The Dreaded Religion Thread
DOOManiac
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
Worst. Critic. Ever. Join Date: 2002-04-17 Member: 462Members, NS1 Playtester
<div class="IPBDescription">Lets just discuss things</div>Reading Legionnaired's posts in the <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=23149' target='_blank'>death thread</a> got me thinking about starting a thread about relilgious discussion. Pretty open ended, talk about anything. Just remember to be open, honest, and most importantly, tolerant of other people's beliefs. Do not try to convert someone to your belief, do not slam or massively label those of any belief (others or even your own). Just be respectful of each other.
Seeing the stuff that's gone into the other threads, I'm quite confident that we can do an internet first and make an actual productive, well though, pleasant (no flames/bad posts) here. :)
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Please, remember to keep things civil and respectful of other people's beliefs, or the diety of your choice will kill a kitten.</b></span>
I'll start the discussion with a brief bit, as I gotta go sleep.
As far as my religious beliefs go, I think agnostic is what its called. I don't really know what the nature of the universe is. I don't know if there is a God and Jesus, an Allah (which is really just another name for God), Shiva, a nirvana, or if there is just nothing. Many people mistakenly confuse this with athiesm, but its not really the same as athiests are as sure there is no god as Christians are sure there is one. I'm not sure of either.
Anyway, being a programmer and also taking my biology class in college and learning more about the current theories of the earth's creation and etc, have made me come up with what I feel is an interesting point.
In religion, why does everything God (I'll say God for the sake of simplicty, it could really be any diety of your choice) does have to be magic? God says "Let there be X" and *poof* it was there. The Titans held up the sky and poof it was there. etc. Why couldn't have God taken a logical, scientificly explainable approach to things.
For example, I believe that if there is a God, that evolution was the means he (or she) used to create life. It makes perfect sense if you are a programmer, especially if you deal with Object Oriented languages and Polymorphism. Also some people have in the past likened the DNA code to Binary. (Yes DNA has 4 elemtns, but only 2 possible combinations, thus the code itself is "binary") This sort of thing also touches on the idea of humans being nothing but organic machines: that even our brains think in the very same binary that runs our computers (electrical impulse or lack thereof).
But I'm drifting off topic, sorry heh.
So why must the creation of the earth be magic? I don't feel that it diminishes any view of power or grandure of the diety by saying that he made the big bang and blah blah blah, simply because just the odds of that happening are so unlikely that it makes you think "surely there must have been something to start the process".
Another point to raise regarding Evolution and Christianity. I'm not an expert on the Bible (only read a few chapters, back when I still considered myself a Christian), but I do remember there being a part about man being made from the clay of the earth. This seems to be many people's main argument against evolution. But if you study the whole evolutionary theory, the current scientific idea is that the very ver first string of DNA that randomly came into being (which later randomly joined to form single celled organisms and from there on up to us) by the electircal charge in DIRT. So in a sense, the theory of evolution does not contradict the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) creation belief, but rather reinforces it.
"What I told you was true, from a certain point of view"
Well that's all I got to add for now, which is good, cause its 3:24 AM on a school night. heh.
Seeing the stuff that's gone into the other threads, I'm quite confident that we can do an internet first and make an actual productive, well though, pleasant (no flames/bad posts) here. :)
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Please, remember to keep things civil and respectful of other people's beliefs, or the diety of your choice will kill a kitten.</b></span>
I'll start the discussion with a brief bit, as I gotta go sleep.
As far as my religious beliefs go, I think agnostic is what its called. I don't really know what the nature of the universe is. I don't know if there is a God and Jesus, an Allah (which is really just another name for God), Shiva, a nirvana, or if there is just nothing. Many people mistakenly confuse this with athiesm, but its not really the same as athiests are as sure there is no god as Christians are sure there is one. I'm not sure of either.
Anyway, being a programmer and also taking my biology class in college and learning more about the current theories of the earth's creation and etc, have made me come up with what I feel is an interesting point.
In religion, why does everything God (I'll say God for the sake of simplicty, it could really be any diety of your choice) does have to be magic? God says "Let there be X" and *poof* it was there. The Titans held up the sky and poof it was there. etc. Why couldn't have God taken a logical, scientificly explainable approach to things.
