Omnimaga

General Discussion => Other Discussions => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Xeda112358 on May 21, 2013, 09:32:56 am

Title: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on May 21, 2013, 09:32:56 am
It seems that some topics get easily derailed by religion and religion is a topic that people seem to like to respond to. My idea was that  we can use this topic as a way to respond to things dealing with religion if that response would otherwise be off topic. For example, to this topic (http://ourl.ca/18910), pimathbrainiac has requested several times to get the topic back on track. So i will instead post my response here, since it is completely about religion and not focused on the topic. Feel free to comment, respond, or bring in your own conversations from other topics :)

As always, try to remain civil. Since this is about religion, there will likely be offensive things said, but let's try to keep as much of that out of here as possible. We have done it before, so I know it is possible.



With the argument about their being a first cause, the argument is not invalid if you look at it mathematically. In fact, it is another example of mathematical induction (which, I would like to point out is completely logically sound, unlike philosophical induction). Take the natural numbers. Every number can be represented as the number before it added to 1. For example, 924576235238 is 1+924576235237. You can keep following this chain backwards until you hit 1. 1 is the smallest natural number-- the one where all natural numbers start. It does not come from anything else. You can think of this as the first cause, where 2 comes from that, and 3 comes from that, and so on.

The actual flaw in the argument does not come from assuming an initial cause is uncaused, even though all causes cause causes. The flaw is more in assuming there even was a 'first' cause. I can believe that if there was a first cause, then you could attribute that to a God (but even then, I would not be convinced that this being is anything that would impose directly upon anything other than the most base compositions of existence). However, if there was no first cause, that is where things get more interesting. What if you could simply keep going back and there never was a first cause? The God that is presented by the first cause argument is really powerful, but not sentient, moral, or any number of things like that-- it just is and that is the extent of it. There is no pleasing or displeasing such a thing. The God presented by the no-first-causes argument is one that I might call a Being, but since I have not thought fully on this branch of the topic, I have not yet convinced myself of this.

I am more inclined to believe that there was no 'first cause.' I think this is where many people fall into a trap because most people don't have to face the concept of infinity and so they choose to interpret 'first' as something finite-- which it is. I think that the argument may have been made, keeping with the idea of numbers, as one where the events could keep extending back through 0, -1, -2,... and that the chain of events never ended. The whole chain was envisioned and employed all at once by a Being outside of the system. Even then, it is a simple matter for us to see that, if we try. Draw a line segment. There are infinitely many measures along that line segment, yet you can see the whole thing at once.

If you think, you have a mind, because that is what makes you capable of thinking.

The mind is the soul and the brain working together.

If you have a soul, your soul must have been created.

Some being made your soul, and it would have to exist in its own existence, which would make it eternal, changeless, timeless.

This being is God.

("I am who am")
Points 1 and 3 are valid, but points 2 and 5 make a definition, so if we accept that definition, it is not debatable. Point 4 is where your argument falls through. There is no support for "Some being made your soul," or that "it would have to exist in its own existence" and this does not imply that it must be "eternal, changeless, timeless."

Also, even if you don't think that argument makes sense, how would you feel if you died and found out you were wrong about yourself being in a dream? This philosophy could make facing God at your judgement rather uncomfortable...
Personally, if this happens to me, then it is as simple as that-- I would be wrong and that is the extent of it. If God is a being that requires my devotion and belief more than being a 'good' person, then I cannot respect such a god. If that god values goodness, then I can respect such a god and I would see God as a friend. Regardless of the existence of God, I try to be a good person because that matters more to me than the belief in a god. I would rather do something purely out of my own desire to be good than with the bribe of eternal contentedness or the fear of eternal damnation.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on May 21, 2013, 09:53:24 am
So I took a look at Romans 1:20, it says
Quote
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Which is basically says "if God made everything and stuff exists, then God has eternal power and a divine nature". Let's analyze that:
Let's use X for "god made everything", Y for "stuff exists" and Z for "god has eternal power and a divine nature". Then it translates to (X ∧ Y) → Z. Without assumptions, does this imply Z? Nope. Does it imply ¬Z? Nope.
If you assume X and Y, then Z. Z could also be true regardless, because it's not a two-way implication. Or ¬Z, because one or both assumptions could be false.
Then there's an other issue: all of this assumes the statement was true in the first place, and there's no guarantee of that. The statement isn't proven, merely stated. It makes sense though - if god created everything then it's fair to say he's divine and powerful.

So what does Romans 1:20 do? Nothing but add to the confusion, really.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: flyingfisch on May 21, 2013, 09:58:13 am
Just to clarify, it is possible to prove God exists, but it is not possible to explain how He exists.

So, St. Thomas Aquinas gave five proofs for why God exists. Just because our human minds cannot understand the existence of God does not mean he does not exist.

A rock does not comprehend the existence of living creatures, but that does not make living creatures non-existent.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on May 21, 2013, 10:00:58 am
If God created everything, then who created God?

This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: flyingfisch on May 21, 2013, 10:05:52 am
If God created everything, then who created God?

This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.

No it does not challenge anything. There cannot be an infinite chain of "makers", so at some point there needs to be a supreme "maker". Now, just because you cannot explain how He can exist does not mean He does not exist.

I would rather do something purely out of my own desire to be good than with the bribe of eternal contentedness or the fear of eternal damnation.

Your "bribe" and "fear" are only the secondary reasons to be good. The primary reason is to please God, because you owe everything to Him.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on May 21, 2013, 10:07:05 am
What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: flyingfisch on May 21, 2013, 10:09:46 am
What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..

What if He did? It doesn't matter. We know He exists, and we cannot know how without some sort of divine revelation.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on May 21, 2013, 10:11:29 am
Just to clarify, it is possible to prove God exists, but it is not possible to explain how He exists.

So, St. Thomas Aquinas gave five proofs for why God exists. Just because our human minds cannot understand the existence of God does not mean he does not exist.

A rock does not comprehend the existence of living creatures, but that does not make living creatures non-existent.
The 'proofs' by St. Thomas Aquinas (the ones you linked to in the other topic) each make unjustified claims. While that does not mean God does not exist, it does not prove that God exists.

If God created everything, then who created God?

This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.
Well that is only assuming that God needs to be created ;)
No it does not challenge anything. There cannot be an infinite chain of "makers", so at some point there needs to be a supreme "maker". Now, just because you cannot explain how He can exist does not mean He does not exist.
Well, why couldn't there be an infinte chain? Is it because humans cannot grasp that?
Your "bribe" and "fear" are only the secondary reasons to be good. The primary reason is to please God, because you owe everything to Him.
My primary reason lies more in devotion to others and the future :/
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 10:12:01 am
If God created everything, then who created God?

This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.
That is a question that will be hard to understand, but I believe that he was not created and was always there already. Remember, the God is not limited by time, physics and stuff.

Xeda, the Bible says that we are not justified by doing good, but by having faith.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on May 21, 2013, 10:13:14 am
What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..

What if He did? It doesn't matter.
It answers how he came to be without having an infinite regress, that's the point - though it is, arguably, no better explanation than an infinite regress.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on May 21, 2013, 10:13:53 am
Xeda, the Bible says that we are not justified by doing good, but by having faith.
Okay, that clarifies it for me more, thanks!
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: aeTIos on May 21, 2013, 10:45:04 am
I'd like to throw in that it's not possible to prove something that's purely a matter of faith, such as the existance of God and evolution. I can't think up an explanation for this... you just have to believe me (/pun)

And yes, I think that evolution also is something you have to believe in.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on May 21, 2013, 11:13:13 am
/me actually agrees

everything is, to some extent, something that has to be believed in. knowing your surroundings requires that you first have faith in the trustworthiness of your senses, knowing mathematical theorems to be correct requires first that you have faith in the work of those who have proven them (or, in the case where you have proven all the necessary prerequisites for some conclusion, faith in yourself :P). for humans, then, "truth" is not an absolute, but rather a degree of certainty.



also, as per the rules, this topic will be watched. feel free to speak your minds, but don't let it turn into a flame war, please.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: aeTIos on May 21, 2013, 11:16:36 am
Brings up the problem that in many religions there's a book that they believe is the truth...
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: squidgetx on May 21, 2013, 12:24:17 pm
/me actually agrees

everything is, to some extent, something that has to be believed in. knowing your surroundings requires that you first have faith in the trustworthiness of your senses, knowing mathematical theorems to be correct requires first that you have faith in the work of those who have proven them (or, in the case where you have proven all the necessary prerequisites for some conclusion, faith in yourself :P). for humans, then, "truth" is not an absolute, but rather a degree of certainty.



also, as per the rules, this topic will be watched. feel free to speak your minds, but don't let it turn into a flame war, please.

I don't think you can really compare faith in observation and maths with faith in a supreme being...

I agree with your point about truth really being more about a degree of certainty; but with maths you can go and redo all the work before to confirm its validity and with your senses you can confirm their consistency (eg red things are always red no matter who you ask; even if you don't know if your red is the same as other people's red, it's still a constant "fact" that this color is named red)

I cant think of a single way to increase the degree of certainty about the existence of a supreme being
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: aeTIos on May 21, 2013, 12:26:13 pm
Nice vsauce reference ;D
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on May 21, 2013, 01:25:11 pm
but with maths you can go and redo all the work before to confirm its validity
It depends. There are some axioms in maths too, that can't be proved, like Peano's axioms, and a lot of things are based on it. So yeah, mathematics can be in some way compared to religion.

The difference being that mathematics are used by phisicists to create useful things for our lives, like calculators, while religion, well I don't know what it does. Gives me a ticket for eternity ? Yeah, as long as eternity exists too, which is not proved either.

Note: I am not saying "stop believing", just "let others believe what they want". I am not against the idea of a God somewhere, but the ideas of eternity or "being saved" and all seems weird to me.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 02:17:42 pm
Somehow believing in no God is a religion too, since you have no proof he doesn't exist. (Although evolution is an attempt).
Choosing not to believe is a serious thing, as is choosing to. Although the first thing is the most easy and most attractive, and I believe that that is the reason so many don't believe.

Because imagine you stand before God anyway and He says:"You had no proof I did NOT exist, so why were you so strongly against me?"
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ElementCoder on May 21, 2013, 02:26:51 pm
Well wouldn't one then just answer "There was no proof you DID exist either, so why would I be so pro you?" I'm not one to deny the existence of a or the god, but I'm not one to believe it either, not until I see hard evidence. Evenso, if he would be real and such only put us here to believe in him and please him and doing bad will get us ending up in hell, then I can't help but not bring up much respect for such a god. (This probaly is a very sharp turn, but I can't think of another way to express it.)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on May 21, 2013, 02:36:35 pm
The argument "no proof that it doesn't exist" can be applied to a ton of things that no one believes in, including of course, a bunch of "rival" deities. It's not wrong, but neither is a theory positing the existence of a deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 21, 2013, 02:38:09 pm
To make things clear, I'll mean by God christians' God.

If God is a being that requires my devotion and belief more than being a 'good' person, then I cannot respect such a god. If that god values goodness, then I can respect such a god and I would see God as a friend. Regardless of the existence of God, I try to be a good person because that matters more to me than the belief in a god. I would rather do something purely out of my own desire to be good than with the bribe of eternal contentedness or the fear of eternal damnation.
"If God is a being that requires my devotion and belief more than being a 'good' person, then I cannot respect such a god." According to christians, God does want you to be a good person. He requires you in order to save humanity from evil. God is a love God, he doesn't want us to pray for him, but for yourself. By praying, we can communicate with God, ask for help and do you best. Humans can't do anything by themselves about evil, they need God's help.
"I would see God as a friend" : You can't say that, God is God, so God is much more than a friends, he's your creator. For example, you can't say your mother or your father is a friends, he (has to be) much more than that. God is not equal to you, he's much superior.
"I would rather do something purely out of my own desire to be good than with the bribe of eternal contentedness or the fear of eternal damnation." : I have to answer to that. Do you know what the "eternal damnation" is ? It is the lack of God. Someone'll have it if he refuses God's love and his help for ever. If you're good, continue to be so, it is exactly what he wants you to be.

Just to clarify, it is possible to prove God exists, but it is not possible to explain how He exists.
It isn't possible to prove God exists. Thsi debate won't come anywhere, because we can't prove anything about that. As je ne sais plus qui said, you cannot understand to believe, but you have to believe to understand.

If God created everything, then who created God?
ERR: Invalid. God lives forever and fromever, that's all. There's no origin to his life. He invented time, so you can't apply to him this notion.

This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.
No, because of what I just said.

What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..
God wasn't created.

Brings up the problem that in many religions there's a book that they believe is the truth...
It isn't a "book of the truth". It is a book the enables to understand many things.

I'm not one to believe it either, not until I see hard evidence.
Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.


Evenso, if he would be real and such only put us here to believe in him and please him and doing bad will get us ending up in hell, then I can't help but not bring up much respect for such a god. (This probaly is a very sharp turn, but I can't think of another way to express it.)
See above in my message.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 02:38:20 pm
If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.

You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on May 21, 2013, 02:46:38 pm
What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..
God wasn't created.
Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.
That's all it will be anyway - potentially interesting thoughts. None of it can be verified.

The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 02:49:58 pm
...
The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.
I'm convinced that that did not happen.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on May 21, 2013, 02:52:58 pm
So am I, it violates causality big-time. But that's why it's interesting
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on May 21, 2013, 02:52:58 pm
"evolution" is not an attempt at anything. scientists do not study things and pose theories in an attempt to anger people or disprove things. science is an approach to information that tries to make as few assumptions as possible. it takes data as input (via careful experimentation) and proposes generalised rules based upon the results. if, later on, a better method of measurement is discovered or some other critical piece of information that was not considered during the previous experiment, a new one is conducted and a revised generalised rule determined. such experiments are, nowadays, performed by people all over the globe, and they are free to contribute to one another and draw from one another, resulting in more accurate results. the idea is that nothing can be known for certain, but some things can be known with a greater degree of certainty than others, and that's the best we can get.

the theory of evolution is one such generalised rule that happens to be much better supported than most. that we can see evidence of our own evolution all around us (people originating from different regions of the globe have specialised features, i.e. long, straight hair for holding in warmth in northern regions vs. short, curly hair that lays flat against the head in order to keep off the sun), can see clear evidence of directed evolution in the form of pets (particularly dogs. they are the most outwardly diverse species of mammal that i can think of, at any rate), and can literally watch the process occurring in small, rapidly-reproducing creatures under a microscope (take a species of bacteria, for example, introduce something which is toxic to them, and you might end up with millions of dead bacteria along with one or two that were able to survive due to some mutation or other which made them immune. allow those few to reproduce and suddenly you have a group of bacteria that is immune to that toxin on a wide scale) is evidence enough that, to disprove the theory of evolution, one would need to somehow prove life-long visual and auditory hallucinations on a species-wide scale. furthermore, those hallucinations would all have to be practically identical.

this theory has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your god exists. it is a generalisation about the way that organisms function.

also, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. when you look down at a table, expecting there to be a pen, and do not see your pen, you do not ignore that and reach for the pen anyways. you take it as an indication that the pen is not there, and start searching elsewhere (in your pockets, on the floor, etc)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 03:00:23 pm
All I can pretty much say is that I disagree with you there. I believe that many things or attempted to be proven to disprove the existence of a God.
I've seen several articles that disprove some scientific studies, so I wouldn't say right-away that once it's scientifically proven it's the truth.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ElementCoder on May 21, 2013, 03:05:42 pm
I'm not one to believe it either, not until I see hard evidence.
Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.
Evenso, if he would be real and such only put us here to believe in him and please him and doing bad will get us ending up in hell, then I can't help but not bring up much respect for such a god. (This probaly is a very sharp turn, but I can't think of another way to express it.)
See above in my message.
Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements. Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe. You cannot deny that we are pretty good with doing that. We have explained a lot already and I'm sure we'll be able to explain a lot more (and with that comes the ever growing bubble of not knowing but that's a different subject for a different time...) in the future. Now I can go write an essay here or I can just say it. Lots of things (pretty much all) that has been labled 'divine' or 'Gods work' in the past has been explained by science. Like I said before, I will not deny neither acknowledge the existence God. If there is such a thing as heaven or if it turns out I was wrong in the end, then so be it. I can accept that. But for now, as long as science keeps on doing groundbreaking discoveries as well as explaining things, I will not change the point of view stated here.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 03:46:39 pm
It doesn't mean that when something can be explained, that it isn't anymore divine or not God's work.
The thing is there are so many things that we believe in, without having actual proof for it(since that would be insane work to check everything). We just trust people.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 21, 2013, 03:48:23 pm
Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.
That's all it will be anyway - potentially interesting thoughts. None of it can be verified.

