Religion

[The_old_worm]

Sorry, didn't want my message to run out of memory, so I had to start a new one.

Don't mistake science for scientists.  Scientists are the voices of theories and are rarely impartial, but science as a whole accepts any theory that is supported as a possibility.  Apposing scientists try to disprove that theory, and if they can't it becomes a valid theory, such as Darwin's theory of evolution.  It was argued against and thought ridiculous until the scientists could no longer ignore the evidence.  Now it is the most supported theory of our creation and the most likely.

No, I would not define evil as anything that threatens the existence of Humans.  The Earth itself threatens our existence every day.  The sun, asteroids, diseases etc...  That's just nature.

Christians are such hypocrites, when I state the disasters that have come from religion, you say "don't blame God for our free-will"  Well, don't blame science because some idiots misuse it.

Science WOULD consider God if there was any shred of evidence to support the need for divine intervention, or if any evidence supported God existing. But science takes on the attitude of looking at a mystery with no preconceptions, and trying to find the most likely solution for that mystery. And I'm sorry, maybe evolution is steered on by God, but there is no evidence that God is necessary, so to inject God into the theory would be like putting wings on my truck, totally unessessary.

Science does not need to prove God doesn't exist to prove it's validity.  In fact science takes a totally neutral view on God.  It would take God into account if, like I said, there was any shred of evidence to lead in that direction.

[The_old_worm]

And Shogun, you can laugh all you want to and ignore the examples I have posted, but it is your own blind faith that is blinding you from the facts.

[nampigai]

Well I don't hink that science or scientist are right all the time. Science will never proove the existence of god because it cannot be proven, but just because a thing can't be proven  that doesn't mean it doesn't ecsist.

There's violence in allmost every religion in some aspect, but it's not the religion but humans that make the religion violent.

I am not a "hardcore" christian I have my own little version on christianity and my own deal with God. I can't stand people who tell me what to believe and what I shouldn't believe. That's why I don't like scientists or priests telling me what is right or wrong how do they know?

[The_old_worm]

That's the whole point.

[quoudam72]

And Shogun, you can laugh all you want to and ignore the examples I have posted, but it is your own blind faith that is blinding you from the facts.

What I'm telling you is this I do not believe what you are saying not out of "blind faith" as you put it but because I do not believe it. And what have I put "blind faith" into that makes me blind or have faith at all?

[The_old_worm]

You have put your blind faith in the salvation of God, paradise after death, and the fact that any contrary theory is sh*t.

[quoudam72]

I know what blind faith means that's not what I asked. I never said anything about God coming to your or anybody elses salvation you assume too much old_worm. I asked what had I put my faith in and why you say that I'm blind. It sounds more like your the one into "mind control" than these "bible-thumpers" that you are trying to talk about. You say some of the things you talk about are examples of facts then what are your sources? I mean it's just this simple I do not have to believe you. And if I take this stance does that mean I have "blind faith" I do not think that it does.

[The_old_worm]

You're right, I assume too much. I assumed that you were christian, I could be wrong though.  If not, I can't answer your question. If so, you don't have to mention those things, they are implied.

I'm sorry, skepticism works in contrary to mind control.

[gryphon]

Strange that you all exept the fact that even when science is in a way contstant [ formulas and theory's ] it doesn't have to be correct and it even correctable in the future as it was in the past you do agrue on these facts in religion.

You all know that religious people have altered the contents of the religious scriptures, so don't say that that's the reason religion is saying it's alway true and right.

Just as beyond science there is an idea, there is a "universal" idea behind all the religions as well. And it's this idea that forms the religion. Not the different interpretations that people have given it along the years, or just what some "holy" persone is saying.

Religion isn't always right, it goes beyond right and wrong. In a way it has nothing to do with "our" right and wrongs. That's just what the Churtches say to make you a "believer". It's in a way more about fait in certain things, certain ideas.

Just as NaMpIgAi explaind, we all have our own interpretations, our own different believes. And when you look at them closely, you'll find a common believe, some fait in a thing, [ fait in "supernatural" things, Gods so to speak ] not so mutch religious but mostly more as an ethical aspect.

And it's my oppinion that that is the "true" beginning of our current religions. And history changed it to what it's now. This "human fait" [ if it's truely based on a real existing God I don't know ] is the true religion, and the rest is just made up by humans who needed it for their own uses.

[gryphon]

As extra explenation, in the Bible God changed it's desissions about what is right and wrong many times himself. It's not a static thing that's always right. It's about a thought, not dictated rules of religion.