For example, I believe that if there is a God, that evolution was the means he (or she) used to create life. It makes perfect sense if you are a programmer, especially if you deal with Object Oriented languages and Polymorphism. Also some people have in the past likened the DNA code to Binary. (Yes DNA has 4 elemtns, but only 2 possible combinations, thus the code itself is "binary") This sort of thing also touches on the idea of humans being nothing but organic machines: that even our brains think in the very same binary that runs our computers (electrical impulse or lack thereof).
But I'm drifting off topic, sorry heh.
So why must the creation of the earth be magic? I don't feel that it diminishes any view of power or grandure of the diety by saying that he made the big bang and blah blah blah, simply because just the odds of that happening are so unlikely that it makes you think "surely there must have been something to start the process".
Another point to raise regarding Evolution and Christianity. I'm not an expert on the Bible (only read a few chapters, back when I still considered myself a Christian), but I do remember there being a part about man being made from the clay of the earth. This seems to be many people's main argument against evolution. But if you study the whole evolutionary theory, the current scientific idea is that the very ver first string of DNA that randomly came into being (which later randomly joined to form single celled organisms and from there on up to us) by the electircal charge in DIRT. So in a sense, the theory of evolution does not contradict the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) creation belief, but rather reinforces it.
"What I told you was true, from a certain point of view"
Well that's all I got to add for now, which is good, cause its 3:24 AM on a school night. heh.
Comments
EDIT: I am an atheist, and a Marxist.
First, I do believe that there is a god in the sense of the creator of the universe; it being a system of cause and effect, I'm definetely sure it has to be the effect of one original cause - god.
This does not mean that I am a distinct follower of one religion, nor does it mean that I reject them. If there truly is a great god, it seems perfectly logical to me that said deity would not only share his/her/its wisdom with a single culture, but spread it amongst all of his/her/its creation - the fact that each culture then proceeds to adapt these teachings to itself wouldn't change a thing about the validity of the resulting religion.
Comparing the holy books of the main religions, they agree on some very fundamental points - there are, for example, always rules of behavior comparable to the ten comandments, there is always the idea of an original cause - the respective deity -, there is always a deep teaching of love and forgiveness (always relative to the customs that existed before the time of the religion in question).
My pass says I am a christian, and in a certain sense I am - I believe that the Bible, although riddled by the humans who wrote it and the times it passed, contains some fundamental truths, and I believe that Jesus was a holy man through whom god spoke.
I'm however absolutely sure that the Koran or the Thora contain just as much truth, and do not doubt that Mohamed is a prophet.
This is of course horribly shortened up, but I doubt that anyone would read more.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In religion, why does everything God (I'll say God for the sake of simplicty, it could really be any diety of your choice) does have to be magic? God says "Let there be X" and *poof* it was there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you on the genesis - evolution parallels, and while doing some research about the way the Bible was written, I realized that the authors quite possibly didn't even intend to create the impression of 'magic':
We've always got to remember that most holy books were written in a time of neglectable scientific knowledge. The Genesis as it was written already stretched the imagination of its recepients.
What life expectancy would a religion with an accurate description of the physical effects that led to the creation of the world ("First, there was nothing, which exploded...") have had?
A similiar explanation can be used for the use of 'magic': The authors of our holy books were convinced of the impossibility of describing gods actions - it was just absolutely incomprehensible to them, as it still is mostly to us.
Therefore, they shortened themselves to a clear mentioning of cause (gods intention) and effect (the creation). You'll notice how there is no description of the time that passed between both, which <i>can</i> be interpreted as an instant creation with nothing in between, but can also be taken as literally any timeframe.
Now on to the more scientific part: Let's go back to a time, when the earth was still a piece of rock, volcanic and just eroded from the big bang that brought our galaxy to life. In this time there was no life on earth, but that doesn't meen that there necesseraliy wasn't any life somewhere else in the universe which is none to be infinite. What if a group of extragalactical scientist just decided to go over to that new galaxy around the corner to try creating new life or even see what happens when "we add DNA part one with DNA part two, just for the fun in it". Then a couple millenia later they come back and see something has happened and they decide that there are still some things to tweak here and there, so they stick around a while.
