Religion

[gryphon]

Great, you also play Starfleet Academy :D

Non of us here are seeking followers, we are simply putting all our "open thought" together and see what comes out. And to newcommers it might seem hatefull and that we are killing eatchother, but it's not personal here. Its just about the different views and believes, and although at times it tends te become personal for someone [ including me ] we usually get over that.

I would say, if you see something you think you can explain better, from a different view or whatever, just post it.

[ when you are shivering about these posts, have a look at the first pages and pages 28 to present ;D ]

[jacobdouds]

In reply to a few points above:

First: Yes we do blame everything bad on Satan. With absolutely no idea about the truth. For all we know. God and Satan are the same person with Schizophrenia? Or maybe they are both to Gods who are just playing a small strategey game with us to see who can win the world the fastest. Or maybe they don't exist at all.

Secondly: Jesus never claimed himself to be anything special. He did say he was the son of God, but he also said we are all children of God. Only about 50 years after his death did all this start coming up. I believe he was just a normal everyday profit.

Thirdly: The bible is just a book with absolutely no way of proving it is anything special. But even if it was the true word of God. It has been changed so much over centuries to fit in with new things that it is absolutely nothing like the original. And besides, either way, it is fake. Because bake then, people would not have been able to compile all these books writen so far apart. And very few could actually read and write anyway. Lucky coincidence that these people can? When one in fifety could?

[The_old_worm]

Gryphon, I need to clear something up.  Maybe it will help you understand me better.

When discussing the meaning of life, I seperate it into two categories; collective and individual.  Individually, I agree with you completely. People need to figure that out on their own, although I think it's a shame more people don't include the search in their personal meaning.  Collectively, as a species, what makes us human revolves around the search. Everything we accomplish, learn or do is based on that search, from medicine, to space travel, to politics. Religion confuses this search, and holds us back as a species.

I've already given you several examples, Gryphon, of things that are either right or wrong. Evolution in some form vs creation, whether I exist, whether I am sitting in front of this computer or not, whether my truck is maroon or not,

anything you can think of is either true or false.

Of course, I apply our knowledge, now, to the Bible.  A book inspired by God should be immune to the changes in knowledge over time. The fact that the ingnorance of the time shows through in the writings, only demonstrated the faulty human factor in the Bible, and discredits the whole book.

There were the Mayans in South America, along with other Ancient American kingdoms, Asia had kingdoms, or empires etc... sorry, You certainly could not see them from even the highest mountain. My point is, that a book inspired by a being with all knowledge of all time should not be corrupted by our human ignorance.

[The_old_worm]

Yes, science is based on something---observation! If that observation leads to the proof of religion, then so be it. I use science as my basis for validation because, it, coupled with imagination, logic and reasoning is the best tool we have to find truth.

I hate it when people say that science requires a "leap of faith", because science is always willing to go back on it's assumptions and reasses theories. Yes, we pick the most likely explaination and base our theories on that, but are always willing to rethink and totally change our way of thinking, if better theories come along. This is not a leap of fath, this is cautious acceptance.

[gryphon]

Still having some doubts about those things that are right or wrong.

My car for instance, to me it's blue. To my neigbour who's collorblind it's brown. And The fact that you are sitting behind your computer, or that you exist can be doubted at least. You think you exists, but don't even know I do. It sound childish, but "you don't simply exist" and that = "true".

[ It's like my comments to Nema when he took a position that said science is absolute, think you know what I mean, the discussion on page 30 or so. The basic ideas of science are assumptions, without this we are nowhere so whe have to make them, but don't forget they are all assumptions at the end. Pre-determend arangments we have already made. ]

In the times the Bible was written people didn't know America [ possebly ]. No Kingdoms there. The whole world was just centerd on Egypt, Arabia Italie and sutch.

Language has changed troughout the centuries, and with that the meaning of words and phrases. With that the meaning of the Bible changes in a way to, and anything that umans pass on to other following generations will alter, if not with this generation it will have within 10 generations. This combined with the systematic destruction of literature at some points in history things, ideas had to adapte in order to survive.

The thing I mainly object to your position is indeed your second point, that religion holds us back as a species. It has been used numerous times for this function, but is has been used for this purpose. It's not that religioin has this purpose from itself.

I ago start "objecting" when you say "I use science as my basis for validation because, it, coupled with imagination, logic and reasoning is the best tool we have to find truth. "

You can't know what the best tool is to find the "truth". We have now clue about what this possibly existing or not truth is, what it's made of and how we can find it. It's just that our social structure at this time "dictates" that science is possibly the best tool to find this truth.