The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.
He couldn't appear because according to the religious, He's the inventor of the time. So He was "always" here.
And you're theory isn't really interesting because it's impossible. A think can't create itself, since it has to already exist to do so.


Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements.
 Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe.
Science won't call off "conflicts/disagreements". But you put clear that "Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe". Moreover, the universe created by God, according to the religion.

You cannot deny that we are pretty good with doing that. We have explained a lot already and I'm sure we'll be able to explain a lot more (and with that comes the ever growing bubble of not knowing but that's a different subject for a different time...) in the future. Now I can go write an essay here or I can just say it. Lots of things (pretty much all) that has been labled 'divine' or 'Gods work' in the past has been explained by science. Like I said before, I will not deny neither acknowledge the existence God. If there is such a thing as heaven or if it turns out I was wrong in the end, then so be it. I can accept that. But for now, as long as science keeps on doing groundbreaking discoveries as well as explaining things, I will not change the point of view stated here.
What's the problem with "science's explanations" ? Does it prove that it isn't God's work ? We can explain how we live with biologie, and give theories to the beginning of universe, this doesn't prove God didn't do it. Science explains how, religions say why. That's all.


If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.
The logic doesn't take place here. Would it be logic that the powerfull God give to humans his only son, and that his really loved son let himself be crucified? No. It doesn't make sense to give such a present to humans who are filled of evil. The reason of that : his infinite love.

You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
His coming in the past wasn't a proof at all, because he appeared resurrected to only a few people.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 03:53:30 pm
...
If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.
The logic doesn't take place here. Would it be logic that the powerfull God give to humans his only son, and that his really loved son let himself be crucified? No. It doesn't make sense to give such a present to humans who are filled of evil. The reason of that : his infinite love.

You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
His coming in the past wasn't a proof at all, because he appeared resurrected to only a few people.
Well, I guess that the logic is that He loves us unconditionally. But I see your point, since it doesn't sound logic to nonbelievers.

Well, it was a "proof" for Thomas at least. ;)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AngelFish on May 21, 2013, 03:55:07 pm
The thing is there are so many things that we believe in, without having actual proof for it(since that would be insane work to check everything). We just trust people.

The substantial difference between that and scientific inquiry is that for the latter, you can ostensibly go back and verify everything down to axioms if you have the desire to do so. With most other human pursuits, you cannot.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ElementCoder on May 21, 2013, 03:56:36 pm
Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements.
 Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe.
Science won't call off "conflicts/disagreements". But you put clear that "Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe". Moreover, the universe created by God, according to the religion.
I made a big typo here, apologies. I meant that the discussions between science and religion tend never to end well.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: nikitouzz on May 21, 2013, 03:59:29 pm
One discussion about religions ? how make for be in accord ? :p
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ben_g on May 21, 2013, 04:01:12 pm
In science, all proof is based on what we think is true. A lot of the theories in science either have their proof based on other theories, or just seem to 'work' in formulas, but aren't fully proven. When you look at it that way, you can see science as a religion, in which you have to believe in the not (fully) proven theories, and in the mathematics that connects and 'proves' those theories.
Science is the religion for people who want evidence. For those who want to know the math behind everything, to be able to predict what is going to happen in certain scenarios.
Believing in one or multiple gods/godesses is the religion for those who don't need to know how everything works. It's for the people who want to see the spiritual parts of life, which is a thing science has no answers for.
And when it comes to explaining our existance, both are pretty much a tie. Anyone who believes in a god can tell you how his god created the world with everything that lives on it, just like any scientist can tell you abouth how the big bang created our universe, to which earth belongs. But ask a religious person what everything looked like before there was a god, and how the god was created, they won't be able to give a good answer. Just like scientists can't tell you what everythink looked like before the big bang, or what triggered the big bang.
Probably the main difference between science and religion is that science has some applications in our current lives, while religion is often mostly based on the afterlife.
A very important question that you might want to ask yourself is: What are you looking for: the spiritual part of life, or the mathematics behind life?

But it doesn't mather whether you put your faith in religion or in science. Let's just all try to be good people.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 21, 2013, 04:03:23 pm
One discussion about religions ? how make for be in accord ? :p
Most likely we won't. But it is better to try, than to give up when there is a chance.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 21, 2013, 04:09:26 pm
In science, all proof is based on what we think is true. A lot of the theories in science either have their proof based on other theories, or just seem to 'work' in formulas, but aren't fully proven. When you look at it that way, you can see science as a religion, in which you have to believe in the not (fully) proven theories, and in the mathematics that connects and 'proves' those theories.
Nope, simply because religions and sciences are not in contradiction. Sciences and religions are not at all the same thing.

how the god was created, they won't be able to give a good answer."
because God wasn't created as I said. :p

Probably the main difference between science and religion is that science has some applications in our current lives, while religion is often mostly based on the afterlife.
Religion is not only based on the afterlife. It does have applications on the present.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ben_g on May 21, 2013, 04:38:59 pm
In science, all proof is based on what we think is true. A lot of the theories in science either have their proof based on other theories, or just seem to 'work' in formulas, but aren't fully proven. When you look at it that way, you can see science as a religion, in which you have to believe in the not (fully) proven theories, and in the mathematics that connects and 'proves' those theories.
Nope, simply because religions and sciences are not in contradiction. Sciences and religions are not at all the same thing.
I know science and religion aren't the same thing. Science is very wide, but I was mainly referring to the part that tries to explain how our world was created (theories around the big bang) and how humans were created (theorie of evolution).
Abouth the other parts of science, I think most of us agree that if you drop a ball it gets pulled down by gravity, and that birds can fly because of the shape of their wings.

Probably the main difference between science and religion is that science has some applications in our current lives, while religion is often mostly based on the afterlife.
Religion is not only based on the afterlife. It does have applications on the present.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't really think of an application of religion in our present lives. But religion is at least partially directed at the afterlife, while science stops at death.

Personally, I believe in science. I believe that the big bang created the universe, and that humans evolved from other live forms. It just seems the most logical to me. And what has triggered the big bang? We'll never know. It's one of the mysteries of life, a gap that science will never be able to fill.
The idea that a god creates everything feels more like moving the problem. The fact that you just have to believe that He always existed, and that he is a creature so advanced that he can create everything doensn't sound logical to me, but I guess the big bang doesn't sound logical to a religious person either.
I find it easier to believe that an explosion suddenly started to exist than that a creature so advanced as a god suddenly started to exist and createdeverything. But it all comes to your point of view. There is now way to prove for the other parties that you are correct. Because there are hundreds of religions (let's just count science as one for now), the chance that you are fully correct is very small. That is why we should respect anyone who shooses an other religion as you.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 21, 2013, 04:52:12 pm
I'm sorry, but I couldn't really think of an application of religion in our present lives.
One of many examples : christian's religion says to love our neighbours. And you can also think about La croix rouge.

But religion is at least partially directed at the afterlife, while science stops at death.
I agree on this point.

Personally, I believe in science. I believe that the big bang created the universe, and that humans evolved from other live forms. It just seems the most logical to me. And what has triggered the big bang? We'll never know. It's one of the mysteries of life, a gap that science will never be able to fill.
The idea that a god creates everything feels more like moving the problem. The fact that you just have to believe that He always existed, and that he is a creature so advanced that he can create everything doensn't sound logical to me, but I guess the big bang doesn't sound logical to a religious person either.
I find it easier to believe that an explosion suddenly started to exist than that a creature so advanced as a god suddenly started to exist and createdeverything. But it all comes to your point of view. There is now way to prove for the other parties that you are correct. Because there are hundreds of religions (let's just count science as one for now), the chance that you are fully correct is very small. That is why we should respect anyone who shooses an other religion as you.
It does not mean anything to "believe in science". Science isn't a religion. You can believe in God and pratice science, there's no problem for that.
When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine. Another point: believing in God is not like loto to play for chance.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: flyingfisch on May 21, 2013, 05:10:23 pm
Also, just a note. Science and Religion are compatible, and Religion supports science, whether you think so or not.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: epic7 on May 21, 2013, 05:16:55 pm
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.

I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.

Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.

Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on May 21, 2013, 05:30:45 pm
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.

I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.

Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.

Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion

Thank you kind sir, my opinion exactly!
Title: Re: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TheNlightenedOne on May 21, 2013, 05:36:33 pm
Just popping in the topic for a second, God and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on May 21, 2013, 05:38:02 pm
Just popping in the topic for a second, God and science aren't mutually exclusive.

That does not mean "!if(science) {god}", though, which is a common argument.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Ki1o on May 21, 2013, 08:07:04 pm
I saw this thread and I knew I had to jump in.
I have an intersting relligious development in my 16 years of life.  When I was a wee little lad, my brother and I used to blame all the bad things on "God and Jesus".  We used to say it was all their fault.  As we grew older we went through a super religious phase.  Now that I'm older, I am agnostic, not atheist, but agnostic.  I find the concept of religion to be annoying, but Chrisitanity by far really upsets me.  As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false.  They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks.  Zero tolerance...
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.

Religion in general, however, is silly.  We use it like myths to explain things we really can't.  We use it only when it suits us and when we feel like we need something to make us feel better.  Also, I feel that all religions are false.  They have no truth in them at all.  My opinion on death might seem... strange, however.  To me death is death.  I do not fear death because its not like after you die you're gonna be all upset that you're dead right? (Yeah that's pretty bad...)  It just happens, there's no afterlife just an end.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Sorunome on May 21, 2013, 08:11:11 pm
You could think of 'god' being coincidence, that's how I sometimes see it, it's all just by chance, and then there's still 'god', i mean, nowhere it sais that god is human, right?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: epic7 on May 21, 2013, 09:00:40 pm
Just because our human minds cannot understand the existence of God does not mean he does not exist.

This isn't really an argument.
It might not necessarily mean that he doesn't exist, but it certainly doesn't mean he does exist.

Somehow believing in no God is a religion too, since you have no proof he doesn't exist. (Although evolution is an attempt).

Not really.
Similar to what I said above, if you can't prove he doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that he automatically does.

What if I say that there is an invisible pegasus in my closet.
You can't prove that there isn't one in my closet, but you probably still don't believe me.


Also, it seems that religious people tend to generate excuses to dismissively get rid of any challenges. For example
"How was God created?"
"He wasn't. End of story."
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: flyingfisch on May 21, 2013, 09:09:26 pm
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.

I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.

Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.

Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion

There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence for creation and God, which isn't fake, and has not been proven to be something else.

Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on May 21, 2013, 09:11:43 pm
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.

I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.

Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.

Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion

There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence for creation and God, which isn't fake, and has not been proven to be something else.

Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.

So you're telling me that fossil, geological, and DNA are wrong?

And the Islamic and Jewish God are not evil in their respective books.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: epic7 on May 21, 2013, 09:20:29 pm
There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence for creation and God, which isn't fake, and has not been proven to be something else.

Quite the opposite. If there was no evidence for evolution, scientists wouldn't believe it. But there is, and that's why nearly every scientist accepts it.

I haven't seen any evidence for God that has really surprised me.

Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
"It must be a Christian god, because the God must be all-good and all merciful."
(Ignoring the enormous amount of suffering and misery in this world)
So does that mean every other religion believes that their god is evil?

(edit: somewhat ninja'd :P)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 21, 2013, 10:23:44 pm
Not every religion, the Christian, Jewish and I think Muslim God are all the same. I believe the Jews have the same view of god as Christians do, although I cant speak for Muslims as I don't know much about them. The only major difference is how they worship, what they believe about Jesus, and Christians believe in the trinity.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Juju on May 21, 2013, 10:39:32 pm
Well, yeah, Jesus was Jewish, and Christianity started off after Jesus' death as a Jewish sect, then with councils in the 3-4th century it became a full-blown religion.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on May 21, 2013, 11:55:29 pm
There are a few things I've been wondering about religion, particularly Christianity:
Have different old/new testaments been created for Protestant religion than Catholic, as well as other derivatives of Christianity?
Else, are they identical and what about other religions based on Christianity, like Jehovah's Wisdoms?

God created everything... What about the TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition? Since God has supposedly created "everything", this would imply that he created every calculator too, right?
Also, does this includes people's thoughts, religion debates, states of mind and ways of expressing ourselves, such as acrostics?
Moreover, has God created science (well, the fact that it works) or even every other religion too?
Ending this with saying that if God has really created everything I mentioned above, then I can't imagine how our universe would look like if he made division by zero possible... O.O
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 22, 2013, 12:31:12 am
The bible is the same, at least among Catholics and Protestants. The main difference between Catholics and Protestants, at least from what I have observed, is that Catholics believe that the pope is our spiritual guide and that we can go to heaven not on faith alone but also with good works, and Protestants believe you can get to heaven on faith alone and that everything is only between you and God and that there shouldn't be a middle man.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on May 22, 2013, 03:53:26 am
Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.
That's all it will be anyway - potentially interesting thoughts. None of it can be verified.

The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.
He couldn't appear because according to the religious, He's the inventor of the time. So He was "always" here.
And you're theory isn't really interesting because it's impossible. A think can't create itself, since it has to already exist to do so.
That sort of reasoning applies only to normal things. Why should gods care about a little problem like causality? They violate the rules anyway. Might as well violate one more.
Time travel would be a potential mechanism for it - go back in time to before you existed, then create yourself. How do you even get into that "loop"? Whether you can do that, and how, depend on how time travel would work. For example if you have alternate time lines, perhaps it would work such that every possible time line has to exist, for some definition of possible. That could mean there are time lines where deities create themselves, depending on the definition of possible. These time lines could perhaps be purely circular.
Impossible? Of course. But still interesting. Lots of impossible things are interesting.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 22, 2013, 03:58:44 am
There are a few things I've been wondering about religion, particularly Christianity:
Have different old/new testaments been created for Protestant religion than Catholic, as well as other derivatives of Christianity?
Else, are they identical and what about other religions based on Christianity, like Jehovah's Wisdoms?