A couple million years later something interesting happens... semi-inteligent life(can't say we're that smart, can you?) pops up and as the Researchteam stays to watch whats gonna happen people take notice of them and start to wonder about all the unexplainable things these Creators can do. They have no advanced science whatsoever and so it happens as it always does, when you can't explain something, it is considered magic. So, suddenly you have an inteligent species who cannot explain the workings of the people who borught them there and what is gonna happen next? You start to worship them.
Let's look at this from our modern view. When there is a large group of people doing something extraordinary people will look up to them and praise them for what they have done becaúse they can't do the same thing. Some people will project everything that was achieved onto the project leader, the man who runs the show, others will cheer for all of them. This might be how the Researchteam from the previous story was in parts of the world worshipped as many "gods" with magic powers and in other places it was all narrowed down to one "god".
As an exampel for this just take NS... some people still think Flayra is god because he made this game, while others pray for the tablescraps of the whole team as they see the work everyone put into it. It is just how things work, when someone does something you cannot he is suddenly somewhat superior, even more so, if you like what he does and want to do the same thing.
Again, if you would travel with todays technology to the egyptian ages you would probably be considered a god because you could gun people down without touching them or create sounds without using you mouth or hands. If you now consider how much more advanced somebody would have to be who can create life, you can think for yourslef how small and subtle his machines must be.
And finally, to end this with a quote as well: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"- Isaac Asimov (I think, was it?)
Simple as that.
I'm not really into blind belief, when I die I want my body to be scavenged for all useful bits for donation to other people the need them. The rest can go to scientific research. Whatever's left can be cremated and thrown into the sea.
I've got nothing against god nor the people that believe in him, the instant someone produces some solid evidence that proves his existence, slap a cross on my forehead and call me David. But until then...
--Scythe--
P.S. Where I say "god" I mean any divine being.
How much more do you 'know' that isn't true?
Here's a quote from Dogma: "It's better to have an idea than to have a belief - you can change an idea."
I agree with this statement completely. I personally have lots of ideas about the nature of our existance, some crazy, some not so crazy, but I don't really hold any particular one to my heart. I do prefer some ideas more than others, of course, but I certainly wouldn't let them affect any decisions I make for my life.
As for religeon, it doesn't really bother me but many people take it far too seriously and that's where the true danger lies. The funny thing is, almost all religeons say pretty much the same thing. There are so many similarities between religeons that I get the feeling NONE of them are correct, but they are all mutated forms of the same thing. Christianity itself is a frankenstein's creation of many different religeons which was put together some time in the last 1000 years (I can't remember the exact date). Can you imagine how it could have happened? "Right, we'll take a bit of that, a bit of that...lets chuck in some pagan holidays as well..."
Now, don't get me wrong - religeon teaches many good things, but it also seems to teach rather pointless and irrelevant ones as well. Personally, I follow my own ideas about life - I don't like being told "this is true" by someone unless they have some proof. To quote Timothy Leary from his video "How to operate your brain", <b>Think for yourself, question authority.</b>
How much more do you 'know' that isn't true? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a quite interesting point actually, because we tend to forget that nobody of us knows explanations, we only have certain explanation <i>models</i> to describe the world we live in.
Physics, Christianity, Marxism, they're all just attempts at getting close to something that is capable of telling us how the world really works, and none of them is perfect, simply because they were all made by humans.
If anyone reading this is a part of any religeous body, I hope you have really thought about what it is that your religeon teaches, and have taken it apart yourself to see just how much you really believe it. I have more respect for someone who follows a religeon through choice, and not just because they were brought up with it.
Not all religion is thaught in koranschool- or biblebeltfashion (and I'm aware that this, too, was a flattened statement, please just allow me the rethoric).
Big parts of the christian church have opened themselves for the interreligios discurse, Buddhism is basically based on it, many jewish and muslims also take a liberal stance on their religion.
Sorry, but declaring that all religion is thaught and treated in an apodictic manner is just not true.
We I find it interesting how religion seams to have a similar Patten is just a natural human factor or is it an idea regurgitated up and redone (how many religion is their based on JC alone??)
