science. If she stands in South Australia on the 4th of December and there is no total eclipse, I might concede that science cannot reliably predict the future. Want to bet on it? How accurate a prediction of the future can you make, using only the tools of your spirituality?
"Hmmm...curing disease, laying on hands as well I suppose?"
Not necessarily. Anything you like. The tools of your spirituality, used to do something science can do, reliably and repeatably. Prayer has been tried as a cure for cholera. It doesn't work, I know that. Do you have anything at all in your spiritual toolbox which has *any* comparable success against cholera, leprosy, malaria, bubonic plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, etc. etc. etc. ? How long a list do you want of diseases practically eradicated by the use of science? Can you name ONE condition or disease which is even noticeably affected in double blind tests by prayer or spiritual methods?
"Puh-lease don't confuse a pagan relationship with the divine with miracles..."
I'm not looking for miracles. Miracles are by definition one-off events. Science doesn't produce miracles. It produces solid, repeatable, workaday solutions which can be applied to EVERYONE, not just one lucky person who happened to die near the prophet. Chemotherapy is not a miracle. Heart transplants are not miracles.
"that's a strictly Abrahamic (and I must say New Age) social control mechanism."
Hey! We agree!
"On the other hand as someone who has a serious sports knee injury the only things that have given me reliable relief are Acupuncture and Reiki, both unproven hokum, but available on the NHS nonetheless."
Hang on... "unproven hokum"? Hokum, perhaps. But proven. I don't pretend to know how acupuncture works and I don't think most scientists do either, but the solid, repeatable evidence suggests that it does, and not just on humans either. Reiki I know nothing about, so I won't comment on it, beyond saying that if the NHS is funding it, I can only hope that it too has been double-blind tested and found to be of help.
"I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right."
"Church attendance and participation in the UK and Europe are now just 16% of what they were 40 years ago."
What's the percentage difference of bishops in the House of Lords? Has that changed at all?
"Sounds like a collapse to me."
I don't hear an answer to my point about the power of the religious right in the US...
"The National Curriculum ...teaches religion, and ethics, as history."
I have to say - good, about religion. Not so good about ethics...
"I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got."
"I'm afraid your imagination has got the better of you for neither of these worlds can exist. You might as well try to wish gravity away."
No imagination is required to picture a world without science. It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist. Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago. Look at the world of William the Conqueror for a world without science. Would you want to live there? Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there. And I agree, I might as well wish gravity away. Funnily enough, that might happen sooner than you think... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...
"Which is why I am still here. You must understand that modern druidry is not an evangelistic path. We have no desire to convert or convince anyone. But if asked we will try to explain our beliefs."
I'm asking.
""Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated."
Here we go with the simple and immediate again . Our world view is neither simple nor immediate."
I'm not asking for your world-view, and I understand that to appreciate that in all its complexity would take years - BUT... The monitor of your computer is NOT my world-view. It is, however, a simple, tangible PRODUCT of my world-view. Are you telling me there is NOTHING you can show or tell me which is a tangible, demonstrable product of yours? Because if you are - if there is nothing you can point to and say "here is a benefit derived from my beliefs" - then I must shake my head and wonder what would make anyone start down the long road you've taken.
"It is grounded in the belief that the universe is more complex than we presently or perhaps can imagine."
So's science. Isn't it?
"Our lives are quests for 'truth', a continuous journey towards a receding horizon where the brow of each answer reveals a valley of questions."
Still sounds like science to me.
"It's good fun too, for those with an inquiring mind."
STILL sounds like science to me.
"Oooh they do get my goat though sometimes."
Mine too. I could make a comment here about Druids and goats, but it would be cheap, and more importantly and less forgivably, probably not funny...
"How do you define superstition by the way?"
WOW! There's a GOOD question. I'm going to have to think about that one and get back to you if I'm to do it any justice...
"I'm a Quality Engineering Manager in a High tech. electronics company..."