God created everything... What about the TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition? Since God has supposedly created "everything", this would imply that he created every calculator too, right?
Also, does this includes people's thoughts, religion debates, states of mind and ways of expressing ourselves, such as acrostics?
Moreover, has God created science (well, the fact that it works) or even every other religion too?
Ending this with saying that if God has really created everything I mentioned above, then I can't imagine how our universe would look like if he made division by zero possible... O.O
Well, God created man, and man creates stuff. So in that sense He created everything. When saying He created everything, I think the natural stuff I mostly meant though.
God created choice, so that man wouldn't be under forced controll, but choose for God and good out of free will. That is also the reason why God allows bad stuff, since else people's their choices wouldn't be really free choice.
Everything happens for a reason, even if it just that a single person will repent later, or that their will be evidence against someone in the afterlife(judgement day).

Jehovah Witnesses are false imo, since they base themselves "so-cald" on the Bible, but yet don't believe in a Hell, which somehow doesn't make sense. Because not existing isn't really a punishment is it. It may even be seen as a relief to some.
There are other things, but I'm not going to start a whole thing.

There is a big thing between Islam and Christianity, and I would not combine the two.
Islam is supposed to come after the Bible, basically an add-on book, if I'm not mistaken. However, it just doesn't seem to fit. Also Mohammed's life doesn't help much either.(For example: I read that he had no problem with rape and did it himself).

Also, I get the impression that sometimes people think that because something happens in the Bible(murder, hate, immorality, rape, etc..) that it's allowed. The Bible is very clear about that.

Jesus summed all the rules into one, saying that the other laws are based on this one: Love God with all your might, with all heart and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Some rules however, may not seem very clear, but further investigation in the Bible explains a lot.
If you love your God you will keep his commandments.

All though it isn't scientific evidence, the perfectness in our world shouts for a God and I think that that is the only proof you will really get, but don't say you have an excuse.
The moon an sun are far away from each other, yet they are seen to be almost exactly the same size down here. The moon lights up the night, and the sun the day. The moon is/was a giant shield against meteor storms and stuff, protecting the earth. The plants are perfect, and beautiful. The wind , the cllouds, the earth, the humans, the animals, the universe it all shouts it out.

That is why I believe. Random chance is not going to make such a perfect circle, and if so the estimated time of the earth is WAY too short.


Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on May 22, 2013, 07:50:10 am
Also, it seems that religious people tend to generate excuses to dismissively get rid of any challenges. For example
"How was God created?"
"He wasn't. End of story."
I actually find that to be a rather neat argument. Like harold said earlier, it is definitely interesting to think about something that is seemingly impossible (like something creating itself). At the least, it is a really creative exercise in logic, and at best, you might be shocked to learn that it is completely possible (this is how some scientific theories were stumbled upon, I believe).

So what if something "created itself?" What limitations would it have? I would posit that it wouldn't be restricted. It could be something simple, unthinking, or it could be something all powerful. This is not at all proof of a God-- this would be like saying, "if wizards existed, they could perform magic, so therefor magic must exist" without proving that wizards exist. However, for somebody that believes in a god or gods, this might serve as a plausible explanation. For the rest, this is just a fun exercise :)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on May 22, 2013, 08:05:34 am
Also, it seems that religious people tend to generate excuses to dismissively get rid of any challenges. For example
"How was God created?"
"He wasn't. End of story."
I actually find that to be a rather neat argument. Like harold said earlier, it is definitely interesting to think about something that is seemingly impossible (like something creating itself). At the least, it is a really creative exercise in logic, and at best, you might be shocked to learn that it is completely possible (this is how some scientific theories were stumbled upon, I believe).

So what if something "created itself?" What limitations would it have? I would posit that it wouldn't be restricted. It could be something simple, unthinking, or it could be something all powerful. This is not at all proof of a God-- this would be like saying, "if wizards existed, they could perform magic, so therefor magic must exist" without proving that wizards exist. However, for somebody that believes in a god or gods, this might serve as a plausible explanation. For the rest, this is just a fun exercise :)
Ok. So then this can be said:
"How was the world created?"
"It wasn't. End of story."
No need for God then.

Note: I am still not saying "don't believe in God", you believe in anything you want. I just say that God is a possibility but only a possibility among others, maybe there is a God, maybe not, maybe there are two Gods, I don't know :P

useless edit 2048 posts and 256 post ratings :P
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on May 22, 2013, 08:16:13 am
When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine.
This is quite strange to me when a page or two back you said:
Quote from: mdr1
God lives forever and fromever, that's all. There's no origin to his life. He invented time, so you can't apply to him this notion.

These two statements seem contradictory to me. You say that God has no origin and has always existed. Yet you state that the big bang could not simply have just happened, nor could it have created itself. You also say that everything must have an origin. Why is it acceptable for one thing but not the other?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on May 22, 2013, 08:37:29 am
Ok. So then this can be said:
"How was the world created?"
"It wasn't. End of story."
No need for God then.

Note: I am still not saying "don't believe in God", you believe in anything you want. I just say that God is a possibility but only a possibility among others, maybe there is a God, maybe not, maybe there are two Gods, I don't know :P
That is right, and that is why I stated:
This is not at all proof of a God-- this would be like saying, "if wizards existed, they could perform magic, so therefor magic must exist" without proving that wizards exist.
:P
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on May 22, 2013, 08:42:09 am
Ok. So then this can be said:
"How was the world created?"
"It wasn't. End of story."
No need for God then.

Note: I am still not saying "don't believe in God", you believe in anything you want. I just say that God is a possibility but only a possibility among others, maybe there is a God, maybe not, maybe there are two Gods, I don't know :P
That is right, and that is why I stated:
This is not at all proof of a God-- this would be like saying, "if wizards existed, they could perform magic, so therefor magic must exist" without proving that wizards exist.
:P
Oops, sorry, I have some problems getting all the sentences in topics that are not about everyday life things since English is not my primary language. I just get the main idea of every post but I sometimes miss one sentence or two :P
Also, strangely enough, calculators are now in the "everyday life things" category :P
(but this is getting off-topic :P)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: flyingfisch on May 22, 2013, 09:09:06 am
I'd just like to congratulate everyone on getting to 5 pages without a flame war. :)

I think this prove we really can have a religious debate without going off the deep end.

Also, if this thread does start to develop into a flame war, could the offending posts be removed instead of locking the whole topic?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on May 22, 2013, 09:11:31 am
We did get trolling before page 5, though, but again only two people noticed it on page 4 after I gave hints on OmnomIRC. :P

But yeah I agree that offending posts should be removed (although not deleted, just moved to a separate, locked thread in spam, maybe merged with other religion debates there)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on May 22, 2013, 09:13:27 am
I'd just like to congratulate everyone on getting to 5 pages without a flame war. :)

I think this prove we really can have a religious debate without going off the deep end.
True this. I think the main reason for that is that for once the debate is in its own topic and not derailing another one, which already upsets the topic starter but also pushes people to try to convince everyone quickly to end the off topic as soon as possible, which obviously doesn't lead to a calm discussion :)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 22, 2013, 09:47:55 am
Well, to me it seems illogic to think that the world had no origin and was always there.
A God is a lot more plausible to me, since He doesn't have to bend to the rules of physics and therefore also doesn't have to be created.
(Imagine a programmer making an AI on his calculator :P)

The thing is, it's so obvious to me that there's a BRAIN behind almost everything. And when you look at it that way, start reading the Bible it all starts making a LOT OF sense.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 22, 2013, 10:34:37 am
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.
See my answer:
Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.


I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.
Religions are also confirmed in the time. The real difference between science and religions is that sciences are practiced with the brain, and religions with the heart.

Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.

Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion
Ok, the need of everything to be caused isn't an argument for saying that God exists, and then? Moreover, religion doesn't fill a gap left by science since their domains are not the same at all. Even if God existed, we could explain all with science. Science says how, religions say why.

As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false.  They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks.  Zero tolerance...
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.
It is a real generalization. And I don't know where you find your statistics, but it is completely false. Catholics really respect other religions. And when you speak about "They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks", I think you're confounding christians with some sects that use bible to have some credibility.

Religion in general, however, is silly.
>:(

We use it like myths to explain things we really can't.  We use it only when it suits us and when we feel like we need something to make us feel better.
See my answer upon about "things we can't explain". And maybe you need yourself something to feel better, when you couldn't accept that a superior being could exist. ;) So it is not an argument.


When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine.
This is quite strange to me when a page or two back you said:
Quote from: mdr1
God lives forever and fromever, that's all. There's no origin to his life. He invented time, so you can't apply to him this notion.

These two statements seem contradictory to me. You say that God has no origin and has always existed. Yet you state that the big bang could not simply have just happened, nor could it have created itself. You also say that everything must have an origin. Why is it acceptable for one thing but not the other?
Those two statements are not contradicory: it is true that big bang must have an origin because it is in time and it has a beginning. God doesn't have beginning. So he doesn't have origin.


I noticed a new point emerging to this debate: a thing could create itself, magic could take place on the reasons of the world etc. I don't think that saying that is really interesting: maybe those things could be said on the topic My existencial Phylosophy (http://ourl.ca/18910/347961) where we can doubt everything:

Are you saying that to convince us that you do exist ? How could we trust in you because you say that you could believe that we don't exist ?

Moreover, how can you be sure that you really exist ? Isn't it an illusion ? As a case in point, AI in computer games have the illusion that they exist, but it is not true.

But here, if we start to doubt everything, we cannot debate more.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on May 22, 2013, 11:05:18 am
I'd just like to congratulate everyone on getting to 5 pages without a flame war. :)

I think this prove we really can have a religious debate without going off the deep end.

Also, if this thread does start to develop into a flame war, could the offending posts be removed instead of locking the whole topic?
What's more is that we have done this even with a language barrier o.o
Being on Omnimaga is awesome like that because you have to actively try to understand others, keeping in mind that there is a high chance that the other person probably comes from a different  culture, different language, different religion, and different calculator and programming language preference >.>
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on May 22, 2013, 12:34:25 pm
I'll have to do a huge, tl;dr on this (though I'll certainly read through the topic once I have time)

But I have a few things I have with religion.

This one is more geared towards the abrahamic religions, but it's something to do with the concept of Heaven as a paradise. Everyone has their own version of what is paradise in their heads. A kind of ultimate universe where everything is perfect.
 Emotion such as happiness and sadness, etc, stem from physical reality either moving towards or away from this paradise, as we perceive it. The largest flaw with the concept of Heaven, is that you actually reach this paradise. Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.

There's also a few things I have with the idea of intelligent design. If nothing existed before God, and God created everything, what was God's reason/motivation to create anything and what was His point of reference for creation? Because nothing existed, there would be nothing that could cause God to begin His creation. Conventional concepts such as boredom and discontent would not exist because there counterparts such as excitement would not exist either because there was nothing that could elicit such emotion.

Now this net one as rather little to do with religion, but is more my ideas on what a soul is. I believe a soul is a construction who's existence lies in higher dimensionality. It is created, but not by any God. More being's whose role it is to create souls. I believe a soul is comprised of many parts, only one of which is "immortal." That would be the "observer" part, or the actual art of the soul that experiences. Now, here's the thing with that, when created a soul is a blank slate. It could become anything, anyone. There's a problem with that, every soul would be too similar to eachother. In higher planes, your perspective would be vastly greater than in lower. Souls wouldn't "specialize" because of that, as in that setting since by and large, they would perceive the same things in the same way. And when your perspective is much greater like that, you wouldn't learn as much and change from it. The solution? Bind the soul to a lower plane temporarily so it can change from other souls and form different conclusions and ideas from them.  In other words, life. All that life is then, is a learning phase. And this makes sense for it to be so when you consider that the majority of our existence (provided there is an afterlife) in death.

Woo, finally got a place to write that all down :P
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 22, 2013, 01:07:34 pm
I saw this thread and I knew I had to jump in.
I have an intersting relligious development in my 16 years of life.  When I was a wee little lad, my brother and I used to blame all the bad things on "God and Jesus".  We used to say it was all their fault.  As we grew older we went through a super religious phase.  Now that I'm older, I am agnostic, not atheist, but agnostic.  I find the concept of religion to be annoying, but Chrisitanity by far really upsets me.  As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false.  They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks.  Zero tolerance...
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.

Religion in general, however, is silly.  We use it like myths to explain things we really can't.  We use it only when it suits us and when we feel like we need something to make us feel better.  Also, I feel that all religions are false.  They have no truth in them at all.  My opinion on death might seem... strange, however.  To me death is death.  I do not fear death because its not like after you die you're gonna be all upset that you're dead right? (Yeah that's pretty bad...)  It just happens, there's no afterlife just an end.

This is very incorrect...
The only Christians that say that their faith is the only one that goes to heaven are the people that probably attend a church similar to the Westborough Baptist Church. For example I am Catholic, and I have heared, in more than one serman, that if you are a good person and believe in God you probably will go to heaven. Catholics have had good relations with Jews for years and I think we are also trying to improve relations with Muslims. Also when it comes to tolerance, the first colony in America to allow religious freedom, as in actual religious freedom, was the Catholic colony at Baltimore. As far as I know most Christians are very tolerant, so are Jews and Muslims.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 22, 2013, 02:01:16 pm
Everyone has their own version of what is paradise in their heads.
Some people don't have a version of paradise for one of the following reasons:

Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.
And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.

There's also a few things I have with the idea of intelligent design. If nothing existed before God, and God created everything, what was God's reason/motivation to create anything and what was His point of reference for creation? Because nothing existed, there would be nothing that could cause God to begin His creation. Conventional concepts such as boredom and discontent would not exist because there counterparts such as excitement would not exist either because there was nothing that could elicit such emotion.
What motivation? God doesn't need humans. But His infinite love created us. Though for humans it is really hard to understand that. When you talk about the beginning of creation, such concept doesn't exist because there was no time before.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ElementCoder on May 22, 2013, 02:21:18 pm

Personally, I believe in science. I believe that the big bang created the universe, and that humans evolved from other live forms. It just seems the most logical to me. And what has triggered the big bang? We'll never know. It's one of the mysteries of life, a gap that science will never be able to fill.
The idea that a god creates everything feels more like moving the problem. The fact that you just have to believe that He always existed, and that he is a creature so advanced that he can create everything doensn't sound logical to me, but I guess the big bang doesn't sound logical to a religious person either.
I find it easier to believe that an explosion suddenly started to exist than that a creature so advanced as a god suddenly started to exist and createdeverything. But it all comes to your point of view. There is now way to prove for the other parties that you are correct. Because there are hundreds of religions (let's just count science as one for now), the chance that you are fully correct is very small. That is why we should respect anyone who shooses an other religion as you.
It does not mean anything to "believe in science". Science isn't a religion. You can believe in God and pratice science, there's no problem for that.
When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine. Another point: believing in God is not like loto to play for chance.
Ok, this is pretty ridiculous statement imo. Just because something isn't a religion doesn't mean you can't believe in it. I can just as easily say that religion is ridiculous because there is no evidence for (the need of) a deity. For this point, I take my stand with what ben_g posted earlier in the thread.

It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine. Another point: believing in God is not like loto to play for chance.
Yet you still claim that God didn't have an origin and just was there all the time. That sounds a bit contradictionary.

There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence for creation and God, which isn't fake, and has not been proven to be something else.
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
The so called 'evidence' for a god isn't exactly trustable either and often is contradictionary too much more than evolution sometimes is(discussed somewhere earlier in the thread). Why does this deity or super natural being have to irrevocably be a christian god? I think this is where religion comes short in some places. It is ok to believe in different things, but most of the time when you ask if two gods can be the same yet in a different form, it's out of the game and the other party is being silly.

Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.
And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.
Don't you think that's a little false argumentation?

I think the main problem is that over time science and religion got separated. Churches and other societies didn't like what they saw being discovered, so they rejected it, marked it as heresy. This has carried on for so long, that people now can't think differently anymore. This leads to conflicts. If the world can't change its mind into something that accepts that both can be there, it will not turn out good for either side.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on May 22, 2013, 02:33:56 pm
@mdr1: The point I was trying to make was that you said everything must have an origin. I was wondering with you making that statement how you could choose to exclude god in that. If you think about it, It's possible that the conditions required for the big bang and the forces behind the big bang always existed. When the universe was created, something caused those conditions to occur. Just as in Christian faith, something had to cause god to create the universe.

In regards to time, Id say it's just a unit of measurement just like anything else. You could say existence of some sort has always been (if that is how you choose to believe).
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AngelFish on May 22, 2013, 02:37:58 pm
A God is a lot more plausible to me, since He doesn't have to bend to the rules of physics and therefore also doesn't have to be created.

That's a distinctly unsatisfying answer from my point of view. It reduces the notion of divinity god to little more than magic simply for the sake of primordial causation.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: merthsoft on May 22, 2013, 02:42:48 pm
There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it).
This is just incredibly factually inaccurate. The evidence for evolution is actually overwhelming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis)
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)
The theory is certainly changing as time goes on, but the evidence keeps piling up. At this point not 'believing' in evolution is about as defensible of a position as not 'believing' in gravity. And a belief and evolution and a Christian God are certainly not mutually exclusive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution)
The Catholics certainly don't have any problems with it, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church)
It seems, at the very least, that a discussion about evolution is mostly out of place in a discussion on religion.

Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
You should read about Deism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism)
You can most certainly have a deity that isn't the Christian God (hell, look at every other theistic religion). Event if there being a god means that is was to be omnipotent, all-merciful, and all-good, that still doesn't mean it has to be the Christian god--it could be another god that fits those qualities, and maybe no religion has even yet described it.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on May 22, 2013, 02:50:49 pm
Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.
And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.
And what if there is no paradise ? Even more problems disappear :P

Sorry for not answering anything in any of my posts here and adding questions, but I prefer remaining with questions rather than inventing answers to fit the question. Just imagine you at an exam, we ask you "prove this" and you say "it is true because there must be a God that wants it" or something like that.

And as merthsoft said, ok, there might be a God or more, there might be a paradise or more, but heck, we are just at the "there might be" point, where those "there might be" are described by existing religions and "there might be" other possibilities that we haven't taken in account yet, and maybe the truth is among them.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 22, 2013, 02:53:12 pm
Why must something cause God to do something? He doesn't live in this world. He must not bend to it's limits which he put there.
He also made our brain, and how we think. God doesn't want to be so clear(I am who I am).

@ElementCoder, it may SOUND contradictory, but it isn't really(see this post: http://ourl.ca/18961/348822)

Why the Christian God? Because the Bible is infallible. This may seem like quite a statement, but if you investigate and get the true untranslated scripts, it really is.

As the mystery of God himself, Heaven is one too. The God who created happiness can change anything so you WILL be happy forever.
Also Adam and Eve first lived in a Paradise, where there was nothing bad. It didn't seem like they were bored or disappointed really. However, "someone" deceived them...

@MethSoft: I'm pretty sure I can find overwhelming(which I actually have found) evidence against it. I do not deny that there is micro-evolution. But a new species? No, I don't believe it.

Science can be mistaken, and has already been.
I am not a catholic, and it doesn't make that if someone important in a certain religion says evolution is acceptable that all will believe it.

Also as far as I know nobody has ever seen evolution take place.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on May 22, 2013, 03:03:24 pm
Why must something cause God to do something? He doesn't live in this world. He must not bend to it's limits which he put there.
He also made our brain, and how we think. God doesn't want to be so clear(I am who I am).

Because if there was no reason for god to create the universe then the universe as we know it and everything in it has no purpose and simply exists for the sake of existing.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ben_g on May 22, 2013, 03:04:46 pm
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
Why can't anything good come from an evil creator? Didn't God create everything, so evil as well? And if evil can come from a good creator, why won't an evil creator be able to create something good?
EDIT: don't understand this statement wrong. I'm not trying to prove that God is evil. I'm just asking a question.

Also as far as I know nobody has ever seen evolution take place.
And as far as I know, nobody has ever seen God create a species. But nobody having seen it take place doesn't nessicarely mean it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: flyingfisch on May 22, 2013, 03:08:51 pm
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
Why can't anything good come from an evil creator? Didn't God create everything, so evil as well? And if evil can come from a good creator, why won't an evil creator be able to create something good?

God did not create evil, he allowed it.

God doesn't want to be so clear(I am who I am).

Just to correct a typo, its "I am who am.", which has a much deeper meaning. ;)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 22, 2013, 03:10:48 pm
Why must something cause God to do something? He doesn't live in this world. He must not bend to it's limits which he put there.
He also made our brain, and how we think. God doesn't want to be so clear(I am who I am).

Because if there was no reason for god to create the universe then the universe as we know it and everything in it has no purpose and simply exists for the sake of existing.
I believe God created us so we could give Him praise and show His glory. By making us He shows how great He is. He is the definition of good.

Ben_G, evil? Everything I read a bout God is that He is just, good, loving. And with this love belongs choice. Choice that means evil too.
Evil is only there because people choose for THEMSELVES instead of choosing for God.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on May 22, 2013, 03:15:15 pm
Everyone has their own version of what is paradise in their heads.
Some people don't have a version of paradise for one of the following reasons:
  • They believe there's no paradise.
  • They trust God and obey him to do good without thinking about a reward.

Often times this paradise is a subconscious thing. You may not be aware of it, but you still have an idea somewhere in your mind of what a perfect Universe is. If you didn't, you would not have any opinion on what is good and what is bad. What makes you happy or sad. You would be completely neutral in all things if you didn't have one at all with no emotion whatsoever. This particular version of paradise I call the "Irrational" paradise, since your mind does not take into account the limits of reality when forming it.

Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.
And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.

If there was no time, there would be nothing to experience. It would create a similar effect because emotions stem from change in reality. No time would mean no change.

There's also a few things I have with the idea of intelligent design. If nothing existed before God, and God created everything, what was God's reason/motivation to create anything and what was His point of reference for creation? Because nothing existed, there would be nothing that could cause God to begin His creation. Conventional concepts such as boredom and discontent would not exist because there counterparts such as excitement would not exist either because there was nothing that could elicit such emotion.
What motivation? God doesn't need humans. But His infinite love created us. Though for humans it is really hard to understand that. When you talk about the beginning of creation, such concept doesn't exist because there was no time before.

We exist in a Universe which goes by the concept of causality. That is, cause and effect. Everything within our Universe falls under this simple rule. That means that there must have been something to cause God to create. And something to cause God to create everything the exact way it is now. Nothing ever arises from nothing. Every action there is always a reason and cause behind, no matter how logical or irrational.

Now, this is not the case if God exists in a Universe outside ours with a different ruleset. But when we are looking at different Universes, there are infinite Gods to be had anyways. If it is the case that God exists outside our Universe, we can still say that within ours, He doesn't exist, though actions of his might. They would still be subject to the rules of this Universe, however.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 22, 2013, 03:17:42 pm
*snip*
Now, this is not the case if God exists in a Universe outside ours with a different ruleset. But when we are looking at different Universes, there are infinite Gods to be had anyways. If it is the case that God exists outside our Universe, we can still say that within ours, He doesn't exist, though actions of his might. They would still be subject to the rules of this Universe, however.
Jesus.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on May 22, 2013, 03:19:34 pm
If what you say is true, then their was indeed a cause that prompted god to create the universe, even if it was his own narcissism(perhaps vanity is a better word here?). My point was that regardless, their had to be something to prompt the creation.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on May 22, 2013, 03:34:38 pm
*snip*
Now, this is not the case if God exists in a Universe outside ours with a different ruleset. But when we are looking at different Universes, there are infinite Gods to be had anyways. If it is the case that God exists outside our Universe, we can still say that within ours, He doesn't exist, though actions of his might. They would still be subject to the rules of this Universe, however.
Jesus.

He could have very well been a kind of avatar for God. I have my own opinions and knowledge about him that I will not be sharing here, but consider the possibility of him not being who he says he is, but instead a higher being. To the Humans of the time, he would appear to them as a God or the Son of God.

Though that is, of course, my own opinion on it and it stems from a source that I do not feel comfortable sharing. Nonetheless, that is my answer. XD
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 22, 2013, 03:37:39 pm
Iirc it never really came from Jesus's own mouth who he was. But by His works it was seen.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AngelFish on May 22, 2013, 04:05:17 pm
Also as far as I know nobody has ever seen evolution take place.

The standard response to this is that we've also never seen Pluto make a full revolution around the sun.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on May 22, 2013, 05:25:39 pm
i thought the standard response was "yes we have. it's very easy to replicate with rapidly reproducing organisms (Caenorhabditis elegans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caenorhabditis_elegans#Evolution), for example) in a lab, even to the point where the result is two separate species (incapable of reproducing to create viable offspring with the opposite group)".
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 22, 2013, 06:28:22 pm
Ok, this is pretty ridiculous statement imo. Just because something isn't a religion doesn't mean you can't believe in it.
Ok, it's a problem of vacabulary then, since english isn't my first language.

I can just as easily say that religion is ridiculous because there is no evidence for (the need of) a deity. For this point, I take my stand with what ben_g posted earlier in the thread.
>:( >:( I remind that the goal of the topic is to share our opinions without criticise other people ones. For you it could be ridiculous to believe in a God that "wouldn't be necessary", but for some other people, it could be ridiculous not to believe in a religion because then the life would not have sense and humans wouldn't be superior than mineral.

Yet you still claim that God didn't have an origin and just was there all the time. That sounds a bit contradictionary.
What is contradictionary? "All the time" is a way to say it because there's no time for God.

Don't you think that's a little false argumentation?
... ?  ???

@mdr1: The point I was trying to make was that you said everything must have an origin. I was wondering with you making that statement how you could choose to exclude god in that.
Sorry. Everything having a beginning must have an origin.

If you think about it, It's possible that the conditions required for the big bang and the forces behind the big bang always existed. When the universe was created, something caused those conditions to occur.
Those conditions required for the big-bang are an origin.

Just as in Christian faith, something had to cause god to create the universe.
Nope, God isn't in time. He invented it. So he didn't create universe "at a certain time".

And what if there is no paradise ? Even more problems disappear :P
If there was no paradise? Didn't you understand that we were talking about how it would be if it existed?

And as merthsoft said, ok, there might be a God or more, there might be a paradise or more, but heck, we are just at the "there might be" point, where those "there might be" are described by existing religions and "there might be" other possibilities that we haven't taken in account yet, and maybe the truth is among them.
There is no "there might be" here, this proposition takes place on the philosophy debate. Do you think it is only a "there might be" when you think about Jesus, about what apostles did, about marvelous lands on Earth, about the fact you are you and not only material?

I believe God created us so we could give Him praise and show His glory. By making us He shows how great He is.
I don't agree. On the creation on the bible, we can read "Et Dieu vit que cela était bon", not "Et Dieu vit qu'il était bon". Christians' God isn't an egoistic or a proud one.

@Scipi: of course no time means no change. And what the problem?

The standard response to this is that we've also never seen Pluto make a full revolution around the sun.
I agree. So let's apply this to God? :p

PS : evolution is a scientific theory, though that doesn't explain everything at the time. But it isn't contrary to or in favour of religions, so why talk about it?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: epic7 on May 22, 2013, 09:20:03 pm
Hmm... so if God has always existed and always will exist, there must be some point in time where he decided to make a universe.
So, sometime 13.7 billion years in the past, he decided to make a universe.
After that, he decided to wait until 4.6 billion years ago before creating the earth.
Then he continued to wait until 1 billion years ago, where muticellular life began.
Then, once again, he waited until 200,000 years ago to for life to evolve into homo sapiens.

So humans have not existed for pretty much 99.999% of cosmic history.
If God's goal was to create human life, then he was embarrassingly inefficient at it.

Unless someone denies that these dates are actually correct (which I assume will happen :P).

Also with humans having a soul.
So it seems like some suggest that only humans have a soul (correct me if I'm wrong)
But if that's so, that leaves a problem.
So, humans very gradually evolved into what they are now from their apelike ancestors over millions of years.
There is no dividing line between not human and human; the transition was a very gradual one. So was there some point where God decided that we were far enough evolved to start inserting (for lack of a better word) souls into us?
How would that work?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 22, 2013, 09:59:51 pm
Well, God didn't create the world in 7 days so its quite possible. God is not bound by time, so 10 billion years to us could seem like 1 day to God. Of course we will never know or be able to understand this.
When it comes to souls, perhaps we are flashed like EEPROM chips??? We will never know, if someone has died and asked him, they haven't come back yet.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: squidgetx on May 22, 2013, 11:23:25 pm
I don't believe that humans have souls.

I also don't believe that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. It seems pretty obvious to me that science is all about only believing something after you've exhaustively experimented and drawn conclusions from your work, where religion is about faithfully believing in spite of lack of evidence.

I don't think the discussion about the various powers of God are very useful. If God is actually a being that is allowed to violate casuality then there's no conceivable way to prove or disprove His existence and so the entire discussion in that respect becomes moot. As long as one believes in God's supernatural powers in this way there's no way to convince him/her otherwise since he/she will always be able to invoke God's magic powers to answer any inquiries.

I hold that while it's impossible to disprove His existence, that doesn't mean that he exists. Google Russell's teapot, flying spaghetti monster, and invisible pink unicorn.

Whoo controversy! Discuss.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 23, 2013, 12:38:47 am
All of this depends though on what you consider evidence, and that varies from person to person.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: XiiDraco on May 23, 2013, 12:47:16 am
All of this depends though on what you consider evidence, and that varies from person to person.

I agree. For me, I would consider evidence to be miracles. But that might not be the same for everyone.

When it comes to souls, perhaps we are flashed like EEPROM chips??? We will never know, if someone has died and asked him, they haven't come back yet.

Maybe the reason no one has ever come back, is because whatever is after death is so good, that you would never want to. In the bible, heaven is explained (in various places) that the roads are paved of gold, all the walls are made of glass because there is no reason to be ashamed, and there are colors humans have never even seen before. I don't know about you, but I would never want to go back.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ElementCoder on May 23, 2013, 02:38:52 am
I'm sorry if I came over somewhat harsh in my reply, I mean nothing more then to discuss so don't feel offended please :)

Personally, I think that death sadly just is the end of you. You turn to cosmic dust and the universe moves on. Even though I'd probably be happy if there was something after death, I think I'd be pretty bored if everything was always perfect. Sometimes it are the imperfect things in life that make it fun being here.
As for souls, we might as well be just a pile of molecules doing their thing. I see the soul thing a bit the same as religion. We can't explain physical things, we explain it with the doings of a deity. We can't explain our mind yet, we explain it with a soul. For the time being it comforts people, having an exlanation until a 'true' explanation appears, whatever that may mean to you. Perhaps you find the soul the true explanation, perhaps not.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: aeTIos on May 23, 2013, 02:44:36 am
I would like to throw in a very awesome saying I leant today:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Goes for both the existence of God and evolution.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: JustCause on May 23, 2013, 03:38:45 am
I would like to throw in a very awesome saying I leant today:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Goes for both the existence of God and evolution.
With that said, there is a neat thing called burden of proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof).