Aside, it is interesting to note that although the Hindu religeon has many different gods, they are in fact all different faces of the same god, I think on the basis that it is ignorant to assume that you can sum up such an entity as God with only one persona. It makes sense to me to describe god through visual metaphores, as I don't really think God is any kind of physical entity.
What is God? I doubt God is a person. I think God is everything; a force of energy, and we are all a part of <i>it</i> too. I also think I'm wrong, but then I think you all are too. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Teachings that aren't necessarily "God" related are fine though - like the Golden Rule:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I support foundations that teach kids proper Moral & Ethical Responsibility and a core system of values - it's something that is in the lax nowadays, and has been diminishing for the last few decades. The Boy Scouts of America are one such place, and ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) is a truly great place to learn these values, whether one intends to follow it up with Military Service or not.
Unfortunately the places that teach such values are growing few and far between. On top of that they're not as popular as they once were. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I was just about to post that :P
The idea of God using evolution is an interesting one.
<i>"In religion, why does everything God (I'll say God for the sake of simplicity, it could really be any diety of your choice) does have to be magic? God says "Let there be X" and *poof* it was there. The Titans held up the sky and poof it was there. etc. Why couldn't have God taken a logical, scientificly explainable approach to things.
Another point to raise regarding Evolution and Christianity. I'm not an expert on the Bible (only read a few chapters, back when I still considered myself a Christian), but I do remember there being a part about man being made from the clay of the earth. This seems to be many people's main argument against evolution. But if you study the whole evolutionary theory, the current scientific idea is that the very ver first string of DNA that randomly came into being (which later randomly joined to form single celled organisms and from there on up to us) by the electircal charge in DIRT. So in a sense, the theory of evolution does not contradict the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) creation belief, but rather reinforces it. "</i>
In response to the question I am going to make the assumption that you believe that God is the all-powerful, all-loving, creator of classic Judeo-Christian teaching. I am basing this assumption on the fact that you said that you were once a Christian and so where taught this and you compared evolution to the creation stories, however please feel free to state that this is not the case.
In response to this I am going to try and use John Stuart Mill's "A Limited God", even though this is concerned with the existence of God in relation to the problem of evil, as I feel it covers well the idea of God using such contrivances.
The idea of using the world around us, and things in it, to prove the existence of God is a Teleological Argument, a natural theology (the theology holding that knowledge of God may be acquired by human reason alone without the aid of revealed knowledge, as in using evolution to prove the existence of God because one experiences this in nature). Such Teleological Arguments take one thing in nature as proof of the existence of God - design, as you did when you said that "the theory of evolution does not contradict the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) creation belief, but rather reinforces it."
The DNA strands coming together show that God did it, as in it was God's plan that these should come together.
As stated before mainstream Judeo-Christian teaching holds God to be omnipotent and omniscient and Christian teaching(I don't know about the others) goes so far as to say that God sustains the universe.
Mill believes that natural theology offers positive evidence against the idea of God being omnipotent.
His first argument is that in existence there is the use of numerous contrivances, such as evolution. Anytime one needs to use contrivances to accomplish an end it indicates a lack of power.
For example, if you wanted to lift a one thousand pound weight, you would rig up a block and tackle to lift it. This contrivance would then accomplish the task of lifting the weight.
A contrivance such as this would be an indication of your intelligence, but is also an admission of a limit to your strength, thus the appearance of the numerous contrivances in nature show that the creator's, assuming as I do in this argument that there is one, intelligence is vastly superior to that of man. If God was truly omnipotent why should He, I'm only using this as it is the only decent word I can find to use please don't focus on my use of the masculine tense when talking about God, need to use them?
God should be able to, according to Judeo-Christian believe, perform these tasks without the use of such things.
Mill suggests that the closest Natural theology can give us is the idea of a God that fashioned the world out of existing materials, a <i>Dermiougos</i>(coming from the Greek name for a workman who would go around and make and fix things for people using materials that are given to him by his customers.
According to Mill that is the only thing natural theology can give us, not the traditional Judeo-Christian God who created the world <i>ex nihlo</i>, out of nothing and such is the problem of evolution and God.
Thus, using this example, proves the statement <i>"the theory of evolution does not contradict the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) creation belief, but rather reinforces it."</i> to be incorrect.