Never mind! I'm sure one day you'll transcend engineering and get a proper job!
H.
Engineer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 178
Doesn't he live on his own, in a small house, on a lonely planet and is totally unaware of who he is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 179
Greetings again,
Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know,but I hope you allow me my two cents worth from time to time.
I think it is only fair H. to let you know that I am following the path of the Druid as well, my opinions and comments therefor would be similar, if not always identical to M.'s.
One passage of your last entry really had me thinking (yes, we do think for ourselves it is actually encouraged...).
"No imagination is required to picture a world without science.
It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."
It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time. I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone.I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era.
That most of the Western world was primarily ruled by religion is true, but although I am openinded towards every religion and filosophy, I don't neccesarily have to like the fact that wise and knowledgable people were tortured, maimed and killed because they refused to subscribe to a religion which tried to rule their minds and threatend them with eternal damnation if they didn't comply. "Wise and knowledgable" could stand for..erm...lets see..."wytche" maybe or "druid"(shaman,runemaster,and so on).I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more.
"Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago."
Far from saying that I look down on or even disagree with the enormous evolution especially medical science has made, one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years.With growing population ways needed to be found to feed everyone...true, but allow me: first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?
"Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there."
No crusades? Agreed.
No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear.
No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power.
September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion. In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks.
... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...
I will, as I said, always open to learn...
Walk in Light /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 20, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 180
Greetings again,
Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know,but I hope you allow me my two cents worth from time to time.
I think it is only fair H. to let you know that I am following the path of the Druid as well, my opinions and comments therefor would be similar, if not always identical to M.'s.
One passage of your last entry really had me thinking (yes, we do think for ourselves it is actually encouraged...).
"No imagination is required to picture a world without science.
It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."
It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time. I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone.I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era.
That most of the Western world was primarily ruled by religion is true, but although I am openinded towards every religion and filosophy, I don't neccesarily have to like the fact that wise and knowledgable people were tortured, maimed and killed because they refused to subscribe to a religion which tried to rule their minds and threatend them with eternal damnation if they didn't comply. "Wise and knowledgable" could stand for..erm...lets see..."wytche" maybe or "druid"(shaman,runemaster,and so on).I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more.
"Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago."
Far from saying that I look down on or even disagree with the enormous evolution especially medical science has made, one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years.With growing population ways needed to be found to feed everyone...true, but allow me: first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?
"Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there."
No crusades? Agreed.
No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear.
No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power.
September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion. In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks.
... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...
I will, as I said, always open to learn...
Walk in Light /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Refuting Hell
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Swoosh - maker of puddings, keeper of dribbly pets, known for disappearing frequently
Post: 181
Well is my little piece:
I don't believe in hell.
Heres why: The word hell is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read 'the grave' 'the world of the dead' and so forth. Other bibles simply transliterate the original languauge words that are sometimes rendered hell; thta is they express them with the words of our our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. Those words are the Hebrew she'ohl and the Greek equivalent hai'des which refer not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the greek ge'en'na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction.
What the bible says about the state of the dead:
Ecclessiastes 9:5,10 The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are concious of nothing at all... All that your hand finds to do, do with your power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.
(So if they are conscious of nothing they obviously feel no pain.)
The Bible also makes no mention of a soul that survives the body to then go to hell. In fact Ezekial 18:4 says that the soul that is sinning, it itself will die. In other bibles this is rendered as the man or the person.
The concept of 'soul' meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, seperate from the body... does not exist in the bible. (La Parole de dieu (Paris 1980) Georges Auzou, profesor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary France p. 128.)
So people who go to hell simply die, therefore both the righteous and the wicked go to hell, for it is simply a place of death. In fact Job prayed to God to protect him in hell. He would not have done this because he believed that he had sinned badly in fact he was known as a man blameless and upright, why would he choose to burn indefinately in hell?
