Religion

[The_old_worm]

Wow, Edric!  I have rarely heard statements more disturbing than I heard in your last post.  I'm amazed.  I don't have time now to respond, but I will tomorrow. :O  ???

[evilbaronatreides]

Aricku, i see what you are getting at...if large groups of atheist worked together as a community, making guidelines and the sort, then that would make it an organized religion, which defeats the purpose of atheism, i guess.

Edric, what do you think God wants from mankind? I just would like to know for the sake of debate.

[Digital Guerrilla]

Why is everyone now including an analogy in their post?

[Acriku]

Because it simplifies the argument and makes it better to understand. Also, pretty neat to make up.

[gryphon]

A comment to a post way back.

"Why God didn't create us so we could understand the world."

But he did ! Think of the chaos around us, molecules every where, light, radiation, different object moving things all over all speeds ! That is total chaos.

By giving us the senses we have [ by God or evolution ] we can see order in that chaos, we can see the world.

We ignore minor changes in enviorment in order to function properly.

So we are created in a way that we CAN see the world around us.

If we would have been created so we could see and understand everything, we would not function as individuals [ and as live forms as we now know it ].

[The_old_worm]

Gryphon, I hope you're not referring to my question a while back, because you have my point all wrong.  My question was restricted to our lack of understanding of the Bible, not the world around us.  Why couldn't God, create the Bible in a way that despite interperetation and human shortcomings, would get his message across to his followers?  Whether we believe it or not is our choice, but we should at least be able to make our choice from his true message, not man't interperetatin of it.

So, Edric, to sum up your point.  You would rather be lied to and happy than know the truth? It amazes me that you don't see the incredible power over your life that you are putting in another human's hands.

1.  Considering our current knowledge, you consider the Bible more likely? What knowledge are you talking about? Science repeatedly contradicts the writings of the Bible.

2. The difference between you and me is that I see the bigger picture. Stagnation eventually leads to death, and I desperately hope that your opinion is the exception rather than the norm. The disturbing thing is that evidence would show that you are right and most people do prefer the cage.  That's really sad.

3. You're arguing the point that I was making a long time ago. We can't know absolute truth for the exact reason that you just gave.  And we don't take our observations on faith, We accept that they are most likely true, and advance from there, always with the understanding that we could be wrong.  This allows for the self correcting nature of science.

4. I guess that's your choice, and if you want to ignore the evidence, then so be it.

5. Stagnation leads to death, because stagnation halts our adaptation to the environment, and leaves us unprepared for new and possibly dangerous situations. Stagnation destroys our motivation to excell as a species, and focuses our energies on negative purposes. Either the universe destroys us or we destroy ourselves.

 - the second part of this response is the disturbing part.  You are slaves to those telling the lies, so don't try to glorify it by saying you are a slave to God. You make yourself sheep for the slaughter, and maybe God won't do it, but ambitious men will, as history has shown us. Slavery, opresses our ideas and keeps the species from becoming what it could possibly become. I would want neither to serve or to rule, just to be free to think and explore the universe.

[The_old_worm]

Sorry, had to start over, was running out of memory.

6. I guess I missed something here, because you have said nothing, that I need help responding to, so don't be flattered!

About making the Bible understandable:

So you're saying that God intentionally made the Bible in a way, that his followers would disagree and at some points fight over the meaning?  In his attempt for flexibility, he creates more problems than he solved. About the trinity, if God is all knowing, and all powerful, then he should be able to explain it in a way that we understand, after all he can do ANYTHING.  If the Bible is not a science book, then why the attempts at science?  It attempts to explain the origins of the universe and life, which is in the realm of science.  Why would God lie to us about these things, instead of explaining it so that we would understand it?  Why would an all powerful, all knowing God create a race of imperfect beings, then lay down the rules and explainations in a way that they do not understand?

The point about my airplane analogy is what if the plane doesn't explode.  I only said it was going down, not on fire.  But the religious man doesn't take this into consideration, because he knows he has the backpack and jumps without assessing the situation.  The plane may be recoverable, the religious man doesn't bother to find out.  The athiest on the other hand won't jump because he is convinced the backpack isn't there, but what if the plane is doomed to a fiery crash.  The athiest refuses to jump and therefore dies.  The best decision is made by the one who thouroughly assesses the situation before making their decision, they need to find the most likely solution, and go with that. The agnostic doesn't wait too long, because he understands the situation, and realizes the need for haste.

 

[quoudam72]

Religion and science are not the same thing if people would stop trying to make one into the other they would understand each one better. Religion is concerned with man's spiritual state of being (in it's true form). Spiritual matters can not be likened to things of science it is higher than science. Science can not measure the human soul.  The human soul can not be defined by science, it is as I said before beyond science (human understanding). This is really what science is human understanding of the universe around us that we can see.