Personally, I'll always be of the opinion that as long as your belief doesn't hurt others, believe whatever you want if you think it makes you a better person. Nobody should feel entitled to dictate someone else's beliefs, and that goes for both sides.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 23, 2013, 04:02:51 am
@Mdr1, I may have used the wrong wording. This post explains it quite well: http://bible.org/question/what-purpose-did-god-create-world

@ElementCoder, I'm sure the God who created boredom, or any other annoying emotion can take it all away and perhaps replace it with a better one.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on May 23, 2013, 07:55:43 am
For those that talk about time, think of Conway's Game of Life and us as the programmer. Of course it would be easy to just draw whatever it is that we want, but letting a simple ruleset play itself out is kind of fun. The neat part is that for us, a million iterations might take a long-ish time, but is not even a second in The Game's time.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on May 23, 2013, 08:40:29 am
Iirc it never really came from Jesus's own mouth who he was. But by His works it was seen.

I'm pretty sure it did(in the bible) some believed him, but many people didn't .
Quote from: mdr1
Sorry. Everything having a beginning must have an origin.
Ok, fair enough.

Just as in Christian faith, something had to cause god to create the universe.
Quote from: mdr1
Nope, God isn't in time. He invented it. So he didn't create universe "at a certain time".

That's not really what I was saying, but I'll respond. The universe as we know it came into existence at some point(if you believe in intelligent design or the big bang). So I guess you could say at that point time began. A decision had to be made, other wise we would have no universe (again this is if you believe in intelligent design).

Quote from: mdr1
There is no "there might be" here, this proposition takes place on the philosophy debate. Do you think it is only a "there might be" when you think about Jesus, about what apostles did, about marvelous lands on Earth, about the fact you are you and not only material?

I'm not sure where you are going with Jesus and his apostles.

As best I can tell the Earth exists and is how we observe it to be. I myself exist and am a living thinking being as far as I can tell. However, if I accept these as possible out comes I also have to consider the fact that perhaps I am wrong. I also have to consider: Perhaps the earth does not exist and neither do I. Perhaps the earth exists and so do I, but I interpret them differently from what they actually are in reality because I lack the proper sensory input to observe reality as it actually is.

Well, God didn't create the world in 7 days so its quite possible. God is not bound by time, so 10 billion years to us could seem like 1 day to God. Of course we will never know or be able to understand this.
When it comes to souls, perhaps we are flashed like EEPROM chips??? We will never know, if someone has died and asked him, they haven't come back yet.

You're right. According to Genesis, god created not only the world, but everything in 6 days. On the seventh day he rested and saw that it was good. Regardless of whether or not you believe gods existence to be infinite or not, 6 days is pretty clear. This suggest that the act of god creating the universe began time and his work took a measure of six days. Even if a being exists outside of the existence of the universe as we know it I find it extremely difficult to believe the that being would not be able to grasp a concept like the measure of time, and that furthermore it would be reported incorrectly.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 23, 2013, 09:15:39 am
I may have been wrong indeed that Jesus not saying He was the son of God.
However, He wasn't really shouting it about.
This was also Jesus's cause to be hanged : Luke 22:70

2 Peter 3:8–9 :"‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Just showing that is says that way in the Bible.

Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 23, 2013, 10:22:58 am

Well, God didn't create the world in 7 days so its quite possible. God is not bound by time, so 10 billion years to us could seem like 1 day to God. Of course we will never know or be able to understand this.
When it comes to souls, perhaps we are flashed like EEPROM chips??? We will never know, if someone has died and asked him, they haven't come back yet.

You're right. According to Genesis, god created not only the world, but everything in 6 days. On the seventh day he rested and saw that it was good. Regardless of whether or not you believe gods existence to be infinite or not, 6 days is pretty clear. This suggest that the act of god creating the universe began time and his work took a measure of six days. Even if a being exists outside of the existence of the universe as we know it I find it extremely difficult to believe the that being would not be able to grasp a concept like the measure of time, and that furthermore it would be reported incorrectly.

What I meant was that the people who wrote genesis put the story of how we were created into 6 days so that people would be able to have a grasp of it since 6 days is basically a work week.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TheNlightenedOne on May 23, 2013, 03:15:59 pm
IIRC, there are two creation stories in Genesis. Thus, why said creation stories are not meant to be taken completely literally.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Ki1o on May 23, 2013, 04:21:45 pm
As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false.  They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks.  Zero tolerance...
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.
It is a real generalization. And I don't know where you find your statistics, but it is completely false. Catholics really respect other religions. And when you speak about "They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks", I think you're confounding christians with some sects that use bible to have some credibility.
First off, forgive me if I seem offensive in any way.  I hope that doesn't make you hate me or anything.  With that being said, I think, and maybe it may be due to the fact that this is what I'm exposed and have witnessed as an African-American, Catholics are excluded from my perception of Christians.  My opinion of a Christian is your streotypical white American Protestant who is completely intolerant to all other religions including Catholics and especially Muslims, and is somewhat racist.  That's a generalization and I don't mean that all Christians are like that.  This opinion is also partially due to the influence of my history teacher who is a great teacher and his ideas are interesting and he portrays America in an interesting way.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: epic7 on May 23, 2013, 04:34:25 pm
I would like to throw in a very awesome saying I leant today:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Goes for both the existence of God and evolution.

I don't know what you mean by mentioning evolution.
I will repeat once more that evolution has tons of evidence.

That saying does not really work too well.
I agree that lack of evidence doesn't automatically make one false, but in no way does it suggest that something is true.
There no evidence that  flying spaghetti monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) exist. But they probably don't.
Quote from: Justin Pope
"there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe"
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on May 23, 2013, 04:48:47 pm
There no evidence that  flying spaghetti monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) exist. But they probably don't.
Quote from: Justin Pope
"there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe"

A joke response I've seen to this one is, "Then why are all the planets spherical and meatball-shaped?" :P
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on May 23, 2013, 05:16:00 pm
Also: Christianity (Specifically Roman Catholicism) has changed to fit new discoveries and to fit the current world.

For example: Jesus's original birthday was in June/July (based on the oldest texts and such, before Roman Catholicism) but it was changed to be in December to coincide with Pagan holidays celebrated at the same time in Europe.

Also: Once you get to Roman Catholicism (in chronological order), you start to see corruption. This, at one point, was so much that the Pope was pretty much supreme ruler (or at least the guy that you went to to resolve any dispute) of Europe. Example: The Treaty of Tordesillas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas )

Also: There are so many religions that they can't all be right. People are only sure of their religion because that is what they believe to be true.

[opinion]

Let's call Christianity a scientific theory for a minute. You can not prove Christianity or any religion because, like a scientific theory, it can be verified, but never proven for sure, but you can disprove it because, like a scientific theory, if one part is wrong, the whole thing is wrong.

Since radioactive dating has proven the earth older than any religion that puts the earth at a definitive age, and that it has a finite age (disproving religions in which the earth has already existed).

So, in essence (for Christianity), creationism/intelligent design can not be proven right, but since the religion as a whole is proven wrong because many parts have been proven wrong, creationism/intelligent design are wrong.

Evolution, on the other hand, has been verified in several labs with sexually reproducing organisms. As in: a species divided and evolved so that one group could not breed with the other and produce fertile offspring, creating a new species, by definition. It has also been observed with larger plants and animals.

That is not to say that it won't be proven wrong, but it has been verified, and is safe for the time being.

[/opinion]
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 23, 2013, 05:37:37 pm
How has Christianity been proven wrong? Christianity has a definitive age but Judaism dose not, and that is where Christianity is derived.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on May 23, 2013, 05:40:22 pm
Quote
Since radioactive dating has proven the earth older than any religion with a definitive age, and that it has a finite age (disproving religions in which the earth has already existed)

I meant to say that has the earth at a definitive age. my bad. If you treat it like a scientific theory, you must say that if one part is wrong, the whole thing is. This was just one example.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 24, 2013, 04:52:45 am
@Pimathbrainiac I agree that the catholic church(and probably other churches as well) have made big mistakes in history. And they were definitely wrong.
I myself am not Catholic, just a Christian who bases himself on the Bible. However, it doesn't mean that if a leader of a group does something bad that the whole thing is corrupt...

The Bible is infallible: It has NOT been proven wrong. There may be translation that are wrong though.
Evolution has flaws, so according to you I may call it all wrong?

Trust me, science isn't as accurate as it may seem. It is many times flawed.(For example, putting an age on a piece of stone/other thing).

I believe in de-evolution, and that makes a lot of sense to me. Say you have a superdog, and then it's descendants have little changes and they devolve to different kinds of dogs. However, they'll never be as perfect as their ancestor was. Same with humans, are age is always getting shorter, and it's not only because of all the sicknesses.
Devolution is happening, and has been witnessed, not the opposite.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: squidgetx on May 24, 2013, 05:45:04 am
Why is the Bible infallible?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 24, 2013, 06:43:43 am
Why is the Bible infallible?
http://lifeshandbook.wikidot.com/why-believe
See 'The Bible' section on that page. :)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on May 24, 2013, 07:42:48 am
@Pimathbrainiac I agree that the catholic church(and probably other churches as well) have made big mistakes in history. And they were definitely wrong.
I myself am not Catholic, just a Christian who bases himself on the Bible. However, it doesn't mean that if a leader of a group does something bad that the whole thing is corrupt...

The Bible is infallible: It has NOT been proven wrong. There may be translation that are wrong though.
Evolution has flaws, so according to you I may call it all wrong?

Trust me, science isn't as accurate as it may seem. It is many times flawed.(For example, putting an age on a piece of stone/other thing).

I believe in de-evolution, and that makes a lot of sense to me. Say you have a superdog, and then it's descendants have little changes and they devolve to different kinds of dogs. However, they'll never be as perfect as their ancestor was. Same with humans, are age is always getting shorter, and it's not only because of all the sicknesses.
Devolution is happening, and has been witnessed, not the opposite.
That makes no sense at all. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. People are living longer today than they were say 50 years ago due to advances in science and knowledge. This is why many things are happening like retirement ages being continually pushed back. In Japan people aged 65 and over account for 22% of the population and are expected to account for ~40% of the population by 2050. People are continuing to get stronger and smarter. World records for physical feats are constantly being shattered and science is advancing at crazy rates. I have no idea where you would get the idea that people and other animals are devolving, and if you could believe that why believing evolution exists is so difficult to you.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 24, 2013, 08:01:34 am
Yes, that may be because of science(medicines, etc). But if we had this science back then(and less hard work), they would live longer.
The reason why retirement age is getting extended is just because there are always getting less land less children and the older people will have to work longer.

Every mutation usually is downhill and happens by an error. Sometimes these mutations can have beneficial effects, but it's still less than it was.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on May 24, 2013, 08:08:57 am
@Pimathbrainiac I agree that the catholic church(and probably other churches as well) have made big mistakes in history. And they were definitely wrong.
I myself am not Catholic, just a Christian who bases himself on the Bible. However, it doesn't mean that if a leader of a group does something bad that the whole thing is corrupt...

The Bible is infallible: It has NOT been proven wrong. There may be translation that are wrong though.
Evolution has flaws, so according to you I may call it all wrong?

Trust me, science isn't as accurate as it may seem. It is many times flawed.(For example, putting an age on a piece of stone/other thing).

I believe in de-evolution, and that makes a lot of sense to me. Say you have a superdog, and then it's descendants have little changes and they devolve to different kinds of dogs. However, they'll never be as perfect as their ancestor was. Same with humans, are age is always getting shorter, and it's not only because of all the sicknesses.
Devolution is happening, and has been witnessed, not the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

The science and math are both sound here. As far as we've seen rocks and fossils dated, it's hard to believe that the earth is only a few thousand or even 1,000,000 years old.

That is just at least one place where the bible is wrong: dating the earth.

The bible also places the creation of the earth as 6 (7?) days. This we know for a fact is wrong because there are supernovas (which form new star(s) and planet(s)) that have been observed for much more than 6 (7?) days and haven't formed an entire planet. It takes a very long time to form a planet (observation works, eh?).

Edit:
Yes, that may be because of science(medicines, etc). But if we had this science back then(and less hard work), they would live longer.
The reason why retirement age is getting extended is just because there are always getting less land less children and the older people will have to work longer.

Every mutation usually is downhill and happens by an error. Sometimes these mutations can have beneficial effects, but it's still less than it was.

Considering we see mutations allow species of insects to be immune to insecticide, as well as bacteria to antibiotics.

While not beneficial to us,these mutations are beneficial to their respective species.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 24, 2013, 08:26:21 am
Scientifically it is impossible, but don't you think that if there would be a God it could make it in a second, or in one billionth of a second? 6 Days is actually extremely long for God.
However, it is said in the Bible that one day is like a thousand years for God and a thousands days as one day, proving that for God time is completely different. These 7 days may have been 7 seconds or 7 googleplex years.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 24, 2013, 10:31:35 am
@pimathbraniac The people that try and date the bible are also the ones that take everything the bible says at face value, when you actually have to read deeper into it to get the actual meaning. The bible is filled with symbolism, and that frustrates me, but that is how ancient peoples wrote things.
Title: Re: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on May 24, 2013, 02:10:54 pm
Human lifespans have been increasing dramatically. In ancient times, it might have been considered rare to have lived to 60 years of age. Nowadays, it's quite common to see people in their 80's and 90's.

Also, evolution and de-evolution are the same thing. Evolution says there only needs to be change between generations of organisms, it does not matter what direction thay change is in.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: XiiDraco on May 24, 2013, 02:39:58 pm
If you have read the bible, you can see that someone (can't remember name) lived to be 900+, wouldn't that get kinda old?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: squidgetx on May 24, 2013, 02:48:50 pm
Stefan, I don't find what is written on that site satisfactory at all. The section on why the Bible is infallible has 3 main points:

1) The Bible has no contradictions and has never been proven wrong
What about this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)? As another example big bang theory/evolution disagrees with Genesis' account of creation, but seeing as how we are already talking about that I won't bother repeating the words of others on this point.
2) It is a living document and written with symbolism and hidden meanings.
So what? The Constitution (of the USA) is a living document. The Great Gatsby has symbolism and hidden meanings. How something is written has no bearing on whether it is indisputable truth.
3) Everyone says so
I don't think I need to explain why this is patently irrelevant
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: epic7 on May 24, 2013, 03:27:20 pm
It seems like people take the Bible literally, until they find a contradiction with science. Then they just claim that it was a metaphor, and move on.