Religion has, through the course of history, done a lot more harm than good in many cases. Most religious wars stem from the old arguement: My God is better than Your God" which is dumbing it down I know but is basically the core theme. I know religions have done good work and some, such as Buddism, have a very nice track record. For the big 3 though, the monotheistic religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism, theres a lot of blood on their collective hands. It's always struck me as strange that although these 3 religions all worship the same god and revere a lot of the same people they often hate each other so much...
Some things though that have come into religions don't need faith or gods to be good ideas. The Christian ideals of "Love one another", "love thy neighbour" "treat others as you would like to be treated"; one could do a lot worse when it comes to ideas to live one's life by. Yet they don't require belief, simply they promote understanding and goodwill. Regardless of if Jesus was the son of god or not, these are still fine ideas.
The concept of a "god" figure or "gods" can be traced back to early man's struggle to understand the environment around him. It is a fairly logical step, once a species has developed self awareness, to look at the world and wonder how it all happened. From this we see the first evidence of a spiritual awareness in Neandertharl burials and Cro-Magnon Man cave paintings. With the gradual settling of various hunter gatherer groups in fertile regions such as the Tigris-Euphrates river valley in Iraq, the highlands of New Guinea, the floodplains of central asia and the river systems around the Mississipi in the Americas, the first sedentary societies begin to appear. Once various crops have been cultivated and farming has begun, these societies can now support people who don't have to obtain their own food. Food surpluses from farming can support non-agricultural people. In these early societies, this leads to the formation of religions.
This is a logical step in a species that has some spirital awareness. The belief that there is "something else" sees outlets in the aforementioned instances such as cave paintings, but in settled societies things become more formal. With a beaurocracy (spelling bad) to collect crops and govern comes an organising of spiritual belief. For the ruler of the society, these are extreamly useful, as they provide legitimacy and support, in addition to a few more things I'll mention in a moment. A ruler with the support of priests or holy men is there because god/the gods/the land wants him to be there. it can be a double edged sword: the priesthood gains a lot of power as well and influence the ruler heavily.
Now it can be argued that this could hardly have happened in lots of differant places at once. But religion doesn't have to work like that, because it also gives it's followers something else: a purpose. Let's say for instance there are 5 villages in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley. One of these towns has developed an orgainised religion, whilst the other towns have stayed with more informal nature-spirit worship. The religious town has 2 distinct advantages over the other towns: firstly, it is much more highly orgainised, as only well orgainised societies can support a preisthood. Secondly, and more importantly, it can produce fanatics.
Any settled society or hunter-gatherer tribe can produce warriers, but religious societies can install in their soldiers a passion that can rarely be matched. A ruler who tells his people to attack the neighbouring village because "there should be some loot" will get a fairly enthusiatic force, but a ruler who has his priests say "the gods have told us to crush the unbelievers in the next village" has a far more potent force at their disposal. People are rarely willing to give their lives, but forces such as religion can provide the nessassary fervor. With such forces, the religious societies quickly come to dominace. Early religion spreads as much by the sword as by the prophet.
Moving forwards in time things don't change much. Religions, once established, are extreamly hard to remove, and only dissapear when replaced by another religion. With the rise of states and empires religion remains at the center of society and the ruling aristocracy, and the priesthood continues to do very well. At this stage however, before the arrival of Christianity and Islam, the polytheistic religions of the world live in relitive harmony. True, there are wars, but these are now being fought over land and resources with religion providing support (prayers for soldiers, shrines for citizens, figurines and holy symbols to provide spiritual help). Wars are not being often fought because the neighbouring nation has a differant set of gods, although this reasoning is used to bolster war support.
Monotheistic relgions though are very firm: there is one god, no others. With the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire suddenly wars are now often being waged because the opposing side worship other gods. Islam's rise brings with it a powerful religious and military force that sweeps rapidly over the Eurasian landmass and clashes with Christendom in Turkey and Spain. 2 monotheistic religions, fighting each other, brings forth tremendous fervour on both sides.
The Crusades come and go, demonstrating the power of monotheistic faith and the willingness of believers to die for their faith. Over the next 800 years the monothesitic religions of the world will come to dominance, gaining more believers than any other faith. This is due mainly to European expansion into the Atlantic and Asia, and also the active expansion of Islam through Africa and Asia.