Do people ever get out of the bible hell? Revelation 20:13,14 The sea gave up the dead which were in it and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into it)
So are the wicked eternally punished? The bible says that they will be eternally destoyed. (maththew 25:46, 2 Thess 1:9, Jude 7) The very idea of eternal torment does not fit with Gods personality. 1 John 4:8 says that he is Love. Surely a God of love would no more burn his creations eternally then we would burn a childs hand to punish them for a wrong doing? Furthermore Jeremiah 7:31 talks about how apostate Judeans put their sons and their daughters through fire. It goes on to say that this was not a commandment of God, it had not even come into his heart. How could He then turn around and do the same thing on a much larger scale?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Apple Adelaide: Cat Woman. Flip the Switch, Froggy!
Post: 182
As a coincidence, Semaj, I heard just this *second* a news item about how a second person has been charged in the murder of Holly and Jessica.
What a question! What my brother would say, is that God always answers prayers - sometimes the answer is 'no'. I know what he means - and I think that sometimes what seems like 'no' to us here-and-now, is a kind of 'yes'. I have a friend in her 30s who blew an aneurysm as few weeks ago, and I learned of what happened weeks later and went to see her in the Rehab unit. I have been praying for her, for her recovery *and* for her emotional state, which is very bad! To be honest, I didn't expect *any* improvement in her physical condition, but when I went to see her yesterday, a week later, she *had* had a physical improvement, tho' not a cure.
Another point I would make, is, that death is not the worst thing that can happen! God's will for someone may be their death - for them, and for their family - for reasons which will only become clear years later, if ever. But there may well be a reason! (I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with Holly and Jessica) We can't know.
In answer to the posting b4 yours, yes, I *do* believe in the Resurrection. There is evidence in favour of it, as against the Genesis accounts of Creation. I believe those accounts are myths in the literary sense of the word, and never meant to be taken factually!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 183
Does anyone agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a clever mutation of the Roman Empire (political/religious from military/political)?
Yup, it certainly looks like it to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 21, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 184
Hiya star...
"Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know"
Not at all, the more viewpoints the more interesting this is.
"One passage of your last entry really had me thinking"
Now that warms the cockles...
"...a world without science...was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."
It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time."
Purely arbitrary, I assure you, based on the fact that the Western calendar is the one we all understand and use. I also referred to William the Conqueror, since I assume most people can recall at least one of his dates and it comes close to a usefully round number of years ago.
"I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone."
I agree - but if we're to have any basis for communication, certain basic assumptions in common are required, and a commonly understood calendar is one of them. Now I'm as dissatisfied as the next atheist that the calendar we all use is based on the miscalculated birth year of a prophet/messiah I don't believe in. But until the whole western world starts measuring dates from a TRULY significant event (August 6th 1945? July 20th 1969?) I'll stick to referring to the Christian calendar.
"I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era."
True. But the relative positions of science and religion in influencing public policy have only switched within the last few hundred years. There's no point having science if religion takes precedence.
"I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more."
Absolutely. Astronomy, yes. Astrology, no. Many people don't know the difference, or think that astrology is a science. Herbology (at least what I know of it) has many of the characteristics of science. Psychology? I'm not sure that that counts as a science even now.
"one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years."
Why not? Those diseases were out there, causing misery and death, and religion did NOTHING. Like I said, prayer was offered as a cure for cholera. I absolutely blame religion for the illness or death of anyone told to look to gods for the cures to their troubles.
"first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?"
Correct. I'm glad and interested to note that you didn't say "we can't". Because we can, can't we? If we choose to. We choose not to, for reasons of politics, and that choice does not reflect well on us as a species.
"Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?"
No, I'm not. And it seems to me that genetic manipulation of crops is less to do with feeding a mass of people and more to do with enriching a few. Then again, are you so sure that genetic manipulation is a BAD thing? And if so, how do you know that? How do you hope to have an informed opinion (which is, after all, the only kind of opinion which is any use) without proper scientific trials of these things? (and I know I'm being hopelessly idealistic here, too - the trials being performed in the UK are not, by my judgement, properly scientific, and the reasons for that are to do with profit. Bugger.)