[The_old_worm]

Yes, but the Bible does attempt to explain the origins and make-up of the universe we see around us. That is where science and religion clash. If the Bible would stick to spirituality, then it would be more credible.

[quoudam72]

I agree with you on your point, about religion and science clashing at that point of meeting. Religion and science both present themselves as truths and this is where the clash takes place.

[The_old_worm]

Agreed, too often, scientists present their theories as truth. However, there are more likely and less likely explainations, and the ones with more evidence and predictions which are confirmed through observation are more likely. Religion with it's total lack of evidence, tries to present itself as absolute truth, while science(as a whole) presents it's theories as most likely truths.

The Evolution and Creation debate are a good example.

[nemafakei]

"I don't see any opposing force that tries to get us away from absolute truth."

Ignorance means incorrect assumptions and faulty logic which can lead to our death... we evolved and survived due to being intelligent. Let's not waste that... let's use our science to make us more flexible.

(which is another way of saying what old worm said)

Besides, we've been over the 'is religion good for humanity', and we agreed (indirectly, at least) that the moral code part of it was good, not necessarily the rest of religion. And even then, I pointed out the moral code offered by religion corrupts to encourage greed.

We've got to the stage where you're saying "I know that god probably doesn't exist, but I don't care, and I won't listen to you, no matter that you're right."

Yes, ok, I can't stop you. But you're just being silly.

What you should be doing is figuring out how a moral code can fit in properly with science, rather than superstition.

Paley's watch argument is the most common way of proving the creationist argument. ie, if you found a watch lying on the floor (having never seen one before), it is so complex, you will conclude that it must have been designed - and the world is such an object.

But, you must consider that our view of everything is going to look nice to keep us sane... and we cannot expect to comprehend the universe with great ease with our capabilities. what we see is what has evolved, and so works as a system. And we can now explain (the most probable reason for) most of the phenomena we see.

(The analogy was Paley's, not mine. Analogies are used because it is easier to comprehend the universe that way.)

[Acriku]

Nice points Nema, and it is my opinion that even though they "think" they are saving people, missionaries should never be allowed. They are doing it out of the good of their own hearts, but come on, they take advantage of the "less-advanced" and try to get as many people to convert. Why can't people just mind their own business? Some missionaries were shot on sight in the Middle East, and they should not have been there. They are insulting anyone they talk to, because they assume the other person is going to hell since their religion "has" to be wrong. It is just not right.

[Edric O]

Acriku, read what it says on that website. American Atheists Inc. (yeah, I know, the Inc. part really confused me too) has more than just a mere website. They even have a symbol for themselves and they put it all over the place. After all, every Religion needs a symbol... oops, did I say something wrong? ;)

My point about atheists and Christians was that both have the same capacity of killing innocent people if their beliefs get twisted. For now the Muslims have a monopoly in that field, but in the future anything might happen. I accept the possibility of a new Crusade, but you must also accept the possibility of an atheist equivalent. Both are just as likely (which is to say, not very likely, but possible).

Freedom? You think I don't know the meaning of freedom? Just remember I'm romanian. And we had to fight our way out of commusim in 1989. The price of freedom can be overwhelming sometimes, especially when most of the victims were people in their twenties, with their lives ahead of them... But determined to do whatever it takes to bring down the oppressive regime. However, I also know that the only reason we were desperate for freedom was that we were ruled by a cruel dictator. I willingly make myself a slave of God, not of a (easily corruptable) human being.

With the boy analogy I was only adding factors to make it more accurate.

And you still failed to explain why the search for truth is good in any way.

The_old_worm...

You got my point partly wrong. I never said I would follow some guru's every word just because it makes me feel good. I would always be the one deciding on my beliefs and my moral values according to my own standards, so I would make myself a slave to God or to an ideal, but not to a human being.

1. I am talking about the knowledge of our own limitations and the fact that the best science can provide are theories. And also, I don't see any way in which science contradicts the Bible. And even if it did, how do you know which one of the two is wrong? Science has been wrong many times before.

2. I could only hope that my opinion is the norm... And stagnation does not lead to death. Don't apply the principles of evolution to mankind, because we can always control evolution if the need arises.

3. "We accept that they are most likely true" equals blind faith, seeing that you take this for granted and accept it with no proof.

4. Your evidence seems inconclusive to me. As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to think that the reason we can't find absolute truth is that there is no such thing. Truth is a concept invented by the human mind... If there simply isn't any *truth* within our universe, that explains many things... What I mean is that reality itself might be relative.