All of this has required no actual god, nor gods, to produce. What has occured is a natural process, which started with spiritual awereness in early man and progressed to orgainised religion with development of settled societies. These religions survived for a number of reasons, but formost was that there was no non-religious explaination for the environment that people lived in. It was belief in the gods, or nothing, and very few humans have been known to believe in nothing. What follows demonstrates this.
With the spliting of Christendom and the rise of Protestantism the faith of people changes, but they do not stop believing. Yet quickly events start to occur: the development of the printing press allows widespread publication of books. An internet style system of pamphlets starts to develop, with people being able to express their feelings and beliefs on cheap paper and distribute them to the populace. People start to question the church, because for the first time science is starting to offer alternatives.
Science does not and has not crushed religion because science hasn't answered everything. With the rise of recognised modern science around the 1600's we see people questioning accepted beliefs such as the sun revolving around the earth, or the earth being flat. Church teachings that have been drumed into believers start to be questioned. Faith does not die though, because science still hasn't started to answer the big questions. Religion still holds the foor there.
By the time Darwin's evolutionary theory comes along though there is now definite swings to the scientific camp. For religion, Darwin's work is a harsh blow, as it offers a believable alternative to the church theory that God created everything. With so much of the population literate by this stage, it is impossible to supress this knowledge, and the questioning cntinues unchecked. With a viable alternative to religion people now start to question their faith. Not everyone leaves religion behind, because for most people either science or religion offers a viable explaination of life and their world.
The 20th century sees scientic development, spurred often by conflict, race forwards and begin to reveal answers to more questions that previously only religion could answer. Communist nations arise, banning religion and teaching adherance to the state in it's place. Only with the rise of science can such a nation be possible. Crucial here is the fact that belief doesn't change; everyone still believes, the focus of their belief has simply changed, be it god, science, or state.
But science does not crush religion any more than religion crushes science. For many people, the explainations of science are too complicated to understand (I'm not insulting people's intelligance here you have to be Steven Hawking to understand a lot of higher level physics <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ) or do not provide sufficent evidence. Faith in god or gods remains their bastion, and the simple philosophies of religion are for many much easier to accept and believe. Others turn to science, seeking their explainations of the world here. Still more combine the two, believing in aspects of both.
Science has not yet answered some of the big questions, e.g. whilst the Big Bang theory provides an explaination of the universe beginning, it is not easily accessable or believable and remains a theory, not a proven fact. Given a choice between science and religion, people have choosen where to focus their belief, something that could not occur before the rise of science provided an alternative to religion.
Belief is a constant force, what changes is it's direction. Religion was the focus of manind's belief for much of history because there was little alternative. The rise of science and the shifting of belief that has occured demonstrates that given an alternative to religion, people will decide.
Where does god or gods fit into all this? Well, they don't. Belief in the idea or concept of gods or a god occurs, but all this belief is simply being directed at either the only outlet or one of the availible ones. For the advocates of science, they will say no proof of god exists, which is my belief. Advocates of religion will say no proof is needed, only faith. Both sides believe, yet at no point was a god or gods required. Religion was birthed with man saying "Why? How?".
Gods are one explaination; science is another.
On another note, join Flayraism, the religion that promises more NS updates and better gameplay! One of the best things about Flayrism is that it combines faith in an individual with evolutionary theory!
Firm believers accept that one day the holy one (Flayra) will lead us to "The Promised Server", where the pings shall be always low, there shall be equal sharing of the resources for all, and the jetpackers shall be cast from their heavenly positions and onto the harsh ground.
For example, if you wanted to lift a one thousand pound weight, you would rig up a block and tackle to lift it. This contrivance would then accomplish the task of lifting the weight.
A contrivance such as this would be an indication of your intelligence, but is also an admission of a limit to your strength <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While yes I was brought up a Christian (sorta, never went to church or anything) and originally thought it to be the correct religion, now (as i said before) I'm not quite sure. It may be God (in the christian sense), it might be some other religion. But anyway:
I disagree with this above statement. An omnipotent being would not only be ultimately powerful, but also ultimately intelligent. And as anyone who watched DuckTales can tell you, "Work smarter, not harder" heh. So therefore, accomplishing the most with less amount of effort would seem equally logical.