Same with humans, are age is always getting shorter, and it's not only because of all the sicknesses.
I have no idea why you would even begin to think that. The life expectancy has exploded upward in the past century.
And sicknesses? Look at this:
Spoiler For Spoiler:
(http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/the-vaccine-effect_51251e5ad7e61.jpg)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 24, 2013, 03:32:35 pm
Those arguments are kinda flawed(in the link you gave) and I probably could discuss everyone, but I will not waste my time on doing so. I also can see that the author has little understanding of interpreting the Bible and is not reading but looking for things that look like contradictions.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on May 24, 2013, 03:46:41 pm
Those arguments are kinda flawed(in the link you gave) and I probably could discuss everyone, but I will not waste my time on doing so. I also can see that the author has little understanding of interpreting the Bible and is not reading but looking for things that look like contradictions.
This "this argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why" argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why :P

You are right when you say that the author found contradictions because he looked for them, and that could apply to anything. But on the other hand, maybe you only see the truth in that book because you were told beforehand that it was the truth so you believed it and only saw truth in it. So yeah, I can't prove you are wrong, neither can I prove the author of the list of contradictions is right, but same, you can't say you are right and the author is wrong ;)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 24, 2013, 03:48:21 pm
Those arguments are kinda flawed(in the link you gave) and I probably could discuss everyone, but I will not waste my time on doing so. I also can see that the author has little understanding of interpreting the Bible and is not reading but looking for things that look like contradictions.
This "this argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why" argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why :P

You are right when you say that the author found contradictions because he looked for them, and that could apply to anything. But on the other hand, maybe you only see the truth in that book because you were told beforehand that it was the truth so you believed it and only saw truth in it. So yeah, I can't prove you are wrong, neither can I prove the author of the list of contradictions is right, but same, you can't say you are right and the author is wrong ;)
I guess I can't prove it, no. (Unless I take that article under hands, but I don't wanna waste my time)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on May 24, 2013, 03:58:04 pm
how would it be a waste of your time to study the book that you believe holds the world's ultimate truths?

as for myself, it was studying the bible that led me to stop believing in it. i started out reading it believing exactly as you do, but, the more i read, the more obvious it seemed that it was not a contiguous whole but rather a big jumble of contradictory writings from hundreds of different authors. the jesus portrayed in the gospels is completely unlike the jesus described by his self-proclaimed disciple, paul. similarly, the world described in the old testament (complete with the Hades like She'ol etcetera) is completely unlike the one described by jesus, which, in turn is completely unlike the one described by paul, which, in turn, is completely unlike the one described by the catholic church and so on. there are little things all throughout as well, like jesus claiming that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples had died, that just don't work.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 24, 2013, 04:02:07 pm
how would it be a waste of your time to study the book that you believe holds the world's ultimate truths?
No, that's not it. It would be a waste of time defending, and proving that guy wrong since it's just a lot of work that most likely nobody will care about anyway. I've fallen into those "traps" before, and when I'm done they just ignore it or something.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on May 24, 2013, 04:07:29 pm
again, how is it a trap if all it's asking of you is to actually look at the book you profess to believe. have you ever read the thing straight through, from cover to cover? i've done so ~6 times, along with intensive studies with churches, youth groups, and religious camps with protestants, mormons, catholics, and even the eastern orthodox church (the amount of incense burned by the latter left me coughing up phlegm for a week)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ben_g on May 24, 2013, 04:38:04 pm
It is a bit off-topic, but I would like to bring it to attention that the post rating system is meant only for the quality of the posts. Reading trough this thread, I get the feeling that the upvoting and downvoting buttons are sometimes used to express wether or not you agree with the opinions in the posts. Especially posts written by a religious persons seem to have a much lower avarage rating that posts made by a scientific person.
It might be just a coincidence, but I just wanted to point this out.
[/off-topic]

To make this post not completely off-topic, I'll add a relevant statement:
We have already discussed wether or not God exists, and while it's true that the arguments given by the believers are a bit vague, it does not actually seem that important if He is real or not. You might become a better person by just believing in Him, and your belief in Him can also add a lot of mental support. And almost all religious persons agree that God doesn't influence our lives (directly). So, does it realy matter that much that He exists or not?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: squidgetx on May 24, 2013, 09:30:01 pm
When you consider the amount of time and other resources spent on religion and how it directly (and indirectly) influences the lives of billions of people through its influence on political ideology, then yes I say it's very important to decide whether He exists or not. (Although I guess it's more important to decide whether the holy scripts are true or not)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 24, 2013, 10:24:24 pm
how would it be a waste of your time to study the book that you believe holds the world's ultimate truths?

as for myself, it was studying the bible that led me to stop believing in it. i started out reading it believing exactly as you do, but, the more i read, the more obvious it seemed that it was not a contiguous whole but rather a big jumble of contradictory writings from hundreds of different authors. the jesus portrayed in the gospels is completely unlike the jesus described by his self-proclaimed disciple, paul. similarly, the world described in the old testament (complete with the Hades like She'ol etcetera) is completely unlike the one described by jesus, which, in turn is completely unlike the one described by paul, which, in turn, is completely unlike the one described by the catholic church and so on. there are little things all throughout as well, like jesus claiming that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples had died, that just don't work.

I myself have actually read the bible multiple times, and I think anyone who is Christian should because frankly almost no one knows anything about their faith. First, would you point out where Jesus said that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples died, for I don't remember that. The Hell described by Jesus is like the Hell described by the Catholic Church, at least as far as I know.
Now about Paul...
Paul was born a Roman and had until he suddenly turned to Jesus, after Jesus's death, and was raised in that culture. Paul was Jewish, but his family were Roman citizens.  He brought a lot of that culture in with him and his teachings reflect that. You will also notice that he was at odds with Peter at times. How Paul described Jesus is different from the disciples who wrote the Gospels because he never was actually with Jesus.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on May 25, 2013, 12:10:58 am
yes, i know paul's story. it's said that he murdered christians up until when he was met on the road to damascus by the image of jesus, scolded ("whatever you have done against them has been done against me as well"), struck blind. he then repented, had his eyesight restored via ananias, and set off to convert all the gentiles. the next several years are a group of exciting adventures, hanging out with his buddy luke the doctor and protege titus, visiting towns and speaking out against idols, being thrown into prison and released via earthquake, escaping from a town in a wicker basket, shouting at peter about having people circumcised, writing half of the new testament in the form of letters to church plants all around the mediterranean, etc. eventually, he got it in his head that he had to go convert the emperor, nero, so he set off on a journey,was shipwrecked on the island of malta, was bitten by a poisonous snake and did not die, arrived in rome, was placed under house arrest for several years (during which time he wrote more letters), and then was killed.

paul also made up (or at least propogated) a good deal of doctrine that jesus did not (in the gospels, at least). things like "being saved by faith alone" (jesus preaches a message of good works. "you must take up your cross and follow me.", "give up your riches and your pride, or you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven", "if something is keeping you from following me and doing as i do, cut it off and throw it away, for it is better to go to heaven without that thing than to be thrown into hell with it", etc).

oh, by the way, the only times that the word "hell" is used in the gospels is in reference to being sent there when doing something bad (Matthew 5:22 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-22.htm), Matthew 5:29 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-29.htm), Matthew 10:28 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-28.htm), Matthew 18:9 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-9.htm), Matthew 23:15 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-15.htm), Matthew 23:33 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-33.htm), Mark 9:43 and following (http://biblehub.com/mark/9-43.htm), Luke 12:5 (http://biblehub.com/luke/12-5.htm). it never once says what "hell" actually is.

as for jesus saying he would return before all his disciples had died, see Matthew 16:28 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-28.htm). jesus is talking to his disciples and telling them how they should act in his absence and then tells them, explicitely, that he will be back to initiate his kingdom before the last of them is dead.

this is all from the standard, protestant-approved version of the bible, of course, because i don't have any others with me and don't know any of the other flavours (catholic version, which includes macabees etcetera). in reference to that, there were a myriad of different gospels, "first hand accounts", and doctrines introduced in the early days of the church, and it wasn't until The Ecumenical Councils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_ecumenical_councils) (particularly the First Council of Nicea) that the church officially decided upon what was to be truth and what thrown out as heresy, in the process introducing quite a bit of new doctrine that had been invented since those early books had been written.



When you consider the amount of time and other resources spent on religion and how it directly (and indirectly) influences the lives of billions of people through its influence on political ideology, then yes I say it's very important to decide whether He exists or not. (Although I guess it's more important to decide whether the holy scripts are true or not)

there is actually a fairly strong argument for the existence of religion being a positive influence on the world. yes, you can say whatever you like about crusades etc, but the primary driving factor behind those is always humans desiring for power or being bigotted against others, with their religions being used as a convenient excuse to continue acting that way. they would act out against their fellow humans regardless. yes, it may be true that it exacerbates it in some situations, but it's also true that religion is a calming, comforting influence in the lives of billions. studies have consistently shown that people who are able to convince themselves of the validity of some religion that offers a promise of an "ultimate purpose" for their lives are, on average, happier people than those who cannot.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: jwalker on May 25, 2013, 01:16:34 am
The passage is this: "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." New International Version (©2011)

I wasn't sure which one to choose, because there are so many translations. On a side note, they really should get rid of all the different translations, go back into the scripture, retranslate it, and have the one and only bible. Having 10000 versions only adds to peoples confusion.
It looks like he is saying this to his apostles, but he could have been talking about the human race. It looks like he could have been talking to his apostles, in which case it is true. John did not die a martyrs death and "saw Jesus coming in his kingdom", he wrote the Book of Revelation, which is about Jesus's second coming based on what had been revealed to him, before he died.

EDIT: Added more about Paul, Hell
He didn't shout at Peter over circumcision, It was because Peter wouldn't eat with gentiles for not strictly following Jewish customs, which is much wider than circumcision alone. He also didn't go to convert the Emperor, but tried to use his right as a Roman citizen to appeal what he was being charged with.
He did say that you could get into heaven on faith alone, and this is why protestants teach this.
A lot of what Paul did was try and convert gentiles, and as he didn't walk with Jesus, he probably taught some things differently than what Jesus said. Even though of this, how he converted is very interesting.

It is obvious what hell is, from even what is described there in the passages that you provided. Also I believe there are references to hell in the old testament, but I would rather not look those up right now, as it is late.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on May 25, 2013, 02:02:03 am
you are taking that verse entirely out of context. the situation in the passage is that jesus is speaking directly to his apostles, telling them what to do when he has physically left their presence. he then follows that direction immediately with the promise that he will return before they have all died. also, the john who wrote the book of revelation is not the john you think he is, but, rather, john of patmos. lastly, if you want to bring revelation into this, it is a book widely regarded as not being about some far distant future, but about christianity's persecution at the hand of Rome. see Revelation 17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+17&version=NIV). Rome is traditionally called "Babylon" and "The city of seven hills", was the seat of the greatest empire that europe has ever known, was notorious for its lavishness and sexual promiscuity, and was a place where christians were killed in various brutal manners on a large scale in an attempt to eradicate them entirely ("I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.").
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AngelFish on May 25, 2013, 02:02:06 am
We can't go back to an original version and simply re-translate it for several reasons. Perhaps most importantly, we don't have any of the original manuscripts! The earliest writings we have of the New Testament are from the first or second century and the Old testament is largely derived from oral tradition, meaning the original sources were never even written down. Also, no one has reached a conclusion about how to interpret significant portions of the Bible. That alone accounts for many of the different sects of Christianity. Similarly, translating itself is a very error-prone process. There really AREN'T perfect translations from the various languages of the Bible into modern English.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on May 25, 2013, 04:51:50 am
It is obvious what hell is, from even what is described there in the passages that you provided. Also I believe there are references to hell in the old testament, but I would rather not look those up right now, as it is late.

Hell was actually portrayed originally as a dark, Hades-like place where everyone was cast in an eternal sleep. It wasn't a place of punishment, but more like a place of imprisonment. Which would make sense, as it would have derived from Greek and Roman cultures which were the two dominant in the area.

Hell itself is not accurately described. There are a few (reeally vague) passages, but the idea of Hell as an inferno was popularized by works like Dante's Inferno. In the US it was popularized by Jonathan Edward's sermons who was Puritan.

However, I really like what this guy has to say on it, and his theory of what Hell actually is, should it exist.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?85849-Hell-does-not-exist-according-to-the-bible!

Not a place of punishment, actually nonexistence.

Also, I think this is relevant to this thread, surprised I haven't seen it in here yet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

Can't say it was necessary of him to do so, I but I suppose I can appreciate it as a warm gesture, nonetheless.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 25, 2013, 08:02:31 am
I'm not sure where you are going with Jesus and his apostles.
Très bien, je n'ai pas réussi à m'exprimer en anglais, alors je vais le faire en français en espérant que tu connaisses cette langue et que cela te permette de mieux comprendre. Le cas non échéant, cela aidera peut-être d'autres personnes.

Ce que je voulais dire était que l'existence de Dieu n'est pas qu'une simple éventualité comme une autre, que pourrait formuler un gamin de 5 ans en inventant son propre monde. Ce n'est pas une simple théorie abstraite sans fait. C'est bien plus que cela. Ce n'est pas pour rien que Jésus a donné sa vie sur la croix, il fallait réellement une force d'amour gigantesque pour être capable de pardonner ses propres persécuteurs pendant même qu'ils effectuaient leur besogne. Il lui fallait une force d'amour immense pour convertir Simon qui autrefois persécutait les croyants en Pierre, qui a ensuite été persécuté à son tour et tué. L'expansion de la Bonne Nouvelle dès la résurrection s'est faite à une telle vitesse que l'on ne peut considérer cela comme anodin. Les premiers chrétiens persécutés tenaient nettement mieux que la moyenne et étaient animés d'un amour fou. Libre à chacun de croire bien évidemment, mais tout ça pour dire que le catholicisme est plus qu'une simple éventualité que les hommes ont inventé.


as for myself, it was studying the bible that led me to stop believing in it. i started out reading it believing exactly as you do, but, the more i read, the more obvious it seemed that it was not a contiguous whole but rather a big jumble of contradictory writings from hundreds of different authors. the jesus portrayed in the gospels is completely unlike the jesus described by his self-proclaimed disciple, paul. similarly, the world described in the old testament (complete with the Hades like She'ol etcetera) is completely unlike the one described by jesus, which, in turn is completely unlike the one described by paul, which, in turn, is completely unlike the one described by the catholic church and so on. there are little things all throughout as well, like jesus claiming that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples had died, that just don't work.

Ok, so you didn't understand the main principle of bible as many people, and I'm to try to make you understand. ;)
In fact, the bible is a love story between humans and God. In the old testament, God is described by humans, and not God himself. Humans didn't understand well who God really was and for example associated diseases as a punishment given by God. As a case in point, when Adam and Eve left the garden of eden, God didn't excluded them, but they excluded themselves with their sins refusing to show themselves nude in front of God. But then Jesus came on the Earth to have a human communication and to change ideas about God. He didn't yell he was the son of God, that God was a good one and that romans were villains, but he made disciples understand by his being, his actions, and his parables. It would have been too brutal for humans to reveal them explicitly the truth. They had to understand progressively with heart. Then apostles translated love of God and how He changed their lifes. If you want to understand bible, you have to read it that way: with heart.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on May 25, 2013, 08:17:32 am
I understand French a bit, but Google translate helped me out and seemed to do fairly well. Thanks for the explanation, it's more clear what you were trying to say.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: mdr1 on May 25, 2013, 08:21:58 am
Ok. Do not hesitate to ask for explanations because I needed to use a hard to understand level of language. :)
Title: Re: Re: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on May 25, 2013, 12:07:21 pm
what Hell actually is
Earth? :P
There no evidence that  flying spaghetti monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) exist. But they probably don't.
Quote from: Justin Pope
"there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe"

A joke response I've seen to this one is, "Then why are all the planets spherical and meatball-shaped?" :P
there are people who still believes that the Earth is flat. There's even a community website of people who think like that.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: squidgetx on May 25, 2013, 12:15:46 pm
there is actually a fairly strong argument for the existence of religion being a positive influence on the world. yes, you can say whatever you like about crusades etc, but the primary driving factor behind those is always humans desiring for power or being bigotted against others, with their religions being used as a convenient excuse to continue acting that way. they would act out against their fellow humans regardless. yes, it may be true that it exacerbates it in some situations, but it's also true that religion is a calming, comforting influence in the lives of billions. studies have consistently shown that people who are able to convince themselves of the validity of some religion that offers a promise of an "ultimate purpose" for their lives are, on average, happier people than those who cannot.