[Acriku]

gryphon, what I was saying way before, is that we all know the Bible has been changed over time, and if one thing was translated wrong, what else? There will always be that doubt as to what you are believing is right or not. Like the phone game, one person has a sentence, then whispers it to one, then him to another, etc etc for about 30 times. What you get is totally different in the end.

[exatreide]

This disscussion is moveing in circuls. The listning game was mentioned on page 11,21, i think this has already been talked about...... i...think...

[burseg_candor]

ah but what about the riddle game ;D

[evilbaronatreides]

Gryphon, so you are saying that faith is the basis of religion? And all other dogma and cant are just protocal and procedure? If so, thats something thats believeable.

[ordos45]

"Creationists are that way." Old Worm

Hate to tell you but everyone has doubts about their religion, even hardcore creationists.  Struggle and doubt is part of life.

"What? You need resources for my examples? Have you never heard of the crusaids, the Branch Dividians, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem witch trials, terrorist groups killing people in the name of God, and many, many others? What resources do you need? Look in history books and newspapers for Christ's sake. These people have committed atrocities simply because the leaders of their religion said it's God's good will and the masses blindly followed." Old Worm

Exactly how far in did u read before you posted?  That stuff was pretty much the first 5 to ten pages worth of argueing with the Wiccan and the Greyist.  Plus was brought up later 3 or 4 times.  Wars get waged in God's name all the time, it doesn't mean he endorses it.  Just look at the Middle East.

[The_old_worm]

Ordos, You're not understanding me.

[nampigai]

7 out of 10 danes believe that there is some god out there, I guess I'm one of them ;)

[gryphon]

Old Worm, your right. The faith I'm refering to isn't religious in nature, It comes from an individual him / or her, let's say itself. Form within you as thinking creature to every thing you "believe", you "trust".

That's also about what I ment when I posted the first idea of this [ a small question from Gobalopper and my following responds somewhere way back here ]. You as an individual have faith in that what you see and believe. No matter what it is, if it's true, [ whatever ]. You have faith in what you think, no matter what that is.

Yep, evilbaronatreides. That's what I ment to say.

Acriku, you're thinking way ahead of me. :)

It was about the confersation, not about your [ or any one elses ] ideas or posts. So I agree with what you've posted.  The comment wasn't ment to reflect on that. :)

We are talking in a circle, proving the same thing al over again, with the same agruments that we used before in different situations, but still situations in a way simmular.

[Acriku]

The thing with statistics that I do not trust, is that they choose random people to ask, and the only way the results from that would be true is if the people were constant. Which they aren't, so pretty much moot, with a few exceptions of course.

[The_old_worm]

What does it prove anyway if the statistics show that most people believe in God.  The masses have certainly been wrong before.

I agree mostly with you Gryphon, except that I think that the path to enlightenment comes when you lose that faith in those truths that you believe.  To truly find wisdom is to realize that you don't know anything, and to start looking at data with completely clean slate free from predjudices.  Then you can weigh the possibilities and come up with the most likely solutions.  This is Frank Herbert's whole basis for Mentats

[gryphon]

Yep, but Frank Herbert has "stolen" it from Eastern Philosophy. When you begin to learn you have to forget all you've learned before and start all over again. [ don't whant to explain it in full ].

And I think that's the only way to get to a begin [ a verry small begin ] of "real" knowledge as well. But this is not something we all can do. It requires specific training and mentoring that consumes a lot of time, and that's not something every one has. [ but that understanable, so just as in Dune some people can choose [ like a mentat ] to go on this path.

[The_old_worm]

Very true.  I think that training would have to start at birth too.

[gryphon]

That's a contradiction in Western and Eastern [ West is Europeans and East is Asian, China ... ] philosophy.

IN Western you can learn it from the moment you are born [ so to speak ] Eastern has the point that you really start over learning things again.

The western way has a big negatieve point. when you learn things from the moment you are born it becomes indoctrination. No matter if it's the "right" thing that you are learning, it's still indoctrination.

In my opinion that the main and big flaw of western philosophy [ my professor is goint to kill me if he reads this ;D ]. They start within a referance point about the world, the western world. So it can't be truely objectieve.

But that's probbebly the main flow of all "sciences". They all have that starting point. Allthough some works have been published that could have aspects of an "un pre-collored world".

But then again, in what kind of possition am I to judge this ?

[The_old_worm]

I would like to think that we can wipe our slates clean and look at things objectively.  I don't know if that is totally possible, but I do think that we can enhance our thinking simply by trying to step out and look at an issue from all sides, sincerely considering all the data.  It isn't perfect, and we can't get rid of all predjudices, but I think it's a pretty good start.

[ordos45]