"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it."
But in a world without religion, it could not have been sold that way. In a world without religion, where people do not have it driven into them every day since infancy that authority is not to be questioned, that kind of action would be much harder to sell. Also, if you want to get into history, why is the Jewish population vilified? And how do they come to be in positions of class, power and influence way beyond their proportion in the general population? Because, going back hundreds of years, Christians were forbidden by religious law from lending money. So if you wanted a loan, you had to go to a non-Christian, which in Western Europe at least, meant a Jew. Nobody likes people they owe money to. Nobody likes people who seem to be doing well with little physical effort, as would a moneylender. So resentment grew. This is of course a vast oversimplification - but it's a commonly given reason for one of the roots of anti-Semitism, and it simply could not have existed in a world without stupid religious rules like "if you're a Christian you're not allowed to lend money".
"No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power."
And without the HUGE influence of religion, how long could that situation have been maintained? Could it even have got started? Slavers used the Bible to justify their actions - the Bible explicitly condones slavery in several places. Without that justification, would it even occur to an otherwise civilised man to enslave another?
"September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion."
If you had a world without religion, there'd be no concept of an afterlife. No Valhalla for the heroes to go to when they've completed their self-sacrificing task. No paradise of endless pleasure. Just nothing. How do you persuade someone to train for months and undertake great risk, in return for oblivion? That'd be some sales job, if there was no such thing as religions...
"In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks."
I agree. But would a rational, non-religious world consider globalisation to be a threat, and if so, to what?
"I will, as I said, always open to learn... "
Excellent. Me too. Thanks for responding...
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 185
"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it."
Since when was it sold as religious?, seems to me it always had more to do with Eugenics. A science which branched out into Genetics and through major funding from The Rockerfella Foundation/Ford/Du Pont/Harrimans/Dillon Reed etc, the pseuedo-science of population control.Not so un-coincidencially, the same folks who provided the Capital Investment for the Third Reich.
Few thoughts on the God thing:-
There is a God. It exists within the Collective Human "Reality"
Reality is a product of the Individual "Awareness" and "God" exists within that framework.
"God" by effecting the actions of individuals can effect "Reality" as perceived by other individuals.
Therefore - God is Fact. (or at least as real as everything anything else in your head)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 186
Maybe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 187
In my personal opinion every person that has ever lived long enough has taken one of three paths. All paths start the same:
First we try to understand the world. We take our conclusions, whatever they may be and we...
1) Try to do what we think is best.
2) Try to do what we think is best for ourselves.
3) Get lost somewhere between paths 1 & 2.
Everyone who choses path 1 deserves love and understanding, even if their views conflict with yours.
Everyone who choses path 2 deserves what they get.
Everyone on path 3 needs guidance and support, and if possible should be brought closer to path 1.
No view is right. But we all necessarily seek to surround ourselves with people who share our views.
There is no answer, only attempted solutions.
Marcus Aurelius
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Jordan -- am *I* Tony Curtis?
Post: 188
I saw this, and I saw red... (interesting, since the font was black... No, no! I meant it metaphorically, didn't I? Oh, I can't remember. Let's just continue, shall we?)
Psychology: not a science. That is the most insulting thing it could be possible to say to someone who seriously misjudged the content of his psychology course, finishing after two years with a better insight into the scientific method than anyone who ever took one or more of the so-called 'hard sciences'. So what: you work with rocks and chemicals and particles, psychologists work with brains and diseases and minds. By the end of those two years, I came to know the scientific method intimately. In a single lesson, I was expected to identify issues and search out potential confounding variables and evaluate methodologies with more rigour than I, or anyone else for that matter, was ever encouraged to employ in the course of two whole years of physics. Just read the recent, meticulously examined and criticised (I mean, these things are taken apart with toothpicks) studies on schizophrenia, or perhaps the rigidly applied diagnostic critera to which it is subject, and you might just begin to understand the care these people take in their work. They never give a diagnosis when there is more than the tiniest chance that it may be something similar, and categories are applied even to this. Physicists shift paradigms every century or less and there is uproar; psychologists don't blink an eyelid.