Like a position like Edric's. [ just as an example, I'm going to exadurate some things so it's just as an example ]

Also looking for "truth" or "meaning" in life and finding a form of religion as result. Why isn't that possible ? That the truth in live is verry simple, just be happy. And I think that when science is open to other and new things, it should also be open to this. That we already have found the truth, a basic form of religion, or more simply just be "happy" in life. It even sound "hippy like"

[Lord J]

When referring to Jesus according to the Bible, I tend to focus mostly on the four Gospels, which are written (allegedly, of course ;) ) by his own family and and his closest friends.  Someone posted a message until it was appearantly deleted (I can't find it anywhere here), that asks if a magazine reported that Madonna was a guy would I believe it?  I probably would if the article was written by one of her brothers (if she has brothers...the god(s) know I sure don't know ;) ).

The main problem with most Christians, and I'm included here, is that we never open the book and read for ourselves.

Groovey, I never thought I'd meet another SFA player *here*, kinda scary  :-/ .  Just kidding  8) .  Ever play on the late, great heat.net?

[Acriku]

The Bible was written by a few men who were not related to Jesus. They were possibly friends, but not relatives. This study was done years ago, and is generally accepted.

[The_old_worm]

Gryphon,  your first point is exactly what I have been trying to say.  We cannot know absolute truth, whether your car is blue, or whether I am sitting here in front of my computer is debatable.  My point is, that outside of human perception, your car reflects the certain light waves, and whether they reflect blue light waves is true whether we see brown or green or red.  I am either here or not, I can't know for sure, but outside of my perception, it is either true of false.

In the old times, the known world was centered around the Middle East, but the quote I made, speaks of the entire Earth.  Whether the people, at that time knew of other civilizations or not, God, being omniscient, should have known.

I agree that ideas have to adapt over time, that people have to accept that they wer wrong about the way they looked at things, otherwise we would not progress.  But truth does not change with our knowledge, we just learn more about it.

As I said earlier on this thread, I think religion has definitely been functional to society.  I don't think that we could have gotten this far without it's moral codes and community building.  I think, though, that humanity's important step is to be able to carry that morality taught to us by religion, and maintain our civilization independent of threats and rewards.  That is when Humans will reach maturity.  And, again, maybe we are not ready.

The main reason I say science mixed with philosophy is the best tool for truth, is because it is the only tool that objectively questions without preconceptions. Again, don't mistake science with scientists. It is the only tool that accepts our fallibility and leaves itself open to major changes. This self-correcting characteristic is a virtue that religion does not have.

And remember, that I accept the possibility of religious explainations. With the evidence, though, they are less valid.

[gryphon]

In my comment to Nema I've shown that outside our perseption things are not just right or wrong. Lightwaves can be alterd to distance and so on. It is that our perception creates the world we see, outside our perseption it all a big chaos. And that true or false is just what we make of it. Not what's really out there.

[ look at the posts around page 28 or so, can't miss ]

You do have a point about what you say about the Bible. But if God whould have written the text in the Bible like you suggest, don't you think a lot of things should have been written down different ? The Bible is not God's direct word, it's humans, inspired by God who wrote it.

[ well, atleast they claim it to be that :) ]

We don't know if real truth exists, so we can't say if it changes or not [ for example, the only contstance in the univers is change ::) ]

The truth we give to the world does change. The world was flat and now it's round.

The sound barrier could not be broken .. . . .

So again, the point I object to is when you give certain gide lines for what could be that "real truth".

When it comes to that real truth, we absoluately have now clue, it can be every thing, it really is to big for us to even begin to understand what it could be.

We can give assumptions to it, given our current position, knowledge etc. And look at what could come, look at how we could change and what effect this whould have in the future and to future events. Then we can say "at this point in time we think that . . . ". But when you say this you reflect it to "this point in time", and then that real truth suddenly changes to our truth and loses all it's fauluw [ sorry can't spell it ] as "possible refelction of real truth".

And I know that our positions arn't that far appart, it's just that one thing. :)

[Lord J]

Hrmm...James wasn't a brother of Christ?  I must've been mistaken, like I said before, ignorance is the greatest enemy of most Christians :)

I agree with you gryphon, truth is a matter of perceptions.  To a human being, capable of seeing in three dimensions, there is no question that there is more to the universe than the depths of a common pond.  But to the common fish *living* in that common pond the universe must seem quite different...

[Anathema]

Gryphon I agree with what you said about truth, exept that I would say "perceived truth", wich is what humans consider to be the real truth. The perceived truth becomes more like the real truth as mankind uncovers more of it.

Btw Edric O about my statement about religious schools in Europe and the states, I may have exagerated somewhat as I do not know much about most schools in most countries but I live in the Netherlands and I know for fact that some schools here do not teach their pupils certain things.

[Mordecai]

Gryphon, why are you a christian? Why not a member of any other religion?

[gryphon]

I'm not a Christian. The last time I whent to churtch was a really long time ago. I don't even go with Christmas.