So I don't think that using your intelligence to get a task accomplished more effeciency doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of power.
And omnipotence, being all powerful, and omniscience, being all knowing, are two different things.
The second part of Mill's writing attempts to show that natural theology does not prove that God is all knowing but my God its about 10 pages long and I'll be buggered if I am going to reread all of that and summarise it.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'> FEAR</span>
The fear of things that were not understood is why religion is created, and now as we understand more things, God is becoming less "important". I feel that as we learn more, more questions will arise, and the faith will continue.
It really doesn't matter what religious background someone is from...if you believe in any sort of commonality between each and every individual and every thing in every world then that is your "God".
In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - "God" is all the same. Yaweh, The Lord, or Allah, just different names are used to describe it.
In Taoism it is referred to as "the one". Both the Yin and the Yang, the Male and Female, the Good and the Evil. Everything is part of it, it is part of everything. The same thing for the Fung Shui (sp?), oneness with nature and all things.
Actually with the mistranslations and alternate meanings of words in the Bible - the word we commonly read as "God" has a duallistic meaning with "Nature". Could it just be a coincidence? Perhaps...but everything in religious books that we would purely take as a leap of faith can be recalled as exaggerated stories that once really happened. The words should not be taken exactly, but interpeted - which is why we have so many different forms of each religion.
I really recommend any of the books by Steven K. Hayes - a American Iga ninja and personal bodyguard of the Dalai Lama. If you can *<b>EVER</b>* find a copy of "Wisdom from the Ninja Village of the Cold Moon", though I doubt you will, it is one of the books that influenced me heavily, as far as a religious aspect goes.
So many religions claim to be the true religion, the religion put forth by "God's Will" or whatever their claim states...but few realize that they're all the same, just with different ways of doing things and thinking.
Fear not, for I have returned from my own personal hell known as school.
I've read all the posts up to the one I've quoted, and I've noticed only about 2 different stances on religion, represented so far.
1) The typical agnostic. Many different backgrounds, many different paths to their current belief, but ultimately, they believe that they don't know what to believe. DOOM is openly one of such people, for example.
2) The devout aetheist. There are as many religions built around aetheism as there are people who believe in it. Even though it may seem strange that a belief that there is no God is a religion, it is. "I follow my own light", "God=no", "I can't believe any more", or "science=the win." Are all valid ways of expressing this sort of belief. All of them generally stem from either:
A) Misrepresentation of a religious faith. Read my sig. People are turned off by the crusades, as well they should be. People killing each other, in spite of "Love your neighbor" and the golden rule is not the way that a faith should be represented. A great majority of televangelists and
B) Someone who cannot see, touch, or feel "God." These people usually are the science nuts in the group, and will stick to and defend evolution with the same knowledge and strength a strong Christian would.
C) People who, due to a loss or hardship, can no longer bring themselves to believe in a loving higher power watching over them.
Although I cannot relate to a lot of these, I can sypathise with the thrid. However, from my point of view, none of them seem correct.
The first thing I have to address is the belief that since bad things were carried out in the past, in the name of God, the religion itself is fubar. If you read Luke 4, I believe, where it talks about the temptation of Jesus, according to the bible, even Satan can use scripture for his own purposes. Is this a reason to not believe in something? Because it can be missused? If so, then why believe in medical science if it can be used for developing nerve gas?
When I was brought around to my current church, I was immediately surrounded by a group of people, who, although perfectly capable of having a good time, were the most caring people I've ever met, short of my immediate family. Looking back, that's the only reason I stuck around, because the inherant love associated with those people. Once I heard the message, no matter how many theories I could come up with to counter-act religion, none of them fit as well, or as seamlessly as Christianity did. I know some of you are screaming "MORON" at your screen. That's fine if you want to judge me, but don't think that I'm stupid, and that's the only reason I accepted Christ. My IQ is somewhere between 141 and 170, I have a 4.109 QPA, and a class rank of 19 of 583, I'm not thick headed by any stretch of the imagination.
Why, then, do I insist on clinging to a 2000 year old religion? Because my life is happyer now with it then without it. It's a purpose, it's a comfort, it's a rebuke, but more importantly, it's a better way to live your life.