Another thing: could you kindly stop using the word 'Religion' (or 'Christians') when what you really mean is 'Catholics'? It gets really annoying at times. Sometimes, you mean another group: when you do, why don't you refer to it rather than to everyone who has any kind of religious belief? I'm getting mighty tempted to start saying '...and those scientists have pretty sick ideas - I mean, the Jewish Holocaust and ethnic cleansing, that's all because of genetics.' When I refer to scientists, I mean eugenicists. We all have to pussy foot around the failures of a few nasty skeletons in the closet of scientific objectivity, so will you please start extending the same courtesy to us religious types?
And the only reference to slavery I can find is in Philemon. It's not even a justification, it's just a poor, heartbroken apostle making a difficult decision about what to do with a slave whom he loves as a brother, and wishes dearly to help. He does not, anywhere, say that slavery is good - he simply implies that it happens, and we have to live with it.
I think good ol' Uncie Nick has a good point: unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are. People should have the right to think what they want to, so long as it does not put others - or themselves - at serious risk. And, sometimes, people suffer from disorders like schizophrenia or depression (which, by the way, are largely genetic), and need a helping hand.
Which, by the way, would be a fourth path - not doing either. What do you think we ought to do for them, Aurelius?
That sounded awful! I'm sorry if I sounded a bit nasty - I'm just a mite annoyed at some stuff that's going on around me. Just hope that passion isn't offensive.
- Jordan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 189
A word on reality in responce to Uncle Nick.
"Reality is a product of the Individual "Awareness" and "God" exists within that framework."
I disagree with the theory of 'Reality' which you put forward Uncle Nick. I know it's a well founded theory blah blah but it also doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in my opinion.
We are merely human and with the few senses that we have (including reason) the best we can ever hope for is to formulate a *perception* of reality. Each and every one of us has a different *perception* of reality based upon our individual experiences. But it is only this *perception* which changes for each individual. The object which we attempt to perceive is solid. Reality is what it is. The problem is that the our perceptions are flawed. None of us is quite right.
Therefore the arguement that 'God' exists merely because 'He' exists in some of our perceptions of reality is asking us to stretch the boundary a little too far beyond reason.
At least that's my view.
Marcus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 190
Hi there Jordan,
A fourth path, hey? Ok, lets see.
Schizophrenia. Where a person's personality is divided? Well, I wouldn't describe that as doing neither path 1 nor path 2. I would imagine that they jump rather randomly between paths. Therefore they fit path 3. Of course I'm just taking a rather steriotypical view as I am not educated in psychology.
Depression. I had that. Clinical depression for 6 years. I was still able to determine between right and wrong as I saw them. Don't see that makes any difference there, really. However, you do tend to withdraw and lose hope when your depressed. Yes, you take a back seat from life. I see what you're getting at.
Thinking about it, yes, there are many people who opt out of the moral side of life. I'm not sure if this fits in path 3 or if we need to have a new path but as far as I'm concerned it still makes very little difference to the way they should be treated - with love, support, guidance.
Jordan, what's your point?
Marcus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 191
Oh, and while I'm here may I just voice my support for Jordan's claim that Psychology is a true science. Thanks.
MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 192
Hiya Jordan!
"Psychology: not a science. That is the most insulting thing it could be possible to say"
And if I said that, I'd apologise. What I said was "I'm not sure it counts as a science, even now", and I said that for several reasons.