5. As I said before, don't apply the principles of evolution to mankind, because we can always control evolution if the need arises. And the universe will destroy us eventually anyway. We cannot survive the death of the universe.

Please, I'm curious, tell me what is this ideal of yours. What could our species possibly become, as you put it?

Notice however that I am not advocating the stagnation of all research and developement. Just the irrelevant branches. IMO, there are 2 great purposes to mankind: First is serving God. Second is spreading His gift to us, Life, across the universe, until the Day of Judgement comes. God told us to grow, multiply and fill the Earth. We've done that. Time to move on to the rest of the universe. Basically, what I'm saying is "Let a million worlds shine with the blue-green brilliance of Life!". THAT is what science should be striving towards, not your absolute truth!

6. It was a joke, of course :)

[Edric O]

The_old_worm:

Making the Bible perfectly understandable to all who read it would either violate the logic of our universe, creating untold additional problems, or it would be an obvious miracle (different people seeing different words), defeating the purpose of free will.

As for God's reasons for doing such and such... believe me, trying to understand the mind of an omniscient being is beyond you.

As for your airplane analogy, I'd like to point out that your agnostic ultimately makes a decision (to jump or not to jump), while real agnostics remain undecided for as long as they live. Are you saying that an agnostic is someone who does an extensive search and then decides to either be a theist or an atheist? That is not my experience of agnostics. A real-life agnostic would keep trying to see if he's got a parachute until the plane crashes.

And one last thing: The Bible does attempt to explain many "scientific" things, but it explains them from a spiritual point of view, not a scientific one! Take Genesis, for example. IMO, I think it's an allegory (sp?) meant to explain the reasons for our existence and our current situation rather than the exact facts. On the other hand, recent research into mithocondrial DNA seems to show that all (or most) humans are indeed descended from a single female... I think that's what the show "The real Eve" on the Discovery Channel is gonna be about, for example (if you watch Discovery, you couldn't have missed the ads).

Evilbaron, I think God wants us to return to the way we were before the Fall, or at least strive to do so.

[Acriku]

If it is true that we all descended from a single female, then that denies your whole "The garden of Eden" theory! Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it say that Adam was created, then Eve from his rib? If that is wrong, who knows what else!

Evilbaron, I think God wants us to return to the way we were before the Fall, or at least strive to do so.

And why does He want that to happen? Why can't he do it himself? Surely He can do it and not be some evil dictator that you theorize of? Or does he not want to mess with us, and let us do what we do..hmm...

THAT is what science should be striving towards, not your absolute truth!

Science is not as a whole, it has varieties - like biology, psychology, etc. My point is, is that science does strive for further exploration and colonization on other planets, but not as a whole. One group looks for absolute truth, another looks for how to explore more.

I willingly make myself a slave of God, not of a (easily corruptable) human being.

I think the problem here is that one side thinks of God as a real thing, an entity that is all powerful and knowing, while another side thinks it doesn't exist. Which is why this certain argument will go nowhere.

[Edric O]

Nema, as I remember it we never concluded the argument about religion encouraging greed. If I remember it correctly, we got to the point where we agreed that it is possible for it to happen, but you couldn't give any examples and to the best of our knowledge it hasn't happened. Remember we're talking about "greed for salvation".

And stop twisting my words. The point we got to at this time is where I'm saying "Even if you're right, what difference does it make?". I can easily discuss what-if situations, but don't assume I take them as truth.

Did I mention I'm not a creationist? I have no opinion on the matter, actually. I think evolution (directed by God) is just as likely as the literal interpretation of Genesis. I think the current evidence either way is inconclusive (just because evolution could have happened doesn't mean it necessarely did) and Genesis is not necessarely to be taken literraly.

Acriku, if you believed with all your heart that there are people out there who would go to hell without your help, wouldn't you try to save them? Considering the missionaries's beliefs, what they're doing is the moral thing to do. And I mean ALL missionaries, not just Christians. I understand them and respect them, even if I disagree.

[Acriku]

As I have said, they do it out of their good hearts, but just because they think it is a good thing to do, is it actually?

[The_old_worm]

Edric, do you get your directions directly from God, without any human intervention?  You are not a slave to God, you are a slave to the Bible, and that was written by man! The myths, clearly ignorant of the facts, demonstrates it's human corruption, and discredits the entire book.

But Edric, that ideal that you make yourself a slave to was written by a person.  You are a slave to the person that wrote the Bible, then a slave to the person who translated it for you. They put their own interperetations and translations into their writings.

1. oh, yes the old,"science has been wrong before, so why isn't it wrong now", attack. Science can only provide theories, I agree with that, but science backs those theories up with evidence.  Creation may be a theory, but it is not an equally valid theory.