I've been convinced, through this forum, that arguing religion on the internet is useless. Thank you very much, AllurHive. Not because people can out-think your arguments, but because without a place to show your witness, and the love of Christ to people, then it's all for not. To quote my favorite passage in the bible, 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13:
13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I try to read this passage every night. Maybe if I started acting on what I say, I'd be able to get somewhere with it.
The point is, that even though I could come up with the most earth-shattering arguments for Christianity there was, it is almost always possible to logically come up with a mental high ground, where us mere believers may never reach. It takes personal contact and caring to bring someone around, something that the internet, sadly, makes impossible. James 2:
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless ?
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
I have to go now, but when I return again, I shall try my best to give you the principles of Christian belief.
Actually, back in the early years, before the Emperor (Japan) wiped them out, the Zen Buddhist warrior monks were some of the feared warriors. They could kill with one hand and pray to Buddha with the other.
But, Judaism hadn't fought for their religion for nearly six thousand years. 6,000.
But, I agree with Legionnaired somewhat. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, they all depend upon your initial experiences with them. Legion met some good people at his church and so he found that they were kind and so he stayed. The human factor changes everything.
As for myself, i'm a pagan, preferring to believe that the Gods walk among us, watching through human eyes, feeling with human feelings, and seeing what we've done with the world. Ever notice how after something horrible, some people might be cynical but a vast majority are willing to help make it better? after 9/11, everyone giving money that some couldn't spare, some giving blood. the charitable rush. Perhaps that is the gods telling us we can do better then be a corrupt species.
and to include this great quote from Dogma on my own semi-belief:
<i><b>Loki</b>: Leaving 'Alice in Wonderland' aside, look closely at 'Through the Looking Glass', specifically 'The Walrus and the Carpenter'. What's the metaphorical meaning?
<b>Nun</b>: I wasn't aware there was one
<b>Loki</b>: Oh but there is. It colorfully explains the sham that is organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and good-nature is an obvious reference to The Buddha, or with his tusks the loveable Hindu elephant god Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your eastern religions. And the Carpenter is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was purportedly raised the son of a carpenter. What do they do? They dupe (trick for you ESL's) a bunch of oysters into following them, and when the Oysters collective guard is down they proceed to shuck (shell) and devour the helpless creatures <b>en masse</b>. Now what does that say to you? To me it says that following any faith based on these mythological figures destroys one's inner-being. Organized religion inhibits who we are or who we could be by inhibiting our actions and decisions out of fear of an intangible parent figure from thousands of years ago who shakes a finger at us and says "no, no".</i>
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've been convinced, through this forum, that arguing religion on the internet is useless. Thank you very much, AllurHive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I'm here for.
I think its a shame great relgious debates don't happen more often in real life.
I'm thinking "Luther vs. Catholic Church" sort of great religious debate - that would be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic - for me anyway, everyone else would probably get bored though.
I prefer to look at the world with my own eyes and deciede things with my own free will, I never liked the idea of a being whom I have never seen telling me what I can and cannot do and threatening me with eternal pain if i disobey him. I also didn't like being treated like an animal where if I do what said being tells me to do I will get a cookie.
With the advance of science I have also seen less and less reason to need religion. It is running out of things to explain. I don't have a soul. I don't believe in god. Because I have never seen either. God is no more plausible than the imaginary monkey friend I had when I was 4. Both are based on roughly the same amount of evidence, the only difference is one has gained a larger acceptence.
I also do not think there is a need for a god in creation. I forget the name, but it is "Someones Razor" states that the simpler solution is more probable, so I will show you my thought path:
Religion:
God(s)>Universe>Earth>Humans
Atheism/Science:
Universe>Earth>Humans
Adding a God only adds to an unnessesary step. Sure a religous person can ask me: "Who created the universe than?". At which point I can ask "I will awnser that if you can tell me who created God". Both schools of thought lead to an unawnserable question, but I prefer the more simple version. And in my mind it is more logical that a random smattering of energy and matter formed from nowhere than an all knowing omnipotent being. Sorry to drag on. And just a fun fact, Atheists make up the 3rd largest religious group in the US.