(1) I'm not sure, because I don't follow its progress as closely as I do other sciences
(2) My current understanding of it is that it is at a very early stage of its development as a science, much as, say, physics was in 1650, for instance. All I know of psychology (i.e. not much) suggests that it is making the painful transition from reasonably coherent set of old wives tales to concrete body of knowledge useful for making reliable predictions about reality. The fact that it is in this transitionary period may explain some of the caution you describe:
"...you might just begin to understand the care these people take in their work. They never give a diagnosis when there is more than the tiniest chance that it may be something similar"
"Physicists shift paradigms every century or less and there is uproar; psychologists don't blink an eyelid."
Which backs up what I would say about psychology being relatively early in its journey towards being a science in the accepted sense. If you're at the stage where you can upset the whole basis of your knowledge every couple of years, doesn't that say something about the maturity of your area of study? Paradigm shifts in physics are rare now because all the good ones happened three hundred or more years ago, and the body of knowledge solidified into a Newton's-Laws-shaped rock for two hundred years. Einstein put a bomb under that rock, and it TOOK a bomb to shift it. You imply psychology is still an insubstantial cloud of condensing smoke, blown left and right by competing interpretations of the evidence. It doesn't make it not a science, I accept that. I'm sorry for any implication it did. I think we think more alike about it than different, and I don't mean to belittle the subject or its study in the least.
"Another thing: could you kindly stop using the word 'Religion' (or 'Christians') when what you really mean is 'Catholics'?"
When I mean Catholics, I'll say Catholics. When I mean Christians, I'll say Christians. When I mean those who hold the Old Testment to be the Word of God, I'll say Judeo-Christians. And when I mean people who are required, if they profess true faith, to believe in a flat earth, I'll say "Religious people", with apologies to any non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim people out there, because when I say "religion" what I generally mean is "anything to do with Christianity, Judaism or Islam". I choose my words with care, and define them when asked. I don't think I've EVER meant "Catholics" when I've said "Christians". I could understand it if I'd said "what's wrong with Christians, eh, thinking their Pope is infallible?". But I haven't.
"When I refer to scientists, I mean eugenicists."
Is Eugenics science or politics? Discuss. (in fact I'm tempted to start another thread with that title...)
"We all have to pussy foot around the failures of a few nasty skeletons in the closet of scientific objectivity, so will you please start extending the same courtesy to us religious types?"
Science does not ask that you pussyfoot around its failures. It asks that you understand that it has repudiated them utterly.
Religion - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - asks that you pussyfoot around any number of rationalisations and exceptions and "interpretations" and mistranslations and allegories and does not admit what it doesn't know. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe the world is a sphere?
"And the only reference to slavery I can find is in Philemon."
Then you haven't been looking very hard. I suggest a glance at Exodus Chapter 21 for starters. God has the whole Bible in which to condemn the barbaric practice of slavery. Instead...
"He does not, anywhere, say that slavery is good - he simply implies that it happens, and we have to live with it."
God doesn't say that rape is good, either. He implies that it happens, and that we have to live with it. Oh, hang on, he actually DOES imply rape is OK... Genesis 19:8, where Lot offers a crowd his daughters, preferring them to be raped than two people he doesn't know (who, unknown to him, are actually angels). What goes around comes around though, of course, because in verse 33 Lot's daughters get him drunk and rape him.
God, when inspiring those who wrote the Bible, had, over the course of those 66 books plenty of opportunity to condemn slavery, and didn't do it even once.
"I think good ol' Uncie Nick has a good point: unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are."
Which makes Santa Claus and the tooth fairy JUST as real as your god to most four year olds. What's the difference?
"People should have the right to think what they want to, so long as it does not put others - or themselves - at serious risk."
Agreed. But how many wars have used religion as justification?
"That sounded awful! I'm sorry if I sounded a bit nasty - I'm just a mite annoyed at some stuff that's going on around me. Just hope that passion isn't offensive."
Not to me. What I said about psychology was poorly phrased, mea culpa. As for the rest, I need only look at my desk calendar for today. The pithy words of wisdom on there are, I kid you not, as follows:
"It's a pretty safe rule that the fellow who always agrees with you is not worth talking to".