  And who has found science to be wrong in the past? Was it religion that discovered that the Earth was round? In fact, the first people who proposed this were criticised by the Church.  Science proving itself wrong is not a detriment, it is a virtue. Isn't it great that we have a self-correcting method for exploring our universe? Unlike religion.

2. I do apply the rules of evolution to man, because we are the products of evolution.  Our evolution, as a species, goes beyond the physical side.  Our intellectual evolution is just as important for us to advance. We must learn the truth about our universe, because there are dangers that we don't know of yet. Religion holds us back from that knowledge, because most of it contradicts the Bible.

3. I'll say it again, we take nothing for granted, we as agnostics represent the opposite of Blind Faith. We may accept some things a likely truths, but we are always to admit if we are wrong. That gives us the leverage to listen to other's ideas and truly consider them. Believe me, I've considered Christianity, but at this point, I find it highly unlikely.

4. What, you think the size of the moon is relative to one's beliefs?  You think if we believe it strong enough, we will change the size of the moon? Or the affect of gravity, if we believe it strong enough, will we change it? This is why I think Gryphon is wrong when he says belief = truth.  No matter how bad you want to believe that the Earth is flat, it won't change the fact that it is round.

[The_old_worm]

5. I've already answered the applying evolution to mankind part, but about what can man become. I don't know, that's the point. Perhaps we will become space folding, mind reading, telekinesis doing, advanced creatures. The possibilities are endless. Perhaps, we are only the transitional forms of the evolution from beasts to some kind of unimaginable creatures, and just have to survive this technological infancy.  Our own evolution, our technological advances, our emotianal maturation, all of these things are worth finding truth for, and all are held back by religion.

Don't you see, without our search for truth, we will never find the means to accomplish that great exploration that you speak of.  Without our understanding of physics, biology, and cosmology, without an understanding of evolution, we cannot learn about our biology, and what effects environmental pressures may have on us.  Without cosmology, and physics, we cannot understand our universe to travel through it, we cannot understand propulsion, and gravitational forces. These pieces of knowledge are what the search gives us, and what religion denies us.

My analogy has no problem because the agnostic realizes that he must make the most likely choice.  If the time comes when evidence supports religion, more than any other theory, the agnostic will jump aboard. We do make choices, I believe evolution is very likely, I believe that my existence is very likely, I do not take them on faith, but accept them as probable truths.  The difference with faith and agnosticism, is that if the day comes that I wake up and find that this life is a dream, the agnostic will accept it, the religious man will deny it, and if a theory comes along that disproves evolution, I will accept it, if I was faithful to evolution, I would deny the new theory, and cling to evolution.

The real Eve, is going to be dissapointing for you if you think that it will be about the Christian Eve. I believe they are going to talk about the first hominid to walk on the planet. That would show the same evidence of mitochondrial DNA.

If genesis was not meant to be taken literally, then why is their not a disclamer in the Bible itself. God would have to have known that we would take it for truth, just as all Christians did, until unfortunately for them, the evidence from science was too strong to cling to their cherished beliefs. Now Christians try to manipulate the word to fit our new knowledge of the universe. I'm sorry, there is no indication that genesis is an allegory.

[nemafakei]

Re greed: I said it was a possibility - but we weren't sure. I can give you no directly proven examples, because it is so hard to find control examples (ie where religion has never been and no abnormal factors affect places). But I can ask which civiisation will encourage more greed: the one that says 'be good and you'll go to heaven and enjoy yourself for eternity' or 'be good for the sake of being good and for the community in genreral'.

"And stop twisting my words"

I may have misunderstood.

"I say f**k your beloved truth!!!!!"

That gave me the impression I demonstrated.

"And you still failed to explain why the search for truth is good in any way. "

By saving our skins? Technology makes us more adaptable - so humans as a species will survive longer? Things like that?

[vidiware]

All, should have their own relegion (if they have one) and respect others.!

Thats my opinion

[The_old_worm]

That's fine vidaware, to each his own, but keep your religion out of areas that affect MY life! Keep it out of the schools, out of the government. Stop insulting and ridiculing, and then telling me that I am hellbound for not sharing your beliefs! Stop trying to brainwash MY kid, and tell them that those outside of the faith are evil! Stop convincing people that science is evil, and pointless because the Bible has the absolute truth. Stop trying to scare me into your faith with threats of hell, and make me feel guilty for my beliefs! Stop lying about the validity of your beliefs!

If the religious want to stay in the deathtrap of their own stagnation, so be it!