Nor a member of any other religion.

But more people do say I'm verry religious indeed.

:)

[The_old_worm]

Gryphon, we disagree on one point, and I don't know if we can solve it.  You think that outside our perception is chaos, with no absolute truth, and we create order from that chaos that becomes our truth.(would I be correct?).  I think I  understand your point now, although I disagree.

I think that there probably is an absolute truth outside our perception, and humans are only part of that truth, with little influence accept in the physical changes we make in our world. If the human species dies off, the truth will go on without us. And before any Christians jump on me, Yes, this truth, outside our senses COULD be God, I accept that, although there is no logical reason to jump to that conclusion.

I think, that this absolute truth exists outside of our senses, and through science we can only gain indirect evidence of the truth, like reflections from a mirror. We can never know if we are actually looking at the truth, but we can figure out which is more likely to be the reflection of truth.

Do you actually believe that while the ancient people believed that the Earth was flat, that in reality, the Earth was flat?  Do you think, that at the point in which people realized it was round that the Earth changed shape?  And what about the middle ground, were some people living on a flat Earth and some on a round one? I'm not talking about human perception, I'm talking about reality.

I'll tell you what I reject about your theory, If people believe that they already know the truth, simply because they believe, and that the truth changes with our beliefs, then why search?  Yes, the truth changes, long ago, Earth didn't even exist, now it does, that is a change. But do you really think that the Earth changed from flat to round? The bottom line is that the ancient people tried to know the truth, and were wrong.

[gryphon]

"I'm not talking about human perception, I'm talking about reality."

And that's my point. reality for us is not more than human perception.

"The bottom line is that the ancient people tried to know the truth, and were wrong."

Not only the ancient people were wrong in my opinion. [ and this also reflects back on my position ]

I

[The_old_worm]

I think we agree for the most part, Gryphon. Yes, reality for us, is our perception. My point is, like you said, that we have to accept that or perception may be wrong.

I think the difference in our opinions is that I think that there is probably an absolute, truth, that will continue outside of and beyond our perception.  I think that the Earth has always been round, regardless of our belief, and that truth, is what we strive to obtain, even if it is unobtainable, because the search gives us the reflections which we use to improve our lives and our species.

[gryphon]

Yep, and although my position here has been [ for the last post ] "against" yours. When I have to decide I really don't know what position I should, or could take.

If it comes to a vote on what to "believe", I withhold from voting.

[Anathema]

And that every thing we know now, infect can be just crap.]

True, but we are coming closer to the truth then mankind was thousends of years ago. Just take a look at daily live, and notice how many things we have mankind didn't have thousends of years ago. We couldn't have had it if we hadn't expanded and improved our knowledge.

If we were wrong about many things we take as true, we wouldn't have all of those things we have now. If atoms do not exist as we have proved they exist, neither do electrons, wich means no electricity, and no computers. So even by posting you kind of prove yourself wrong ;).

[gryphon]

Nope,

we are coming closer to what truth ?

Yes, we have more things, this because our knowledge has improved, and the new things on there turn have improved our knowledge.

"If we were wrong about many things we take as true, we wouldn't have all of those things we have now. If atoms do not exist as we have proved they exist, neither do electrons, which means no electricity, and no computers."

Have you read the previous pages ?

The fact that science is true in that way doesn't mean that it holds some part of "the truth" in it. An atom is not an object on itself, it a collection, so in a way it doesn't exists as physical object [ as example ]. So have we proven that a "physical" atom exists ? No, we have disproven that because an atom is exually a collection of up and down quarks. [ possibly ].

Things we have now are just inventions, just adaptions of previous things. But they in now way have to suggest that we are getting any closer to "truth".

[ if you do think so, please explain. :) ]

What I say, [ just as in the previous pages ] that the very beginning on what science and our understanding of things is based can be based on nothing. And then it doesn't matter anymore what comes out. It is all based upon nothing. All assumptions, no science. Just having faith in things.

[ No old worm, don't start the discussion all over :), it's just to make my point to Earthnuker :) ]

[jacobdouds]

-We are coming closer to the truth than mankind was thousands of years ago.-

No, it may seem that way, but as i've said before, 'The fool knows everything, the wise knows nothing.'

This means, the people thousands of years ago knew everything that they needed to know. And amongst them all, they believed they knew almost everything. Whereass today, you will find that we don't know or understand much at all. And for every thing we learn, every door we open, another ten doors are opened. We will never come closer to 100% as 100% keeps moving away. Like the Horixin.

[The_old_worm]

We come closer to the truth when we realise the fact that we don't know anything.  In ancient times, everything was answered by religion and they believed that they knew the absolute truth, as many in religion do now. Because doors have been opened through our search, we learn about the great mysteries of the universe that religion shielded us from. This is how we are closer to the truth, we at least now know some of the questions.  