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Marcus Aurelius
Post: 193
Hello again
Just wanted to add something that I see as clarification and many other people will probably see as a load of hogswash. But anyway...
Along with my earlier point on reality and our perceptions, I voice my support on Hoovooloo's point about Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
"unreal things are just as real as anything else, so long as we think they are" Well, no. That comment is a sandwich short of a picnic.
If I believe that Santa exists then he is just as real *TO ME* as chocolate is *TO YOU*. It doesn't necessarily tally that just because Santa is part of *MY* perception of reality, he is real. That's crazy. That's like saying, just because I start really believing in banana-aliens they're going to suddenly start existing.
I believe in many things that you might not. I might be wrong. You believe in God. You too might be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by star of taliesin
Post: 194
...and hello again ,
Couldn't help but come back on it: Every time some one uses the word "god", it is assumed that Christianity would be discussed. I don't think that was the case here (as a matter of fact I am quite sure). Could we agree that by religion we mean the mainstream worldreligions and all their aspects (I wouldn't want any Lutheran,Koptic Christian,Greek-Orthodox-Christian,Baptist,Methodist,a.s.o. to feel as if they have to react now or as if I purposely exclude them.... ) ..Please?
For the record: I feel that there doesn't have to be a rift between "us religious people "(I would prefer filosophy-orientated here, but let's not split hairs )and "them science-people".
Wither the power of the human mind is used in a strictly scientific way or as a part of a spiritual path, is not even such an issue, as long as it is used at all, at least to investigate ways and means to improve all life. (hey, give me a break here ok, I am a treehugger, what can I say... )If I can improve the life of existences around me by knowing my path and walking it, then I hold that just as important as the improvement the quality of life through...erm...say chemotherapy.
As for the question wither I have proof of the negative effects of genetic manipulation, well...no I don't, but neither do the scientists, or do they? 30 odd years ago science was sure that there wouldn't be any negative effects from "the pil". As it turns out the oestrogen in the pil doesn't break down all that easily and scientist now assume that the deteriarating quality of the human sperm is due to large amounts of oestrogen in our drinking water...that says something about "long-term-effects", does it not? As an inhabitant of this planet I am worried, aren't you?
In reply to the entries on "hell"...*sigh*.First of all: I don't believe in "hell", at least not as a place. Please take it for what it is: a way of scaring people into obedience. Even if the bible gives reference to it or not, that does not necessarily make it a real place. The bible is not to everyone "the Good book"of eternal and ultimate truth (sorry, it isn't to me).If I have learnt anything then it is that truth is only temporary, what was true today maybe proven wrong tomorrow (and that goes for science just as it goes for my filosophical path).
The place "where the dead rest": that concept is as old as the world itself; maybe to take some of the fear of death and dying away from people, maybe for some completely different reason,I don't really know, but I do know that many a culture (from way before the Christian era) had and still has there own form or name for the place where the dead go: Hades,Otherworld,Valhalla,Tir-na-n'Og,Nirvana and so on...
On a sarcastic note let me put on my robes, go dance under the moonlight and hug a tree...never know what I may come up with next...
Walk in Light /|Star*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Refuting Hell
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by EggsER
Post: 195
I don't understand why you quote the Old testment (Until Christ died for us there was no reprieve from "Hell" then jump to Revelation in the new testament and ignore the many comments made about the promise of eternal life.
I think that probably "Hell" is what we make for ourselves by ignoring God's many warnings to know him and have faith. Sin is turning away from God and if you turn far enough you may end in hell. Not so much a punishment but just the consequences. Like if you drive a car with bald tires down the free way at excessive speed and a tire blows, you have an accident. While you may be hurt seriously or even killed it is basically the result of pushing the limit of you options. Jesus came to give us an example of how to treat each other (h2g2 talks about it too) and if we hear the warnings and listen we will be saved. Many these days hear the warning and are like the person with the bald tires and big engine, Ooops, now it's to late once the skid starts. But the New Testament tells us that Christ loves us and will even intervein in the skid. Hense no one know but you if you are saved or not and Hell is where you go if that is what you want to do.