I don't think I said that religion only has a negative effect, just that it has a strong one ;)

Regardless of whether it's a positive or negative influence I think it's important to live based on 'truth.' I can easily visualize how religion can be a positive influence (it's one of the easiest ways to deal with the problem of death), but in the words of Camus it seems a bit like philosophical suicide (to me anyway) to actually take that leap of faith.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on May 25, 2013, 03:53:38 pm
There are people who still believes that the Earth is flat. There's even a community website of people who think like that.

I saw that site, I remember being a thread about it somewhere :P
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on May 25, 2013, 04:36:32 pm
Actually, I believe there are sort of two "Heavens" and two "Hells".
And I think trough translation they may have mixed both a bit up.

Here's a real good article that explains it(I know it's quite a long read but if you want to understand it, then read it): http://new.bereanbiblesociety.org/hell-sheol-hades-paradise-and-the-grave/



Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AssemblyBandit on September 29, 2013, 05:34:49 am
Here's my thoughts on religion:

When I was younger I believed in god, santa, and other fictional characters (maybe even the easter bunny). I thought wrestling was real along with the characters from scary movies. As I grew older I realized that they were made up. I could see the reasons that people invented them and argued with others about their authenticity (mainly wrestling and god, and not with children of course ha ha!). I put a lot of thought into space and time itself. I would like to think that if I was alive back in the day and everyone else was telling me that the world was flat, I could look in the sky witnessing the sun and the moon and ask them to take another guess. Now I can look at animals and see how they evolved in my mind. I can see how every small thing plays its part (the reason for reproducing, lifespans...). I know people that are purposely evolving bacteria to create permanent cures for diseases by binding them with specific proteins (I hope to join them in the future maybe get my own lab someday). Evolution is not a perfect science, the proteins don't always take hold but you discard the ones that don't and keep evolving the ones that do. I can't pinpoint how the first organism developed but I can look at a crystals self replicating structure and make the jump over to a replicating dna strand. I think that a lot of people don't really understand the concept of time, zero, infinity, or a god itself. When someone asks me what happens to us when we die, I always reply just think about what it was like before you were born. A few months ago my boss made the comment about how he wishes he could go back in time to when he was 9 even if he forgot everything he knew. I sat silent, but my reply should have been you already have (he wouldn't have known if I was telling the truth or not). I think time moves irregularly, including in reverse, but because everything only exists in a specific frame we always perceive it as going forward. Humans like to be judged though and are so egotistical they tend to think they are above everything else. Creating a god fulfills their emotions, reduces their fear of the unknown, and gives them a reason to be ignorant (...Skinners pigeons...). I get that ignorance is bliss, if I could walk around without any cares, I would definitely enjoy it. Minding the foxhole subject, if there was a god/heaven/hell people would be better off killing themselves. In reality, humans are such a small part of the universe, looking in, you wouldn't even pay them no mind. But hey, god created the universe for us right? We are part of the universe though, so we should join together and take pride in that.

Here is the reason I hate the notion of a god that exists over us:
When I program, I consider myself to be a god. I make my own little digital universe with its own little physics and characters that *must* follow the physics I create (if they didn't I would crap my pants where I stood!). If I had a super computer that was so fast my digital universe would evolve faster then the actual universe and the ai would allow my characters to become so smart they became self aware and even question my existence, think about what I would be able to do. They would run around and sometimes get hit by cars and 'die' or form families and live in big houses. As a true god I could modify the physics and perform 'miracles'. Yes, being a god I can control physics and time with ease. Being a kind and caring god, I wouldn't let anything bad happen to them. If they died, I could perform a 'real' miracle and bring them back to life. If they hoped and prayed, I would give them what they wanted. Never in my life would I let my characters starve to death, get mistreated, feel sorry or scared, start wars with each other, get raped or murdered, because that's what a 'real' god does.

Now back to real life where no god exists. When people see things they can't explain or coincidences occur (again Skinners pigeons) they just throw it into the god bucket. My favorite is when I hear someone say something like 'the guy came in shooting and killing everybody, thank god I made it out alive' .... Wow, really, you thank god for that???

There isn't a way for anyone to explain to me how a god that exists would allow people to be murdered around the world. Quoting stuff from the bible doesn't address it, 'just because god wants it to be that way' doesn't address it, there is *no* way to justify that. I don't understand how that can be acceptable by anyone.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Streetwalrus on September 29, 2013, 09:35:33 am
Your opinion is pretty interesting. I personally like to think that god and science can cohabit but I always prefer the more rational scientific explanation to the religious one.

Of course there will always be someone to justify the imperfection of the world while keeping a god in their theory.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Sorunome on September 29, 2013, 10:00:48 am
But then, how do you know that this we are in is real life, maybe there is some greater AssemblyBandit messing with us and we are just a computer simulation.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Adriweb on September 29, 2013, 10:14:55 am
But then, how do you know that this we are in is real life, maybe there is some greater AssemblyBandit messing with us and we are just a computer simulation.

Well, I like this computer-simulation topic, it's quite amusing :D

http://www.simulation-argument.com/
http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Xeda112358 on September 29, 2013, 10:21:45 am
@AssemblyBandit:
I feel that if you ran such a super computer simulation, you would need to slow it down to keep up with all of the 'problems' that need fixing. It would be like running Conway's Game of life and trying to preserve every pixel. As well, you would have to ask if you would even recognise intelligence emerging from your construction, and you would have to recognise when something bad happens or when something good happens. You could not expect human forms to come from your simulation or recognisable forms of communication. If you could recognise each instance of pain that needs remedying and prayers that need answers, and life that needs saving, would you not then automate the process through algorithms? Or modify your universe to be 'perfect' by including code to right the wrongs or preempt them? And you have a finite life. When you die, if you have not made an automated 'God' then your universe will suddenly lose its repairman. And if the universe evolved at a faster rate than ours, what would happen if a being in your created universe created their own universe? If you decided not to preserve their life, then would you be the 'God' responsible for the universe created inside your universe?

This is actually pretty cool to think about :)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ElementCoder on September 29, 2013, 10:22:18 am
That's an interesting POV there. Let me share my thoughts about a god from your perspective. Would it (I'm staying generally here, therefore 'it') really only care for the good of us like you and prevent us from any harm? I don't think so. If that would be the case then mankind would never be able to accomplish anything. They would become dependent of their deity, assuming it'll do everything for them to keep the from harm. Moreover religion would lose it's beauty, specialty whatever you want to call it, it would become a standard.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be a caring god, nor that I myself never thought of "if there is a god, why doesn't it interfere now then?". It's just that if a god would always be saving everybody, things would go wrong in a way that people would lose their ability to care for themselves I think.

As you said there is no evidence that there truly is a god and indeed the things like "thank god" don't really fit, but there is no evidence against it either. My opinion lies with streetwalker, surely science and religion can cohabit; most people are just reluctant to see it and I like hard scientific evidence better than some religious one.

To round up, I don't think a god would manifest itself easily / clearly, but it won't let its world down either. Therefore I'm closing with a quote from Futurama: "When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all."

Edit: Xeda's repair man is exactly my point.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AssemblyBandit on September 29, 2013, 04:13:32 pm
Streetwalker: I just don't like the way people will try to explain everything off using a god, there's a lot more going on than that (and its more interesting).

adriweb: I like the links! I love the 'nested' simulations where the simulations create simulations themselves! In the video he mentioned how people would claim they've seen glitches like the pixels in the mirror XD

Sorunome: That could be possible! Maybe one day we'll create a game so advanced that it would be like playing the (voluntary) Matrix!

Xeda: You're the reason I actually found this thread, I needed a divide by 40 routine and you weren't online, so I looked through your previous posts hoping you had posted something similar. But then I got a little sidetracked  ;) Later I found the DivHLByC routine on WikiTI  :w00t: But yeah, because my little universe would have to evolve so rapidly, their civilizations would become infinitely more intelligent then me, and I would have to pull the plug before they found a way out of the simulation and took over our universe! Reverse simulation assimilation??? If there is a god, hes one lazy programmer!

ElementCoder: If we were created on purpose, then everything would be going pretty good. When you create something, you generally take care of it. When you buy a pet, you don't just let the thing sit there and starve to death or let it go out into the street! If this is the way god takes care of his children, I want to move out now!
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: XiiDraco on September 30, 2013, 11:21:40 pm
ElementCoder: If we were created on purpose, then everything would be going pretty good. When you create something, you generally take care of it. When you buy a pet, you don't just let the thing sit there and starve to death or let it go out into the street! If this is the way god takes care of his children, I want to move out now!

I'm not going to take any approach on telling you which I am for, but one thing you need to understand is that everything we think is morally right or wrong, is just our perspective of it. Some other people/things/beings. Could find think of morals in an entirely different way, and it would be "right" for them, including letting people die. No one idea/perspective could or is right or wrong, and nothing/no one has the authority to make that choice.  ;)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Juju on October 01, 2013, 01:58:18 am
Hm, I might post a whole rant on religion here. Here we go.

I have a pretty good theory about religion, I believe early civilisations made that up to answer unanswered questions. Science weren't there yet, and people couldn't really imagine something else than some guy creating everything, so better worship him. But, by nature, some people hated change, so when someone came up with science, people had difficulty accepting it... It got better in the recent history though. But nevertheless, I think religion is still part of everyday's life, like place names or funerals. The afterlife is not quite understood, what happens after death? Nothing? Pretty sure many would prefer believing there's something, that the soul of your loved one is at a better place, even if you know there's nothing. The memory of the dead lives as long as someone remembers them, after all.

Reminds me, almost two years ago, I got hospitalized for lung problems, I stayed there for 167 hours. Yeah, that was boring, but I had visits. And one of them was a priest. The hospital has a service where once a week, a priest would visit all the patients. He discussed with me, that was kinda cool. I realized, even though we are in a lay state here, they would still hire a priest, because people would find a priest very reconforting, especially when you're approaching death. Actually, it's pretty nice the hospital would send someone to visit you just for talking about stuff. They're there just for you.

Today, I would say I believe in God as much as I would believe in Princess Celestia or Madoka Kaname, all of them can teach you valuable life lessons you can follow. (Yes I'm comparing religion with fictional shows lol. If they weren't characters of TV shows I think they would make pretty good gods of some religion.) Just be careful in what you believe. It's up to you to decide what is right or wrong. Yes, the Bible may be full of contradictions, but it actually laid out the basis of modern civilisation and what we collectively assume as right or wrong, like killing people and stuff like that. We all agree killing people is bad, right? Or else maybe everyone would have guns and would liberally kill everyone else? I dunno, the impact religion had might be deeper than we thought.

And this is why, my friends, I still consider myself Catholic. I grew up Catholic and I understood what it meant to me.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AssemblyBandit on October 01, 2013, 05:42:59 am
I'm not going to take any approach on telling you which I am for, but one thing you need to understand is that everything we think is morally right or wrong, is just our perspective of it. Some other people/things/beings. Could find think of morals in an entirely different way, and it would be "right" for them, including letting people die. No one idea/perspective could or is right or wrong, and nothing/no one has the authority to make that choice.  ;)

I understand morals are relative but people don't have to die. The only one thing death is good for is evolution. If we were created by a god, death wouldn't exist.

Hm, I might post a whole rant on religion here. Here we go.

I have a pretty good theory about religion, I believe early civilisations made that up to answer unanswered questions. Science weren't there yet, and people couldn't really imagine something else than some guy creating everything, so better worship him. But, by nature, some people hated change, so when someone came up with science, people had difficulty accepting it... It got better in the recent history though. But nevertheless, I think religion is still part of everyday's life, like place names or funerals. The afterlife is not quite understood, what happens after death? Nothing? Pretty sure many would prefer believing there's something, that the soul of your loved one is at a better place, even if you know there's nothing. The memory of the dead lives as long as someone remembers them, after all.

Reminds me, almost two years ago, I got hospitalized for lung problems, I stayed there for 167 hours. Yeah, that was boring, but I had visits. And one of them was a priest. The hospital has a service where once a week, a priest would visit all the patients. He discussed with me, that was kinda cool. I realized, even though we are in a lay state here, they would still hire a priest, because people would find a priest very reconforting, especially when you're approaching death. Actually, it's pretty nice the hospital would send someone to visit you just for talking about stuff. They're there just for you.

Today, I would say I believe in God as much as I would believe in Princess Celestia or Madoka Kaname, all of them can teach you valuable life lessons you can follow. (Yes I'm comparing religion with fictional shows lol. If they weren't characters of TV shows I think they would make pretty good gods of some religion.) Just be careful in what you believe. It's up to you to decide what is right or wrong. Yes, the Bible may be full of contradictions, but it actually laid out the basis of modern civilisation and what we collectively assume as right or wrong, like killing people and stuff like that. We all agree killing people is bad, right? Or else maybe everyone would have guns and would liberally kill everyone else? I dunno, the impact religion had might be deeper than we thought.

And this is why, my friends, I still consider myself Catholic. I grew up Catholic and I understood what it meant to me.

Agreed and I was baptized Catholic too ;) but now I'm an Atheist ;D

@Art_of_camelot (below): I agree with that as well, I hate when people question if Atheists can have morals! I don't want to be killed so I don't go around killing other people! It's not rocket science!
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on October 01, 2013, 05:43:28 am
@Juju: You can look at killing as being bad without the religious aspect. If there is no after life, all we have is our time on this earth. That makes it much more precious. What right does anyone have to take away what little precious time we have? Essentially, I am saying morals can and do exist without religion.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on October 01, 2013, 02:55:07 pm
I'm not going to take any approach on telling you which I am for, but one thing you need to understand is that everything we think is morally right or wrong, is just our perspective of it. Some other people/things/beings. Could find think of morals in an entirely different way, and it would be "right" for them, including letting people die. No one idea/perspective could or is right or wrong, and nothing/no one has the authority to make that choice.  ;)

I understand morals are relative but people don't have to die. The only one thing death is good for is evolution. If we were created by a god, death wouldn't exist.

We don't (and honestly cannot) understand the true nature of death until we, ourselves, pass on. So for that, I would have to think might not be the case.

For instance, I believe that when a soul is created, there's nothing differentiating itself from other newly created souls.

Well, before I continue I'll define what I consider to be a soul. A soul would be a construct existing in a higher dimension that is composed of at least an observer object able to "view" the Universe in an abstract way as well as a drive for will power to act upon what is seen. The soul can possess other attributes as well, but is ultimately shaped by memory and experience.

Note that last part, I believe our souls exist on a higher plane with a much larger "view" of the Universe. However, between two different souls that view is largely similar. Memory and experience won't diverge a lot between souls, leading to a group of individuals with all the same opinions and ideas. This is not useful. So thus, in living in mortal bodies in the 4D, we experience drastically different views of the Universe and can come to much different conclusions. When we die, because our souls are shaped by memory, we keep these opinions an views with us.

This is something to consider if there is an afterlife. The afterlife would be where we spend the vast majority of our existence. It's basically like mortal life is similar to grade school and the afterlife is similar to our adult lives.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on October 01, 2013, 03:17:29 pm
So, in AP World, we're discussing religions, and currently, Islam.

sooo... yeah, I hate being in the US because everybody in the class (except me, my teacher, and a few others) thinks that Muslim==Terrorist, but it's just not true.