[Edric O]

About the Earth being flat:

The_old_worm, even if the Earth WAS indeed flat, you think you could climb a mountain and see it all? I don't think so. So either way, I take that verse (Mathew 4:8) simply as proof that Satan can indeed curve and manipulate light. Wow, big surprise. Leave it to ol' Lucifer to come up with an impressive light show...

Acriku... WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING? Mathew 4:8 is about Satan tempting Jesus in the desert, so OF COURSE we blaim it on Satan. You don't think it was an imposter do you?

Nema:

Churches are generally used as places of worship. I fail to see how a building can represent propaganda. What could its message be? "Join us because we have big imposing buildings"? Umm, no.

After taking a look at the "Dr. Toast's World of Toast" website, I incline to agree with you... You can find ANYTHING on the net.

The Church had NO beliefs of its own regarding Astronomy. They took everything from the ancient texts. It's just that once they accepted an idea, they kind of stuck to it... The reasons for calling Copernicus and Galileo "heretics" were purely political (they threatened the Church's monopoly on science). "Heresy" was just the excuse. It was possible to use this excuse because the Church had assimilated many non-Christian beliefs into its dogma (such as Ptolemy's model of the Solar System).

I made that comment on "progress" in reply to The_old_worm's increasingly utopian view of "science". Of course both science and religion are two-edged swords - but I don't see him admitting that.

"We must make some assumptions, or we will get nowhere. We need to assume we are, in fact existent..." - My point exactly.

"but we do not have to assume that there is some omnipotent being that is wonderful etc etc." What's the difference between the two assumptions? If we can accept that reality is real without any proof, why can't we apply the same principle to God?

The_old_worm:

I challenge you to show me any significant improvement in the general welfare of the human race... since the STONE AGE. True, we have better medication, protection from natural disasters, etc. - but how much of the Earth's population actually benefits from all that? Considering the absolute poverty in which most humans live and the population explosion (which means that more people suffer and die than ever before), I'd say that we're actually doing WORSE than 10000 years ago.

Your comment on the "collective meaning of life" is more than ludicrous. WHO DIED AND MADE YOU THE VOICE OF ALL MANKIND??? What if we don't care about your beloved "search"? 3 things make us human: our intelligence, our soul and our moral values, IMO. Yes, that's right, in my opinion. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to consider myself the spokesman of humanity.

I reject your "search" and everything that goes with it.

If you want us to have a reasonable conversation, please stop assuming that you know what's best for all of us and we don't.

[Anathema]

I challenge you to show me any significant improvement in the general welfare of the human race... since the STONE AGE. True, we have better medication, protection from natural disasters, etc. - but how much of the Earth's population actually benefits from all that? Considering the absolute poverty in which most humans live and the population explosion (which means that more people suffer and die than ever before), I'd say that we're actually doing WORSE than 10000 years ago.

.

Sorry to say this, but that is the most STUPID thing I ever read. Mankind is at this time thriving, more then ever. The most basic function of any form of life is to make sure its genes do not perish but live on. To make sure the species as a whole lives on. Just take a look outside. The world is CRAWLING with humans, whereas in the stoneage there were only relatively few of them. We owe that mainly to scientific discoveries and enginuity. Thanks to mankinds ability to understand things (to a limit I should add) and to put that knowledge to use mankind advanced from a small number of cavemen to ridicilously high numbers of people. As for indivduals, some people do not benefit from scientific advancements, but the quality of life has never been the big question in the struggle of survival of Earths species.

[nemafakei]

Well the difference between assuming reality is real and assuming god exists is this:

Without assuming reality is real, we can understand nothing. We start by assuming it is real, then we diescover it isn't, and we can correct our ideas to fit the truth later. Reality being real doesn't affect phenomena like gravity as such.

But we have no such reason to believe that a god exists and to put such sway by it as to direct out your life by it. Besides, religion is not self correcting other than to say "we're sure we're unquestionably right now, and since people nowadays disapprove of [ enter outdated idea of your choice ], we will stop supporting it." Religion is not self-correcting by way of research, it compares more to a parasite.

"our intelligence, our soul and our moral values"

How about our capability to delude ourselves to the point of ignoring our moral values in order to comfort our fears, and our (often fatal) inquisitiveness?

I'm just taking shots at humanity, now.

Seriously, our only purpose is to function. Searching is part of that. All humans are inquisitive. That what makes us successful. And in fact, we are constantly in the position that we must pogress or die (fossil to fission, fission to fusion, fusion to... ?)

[gryphon]

"Thanks to mankinds ability to understand things (to a limit I should add) and to put that knowledge to use mankind advanced from a small number of cavemen to ridicilously high numbers of