Atheists are daredevils at heart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Refuting Hell
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Runner
Post: 196
"No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear."
Nonsense. Religion had a big part to do with it. And here's how. 1900 years of explicit Catholic anti-semitism and a few hundred of explicit protastant anti-semitism gave rise to the bigotry that caused the Holocaust. Millions of Germans didn't turn round one day and say "Hey! Let's kill the Jews!". Germans, like most Christians in Europe had been told in the churches and in the homes that the Jews killed Christ, that they were damned because they didn't follow Christ etc. etc. Of course, not all Christians were anti-semitic (and took Jesus at face value when he said love thy neighbour), and the folks responsible for starting the Holocaust, the Nazis high command, probably weren't doing it for relegious purposes. BUT the environment created in Europe by the Church is what ALLOWED the SS to get away with it. Why didn't Pope Pius XII condemn it, despite having known about the persecution of the Jews (if not the actual ins and outs of the death camps)? Because he, and the Christian establishment were anti-semitic.
This kinda thing demonstrates the pointlessness of discussing whether God exists or not. Who cares what anyone believes in anyway? I can believe the moon is made of cheese if I want. The problem is when people decide that I should be made to suffer for my beliefs. Religious types should not be trying to distance themselves from events like the Holocaust. They should admit to themselves, and to others, "Having a belief-set such as mine, even fluffy and cuddly ones, and encouraging others to do so, creates an environment of elitism, distrust and hatred, no matter how well intended my actions".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Blessed are the Big Noses
Posted Aug 22, 2002 by Piglet13
Post: 197
He's not the Messiah!......He's a very naughty boy!
Follow the Gourd
Follow the Sandal
You don't have to follow anybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Hell and that
Posted Aug 23, 2002 by Phryne- formerly Mandragora- 'Best Suppurating Actress'
Post: 198
I'm not going to Hell, because I do not believe in such a place. Right? Even the CofE (which is what I'd by default be if I were organised-religious) has abolished it as a physical place.
Following on from the reality subject (not necessarily that if you believe in something, it begins to exist- can, open, worms everywhere...) since the soul (which goes to hell) is a construct of the brain/mind, it can only be affected by similar. Hence, hell has to be believed in, otherwise your soul cannot go there. (Course, you have to believe in a soul also... more worms.)
I am not 'ignoring God's warnings'. For a start, I've heard nothing as convincing as the fact that bad tyres probably are not a good bet, secondly I didn't opt to 'disobey' God or confound him or even to annoy Christians, but made a conscious decision to follow a path that I'm more comfortable with (more up my leyline, so to speak.)
Quandary- what of those who haven't ever come across God's apparent warnings? not so much now- those missionaries get around- but in the past before such things were spread. Seems a bit harsh to toss them into hell since it wasn't their fault and they could never have altered their situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 23, 2002 by Uncle Nick
Post: 199
"Therefore the argument that 'God' exists merely because 'He' exists in some of our perceptions of reality is asking us to stretch the boundary a little too far beyond reason."
I was really pushing towards the idea that because the 'God' thing has such an effect on the way that some individuals perceive reality and ultimatley on how they interact with and affect the fabric of the Universe. 'God' must be accepted as a 'Fact'
But that is not to suggest that 'God' is, in anyway, shape or form a thing that exists as an entity seperate from Human Perception. That really would be stretching it.
Father Christmas and God.
The only difference between Santa and God is that grown ups should know better
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: I'm gonna raise a mass theological debate here: God; fact, or fiction
Posted Aug 23, 2002 by Hoo rahoorahoorayay, over the hill with the swords of a thousand men
Post: 200
And on that note, and just before I go offline for a while, I must insert two weak attempts at humour -
(1) Did you hear the one about the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?
(2) Did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac, who'd lie awake at night wondering if there was a dog?
H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