[Edric O]

After not visiting the forum yesterday, I was afraid I'd have 20 messages waiting to be replies to... phew, good thing that's not the case. Thanks guys. :)

The_old_worm, I do get my directions directly from God. Jesus Christ that is. And God the Father in the Old Testament. His words were written in the Bible just as He spoke them. And even if they're not exact quotes (although I believe they are), I'm sure the people who wrote them made a great effort to make the quotes as exact as possible.

1. Science may well correct itself, but what if those corrections come too late? After you've set off an antimatter explosion it's a bit late to discover that your theories on it were wrong... I still argue that certain branches of science put human kind in danger. And I won't settle for the "oops, sorry" kind of self-correction.

And last time I looked Religion wasn't meant to be a method for exploring the universe... Unlike science, which is just doing its job.

2. Black Holes don't contradict the Bible. Neither do high-speed particles, dark matter, solar phenomena or any other sort of thing that might pose an unknown danger. I don't have anything against find out a lot more about them (don't say "truth" because we agreed that we'll never reach that ideal). However, there are much more important things to do right here on Earth. Your search for truth is consuming valuable resources that are needed down here!

3. Okay then. I accept as a likely truth the fact that Christianity is correct. I came to this conclusion after studying the available evidence. So how am I any different from you? If you say that I have "blind faith" because no amount of evidence could convince me that my "theories" are incorrect, you are wrong. It's just that I haven't found anything remotely like the proof I'm looking for. This includes but is not limited to: A messiah or prophet with the ability to perform acts which are imposibile with our current technology and which also provides a spiritual and moral system which could not come from the entity known as Satan (in the case of me converting to a new Religion); finding the remains of Jesus Christ (in the case of converting to atheism), etc.

4. To some extent, yes. You can know the size of the moon and feel the effect of gravity only because of your senses. They could both be illusions. Our whole world may be only a dream. You can argue that this possibility is irrelevant, because as long as this is the only world we know, we must consider it reality regardless of whether or not it's just a "dream". Ah yes, but what if belief could affect these illusions, thereby changing them?

5. Oh, you mean godlike? Is that what you want us to become? You start sounding like Lucifer... He also thought he could evolve into something much greater, but it was this that made him fall into hell. We have limits and we should recognize them.

And show me how Christianity is holding back your search for truth in any way. And I mean in THIS century, not in the Middle Ages! Arguing that "well, it doesn't, but it might in the future" is ridiculous. It's like me wanting to put you in prison because I think you might kill me in 50 years' time...

The great exploration that I was talking about is not my main ideal and it must not be done at all costs. We must build a peaceful society first, eliminate all wars on Earth, establish a single Earth government, stop all pollution, etc. That goes in the "serving God" category. There's nothing wrong with the search for truth in itself. The problem is just HOW you do it. And stop making unfounded claims like "Religion denies us this and that". Try to understand that the world isn't in the Middle Ages any more... unlike Kansas, apparently. ;) What are they doing over there? Burning witches??

Agnostics DON'T make the "big choice". That's the point. They are undecided (as far as I know that's the definition of "agnostic"). The agnostic in your analogy DOES make a choice... So he is only agnostic up to a point, after which he becomes either religious or atheist.

As for The Real Eve, when did I ever say I thought it will be about the Christian Eve? Of course that's not the case! It's the Discovery Channel, they don't discuss religion! It's just that I'm intrigued by the recent discoveries about mitochondrial DNA...

There is no indication that Genesis is NOT an allegory, either. Also, I don't see any conclusive evidence against it, because I'm skeptical about evolution. Like I said, I'm still undecided in this field.

[Edric O]

As I can see from your message to "Christians in general", you are not immune to anger, The_old_worm... But it is unfortunate that you haven't met the kind of Christians I know. My message to atheists (and agnostics, to some extent) is to stop trying to destroy our beliefs, to stop trying to make us HIDE in private places to worship God, to stop spreading their propaganda and then accusing US of persecuting THEM (atheists are the embodiment of hypocrisy for the most part) and to stop their mad attempts of destroying religious public holidays and trying to uproot everyone's cultural identity because others might find it offensive!

Acriku, missionaries are holy messengers of God at best and harmless at worst.

Nema, you're right about that greed argument, you found the point where we ended it. But let me ask you this: Which message is more likely to be ignored by people bent on killing and plundering? "be good and you'll go to heaven and enjoy yourself for eternity" or "be good for the sake of being good and for the community in general". Which is more likely to make them laugh in your face and shoot you?

I might not express myself very well when I'm mad (;)), but I do keep my ability to reason.

Saving our skins? How about frying them in a nuclear toaster? Or melting them with toxic waste and some other nice pollution?