First of all, at its core, the Koran, Islam is more tolerant of other religions than Judaism or Christianity, and believes that the Torah and the Bible are the word of god, as well as the Koran (they believe Jesus is a prophet, though). Does it follow Judaism or Christianity? No, but it does believe that they hold some truth. Also: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were all started by descendants of Abraham, all believe in the same god (under different names) and all are based in the Middle East. Also also: Islam is the fastest growing and second largest religion in the world today. Why is that? Because, at its core, like almost all religions, it values helping others (you are supposed to donate at least 2.5% of your income to charity to help others). IT IS GOOD AS A RELIGION (still don't believe in any religions, but just saying that Islam is no better or worse than any others).

Now to address the whole "terrorists" stereotype: THERE ARE CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS TOO. We just don't hear about them in the US, or in most other predominately-christian countries. And the percentage of terrorist Muslims in relation to normal Muslims is extremely small, and is almost exactly the same percentage of terrorists in the world. What does this mean? Higher population of people in religion=more nut jobs, just because there are more people in said religion.

Interesting Fact: the biggest religious coexistence in the world is Turkey, where there is a 50/50 Muslim/Christian split, and THEY GET ALONG.

So... rant over. Don't hate on Muslims, okay?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Streetwalrus on October 01, 2013, 04:06:37 pm
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
Another thing : the Hamas's slogan (one of many pro islamisation groups) is "We love death more than you love life". I think this is pretty much self explanatory.
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.

Now I hope that these arguments make you reconsider your opinion a bit and realize that Islam is not only good. There are good muslims but not all of them are and the Coran has two halves : the beginning of Mohammed's life which was good and the second part which was only war and blood.

Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: turiqwalrus on October 01, 2013, 06:40:06 pm
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.
I'd have to argue on this point, though, considering that the muslim world, at large, is responsible for keepsafing pretty much all of what we know of ancient greece/rome today, and, of course, for algebra and arabic numerals.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Juju on October 01, 2013, 06:53:29 pm
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.

Christianity used to be like that too. Also the groups you're talking about are extremists. I guess you could argue about how Muslims are the most extremist, but I believe Christianity also had its fair share of extremists. There's lots of examples of Christian terrorists as much as good Muslim people.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on October 01, 2013, 07:26:34 pm
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.

Christianity used to be like that too. Also the groups you're talking about are extremists. I guess you could argue about how Muslims are the most extremist, but I believe Christianity also had its fair share of extremists. There's lots of examples of Christian terrorists as much as good Muslim people.

A thing to note here, Christianity has been more well known in the Western world for longer time. Islam has only recently started spreading and setting policy that would allow more people to see into their scripture and beliefs. For instance, it was only recently that the Koran was allowed to be translated outside of Arabic.

The Western world is equipped with a chisel. It's had a long time to wear down Christianity and smooth its rough edges, getting rid of a lot of the violent backwards aspects of the religion. Islam has not had that kind of exposure, and but now is in full view. Eventually the rough edges will be worn down.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AngelFish on October 01, 2013, 07:47:50 pm
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself.
...
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.

First of all, let's not turn this into a flame fest. Secondly...

a) Have you actually read the Qu'ran? It's quite a peaceful book on the whole. There are a lot of mentions of "infidels", but they're essentially defined as people who *attack* Islam. The book spends a lot of time clarifying that christians and followers of other abrahamic religions are not infidels in that sense, but merely those who have strayed from the path of God. Furthermore, the Bible itself is a religious text of Islam. Unless you want to argue that Judaism also has violent underpinnings, that's a pretty ridiculous argument to make.

b) You're calling everyone in the world's second largest religion unintelligent? Really? If I might make an alternate suggestion, perhaps the Nobel prizes don't measure the intelligence of social groups? Maybe they measure something else, like I don't know, the technological innovation of cultures?

c) Please don't use extremist organizations to define the core tenets of a religion. If you do continue to go down that route, note the Orange Volunteers, NLFT, LRA, KKK, Aleph, and Hutaree groups. Of course, this list is far from comprehensive and entirely ignores groups of other religions such as the Hindu Abhinav Bharat or the Buddhist "969 Movement".
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on October 01, 2013, 08:42:19 pm
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
Another thing : the Hamas's slogan (one of many pro islamisation groups) is "We love death more than you love life". I think this is pretty much self explanatory.
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.

First of all: no. the Koran does not have any of that stuff, it's the Sharia (or a version thereof), but it's not what you think...

The Sharia is supposedly a book of Mohammad quotes, and in some sects (and countries), it is followed as law. The book contains quotes and who said that quote to whom before it was written down. The fewer people in that chain, the stronger and more reliable it is. The "killing non-Muslims" thing has A LOT of people in its chain.

That said, in the Koran, it DOES endorse a holy war, or Jihad, but this has already happened, as in the Crusades.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: TIfanx1999 on October 01, 2013, 09:08:26 pm
PImath and AngelFish: ++

Remember that Christianity doesn't have a spotless record either. Remember the Crusades? Yea... People tend to do stupid things in the name of religion. Those with power use religion to bend people to their own purposes.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on October 01, 2013, 09:59:36 pm
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.

Christianity used to be like that too. Also the groups you're talking about are extremists. I guess you could argue about how Muslims are the most extremist, but I believe Christianity also had its fair share of extremists. There's lots of examples of Christian terrorists as much as good Muslim people.
There are also atheist extremists. They exist in every category of groups (even TI-8x ASM and BASIC coders in the late 90's).
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AssemblyBandit on October 01, 2013, 11:31:42 pm
I'm pretty sure alot of muslims are terrorists. I think I saw one today, he looked like a terrorist to me, and it looked like he mouthed the word 'bomb'.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on October 02, 2013, 12:01:09 am
I hope that you are joking lol. There are plenty of muslims living around here and none seems to have any suspectful behavior. Actually the only issue we seem to have over here is that a small minority of them tries to force their culture on us, trying to demand special treatment and laws based on religious motives. For example, the ability to vote at elections without uncovering their face, forcing shopping malls to remove all Christmas decorations, being allowed to carry a kirpan (some knife) at school, etc. If we start giving special treatments to them, then they'll have to change laws so that every kid are allowed to bring killing knives or swords in class, as well as being able to vote with an anonymous mask.

I think it all depends of how much into religion (or lack thereof) someone is, in which case we can have cases of extremism. Even then, it depends if they interpret their religion properly or not (eg terrorists aren't really muslim but some modified form of it that promotes killing non-believers and America) or political reasons (eg the English Quebecer man who tried to murder the new Prime Minister of Quebec last year after electrions had ended, because the new PM was separatist).
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AssemblyBandit on October 02, 2013, 12:27:25 am
Ha Ha! Yeah, just playing on the ignorance of americans! That's probably a pretty good portrayal, except for the TSA who would let Bin Laden hop right on a plane, but pat me down until their hands went numb!
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: ElementCoder on October 02, 2013, 12:27:53 am
Looked like a terrorist? I live pretty much next to an islamitic (cultural) gathering center and never has it caused any trouble nor blew up. Every day some walk by and I speak with them sometimes. They're friendly people and even though there are quite some when they've all gathered, nothing has ever gone wrong.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on October 02, 2013, 12:39:46 am
Besides, there are terrorists that looked like catholic citizens anyway, except maybe the darker skin color (but even then they could have been mistaken as Mexicans).


There are muslims who leave their respective countries because of war or lack of freedom. That said, it's not like North American countries are are good example of free country, but at least you won't get arrested if you forget to wear your burka or are caught doing Christian or non-heterosexual actions or defending these groups of people.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: SpiroH on October 02, 2013, 05:04:25 am
Yeah, this 'Looking like a terrorist' idea is a very dangerous concept, indeed. Do you still remember the young brasilian electrician ('Jean Charles de Menezes') who was shot dead in London, not a long time ago (22July2005)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes .
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: utz on October 02, 2013, 05:31:23 am
That said, in the Koran, it DOES endorse a holy war, or Jihad, but this has already happened, as in the Crusades.

I'm not going to get into this discussion, just a quick remark about the statement above: "Jihad" does not mean "holy war", even if that's what most western mainstream media as well as some deranged clerics from the Muslim world want you to believe. The word actually translates as "effort". In Qur'an it refers to the fact that Muslims should work hard to make a better person out of themselves.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Jim Bauwens on October 02, 2013, 05:57:56 am
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
Another thing : the Hamas's slogan (one of many pro islamisation groups) is "We love death more than you love life". I think this is pretty much self explanatory.
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.

Now I hope that these arguments make you reconsider your opinion a bit and realize that Islam is not only good. There are good muslims but not all of them are and the Coran has two halves : the beginning of Mohammed's life which was good and the second part which was only war and blood.

I know others have already replied to your post, but I still would like to add some stuff. In your post you are generalizing many things and generalisation to me ruins good discussion. It doesn't mean when one certain group (mis) interpretes something in the Bible/Koran that the entire group following those books do so. You always have extremists, in any religion (and I count atheism to that group too).

Beside that, I find your point on intelligence of muslims utterly ridiculous. Again, you're generalizing and even on a ridiculous point. The nobel prize is something that has been extremely western for a long period of time, there was little interaction with the many asian countries until recently. And if you look in the history books, you can see those countries contributed very much to science.

There is a muslim girl that I  know and am very befriended with. She is also one of the only girls I know that is studying computer science. Very bright and intelligent, more so than many other students. Although I don't agree with some of her religious viewpoints (I'm Christian) I certainly do respect them. She to me is a great proof of how muslims can be (and are) just normal people. It is the propaganda of western governments that tries to change this view, to make them all terrorists. (well, some governments more than others)

As a final note, every group that has power will take advantage of it. Be it a government, the Catholic church or certain muslim leaders. But they don't define all the people that are part of (or affected by) the group.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on October 02, 2013, 09:18:53 am
I think that Streetwalker probably should have said something along the line that in muslim countries, the politics and mentalities tend to be barbaric (as in blowing each others out or the extreme restrictions on women rights), but it doesn't mean that muslims have inferior intelligence. Also, is it true that years ago in some of those countries, there were no such restriction as forcing women to cover their face and that this was later instated by radical islamist groups?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 02, 2013, 11:25:54 am
Just to reply in general to some earlier posts I've read:
I am a Christian, and have a extremely strong basis for this. I also do not believe in evolution, and that's because I've done a ton of study on it. ;)

Why would a God let us die? Well, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the earth is not the most nice place to live in. To be stuck here forever would be a mild form of Hell for me, if I think about it like that.
If you believe in Heaven and Hell, death makes a lot of sense.

As much as people will deny it, evolution is basically a religion on it's own, with all the poor evidence it has.
To me, the world in the light of Christianity makes very much sense, and hardly does in the light of evolution and no God.

:)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AngelFish on October 02, 2013, 12:47:59 pm
Also, is it true that years ago in some of those countries, there were no such restriction as forcing women to cover their face and that this was later instated by radical islamist groups?

Depends on precisely when and where you're talking about. In *many* traditional sects, women are not required to cover their faces or hands, merely the rest of their body. However, some interpretations of the hadith and the Qu'ran have decided that it is virtuous for women to wear full body veils. A few even take it farther and mandate that women cover their faces at all times [except for those where it is explicitly banned by the Qu'ran], such as the stance taken by the Taliban during their rule in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: willrandship on October 02, 2013, 12:49:55 pm
I believe in evolution, and am christian. There is quite a bit of evidence for it, and no evidence for a literally instantaneous creation.

I also believe that God is our father, and we all have the potential to become gods.

Can anyone guess what religion I am?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: XiiDraco on October 02, 2013, 12:53:28 pm
I believe in evolution, and am christian. There is quite a bit of evidence for it, and no evidence for a literally instantaneous creation.

I also believe that God is our father, and we all have the potential to become gods.

Can anyone guess what religion I am?

Is the answer, Latter-day Saints or however you say that...?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: willrandship on October 02, 2013, 12:54:22 pm
100% correct, although I don't mind if you use the term mormon if you prefer, or LDS.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: XiiDraco on October 02, 2013, 12:56:12 pm
Yeah just now figured that out.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on October 02, 2013, 01:11:45 pm
As much as people will deny it, evolution is basically a religion on it's own, with all the poor evidence it has.

I would ask how this is that Evolution has such poor evidence? I can think of several very good examples within relatively recent timeframes.

The most popular example is Human breeding of dogs from wolves. However, Humans have also done the same with Horses. Horses as recent as the Roman eras were little more than ponies barely suitable for riding. That's why in early Bronze Age history, horses were used for chariots, they couldn't support the weight of Humans. True war horses weren't available until around the 18th century, iirc.

The there's the conceptual side of things. DNA is like source code. We know DNA mutates (at it's core, it's point mutations that drive all of evolution). The only thing that separates life forms from one another is DNA. Since we know DNA defines the organism, and that changes in DNA can be passed down, as you change the DNA, you change the organism. Eventually you get to a point a group with such different DNA that it cannot reproduce with others of the same species, and thus it becomes their own species. Where's the hole in that?
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on October 02, 2013, 04:48:08 pm
I also do not believe in evolution, and that's because I've done a ton of study on it. ;)

[...]

As much as people will deny it, evolution is basically a religion on it's own, with all the poor evidence it has.

do you ever get sick?  if so, you are experiencing first-hand the effects of evolution. over the years, you and your ancestors have built up immunities against germs and viruses. because you are (relatively) long-lived, quite a bit of this adaptation can happen dynamically (though mutations have also played a very large part in the development of the human immune system). bacteria and viruses cannot adapt "on the fly" like this, however, and thus have to rely solely on these mutations to continue getting around your immune system and successfully infecting you. the fact that you continue to get sick, despite having already encountered and defeated the parents/grandparents/great grandparents and so on of these diseases is proof that they are continuously evolving.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AssemblyBandit on October 02, 2013, 04:53:43 pm
Scipi, schmibs, I like both examples!

@ElementCoder, DJ, SprioH: Here is what my muslim post was loosely based on: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/23/justice/new-york-sikh-possible-hate-crime/index.html  but while looking for it, I found this: http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-ordered-sikh-remove-rag-head-aclu/story?id=20400720  I hope that judge gets a beating!
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: pimathbrainiac on October 02, 2013, 07:05:04 pm
That said, in the Koran, it DOES endorse a holy war, or Jihad, but this has already happened, as in the Crusades.

I'm not going to get into this discussion, just a quick remark about the statement above: "Jihad" does not mean "holy war", even if that's what most western mainstream media as well as some deranged clerics from the Muslim world want you to believe. The word actually translates as "effort". In Qur'an it refers to the fact that Muslims should work hard to make a better person out of themselves.

Okay, then I was wrong, and so was my AP World textbook (*sigh*).

All I mean to say is: It is rather cool to study religions from the outside, trying to get as little bias as possible. As was my point with Muslims!=terrorists, although the "American" bias says otherwise.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: utz on October 02, 2013, 08:19:22 pm
@pimathbrainiac Well, in Islam you don't really have a major authority like the pope who defines how things have to be interpreted. So I'm pretty sure the interpretation of "Jihad was the Crusades" is valid, too. About the Koran endorsing holy war... I'd say most Muslims of today would argue about that.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Juju on October 02, 2013, 10:34:03 pm
Well, since the American wars on terror against Afghanistan and Iraq (which are predominantly Muslim) and all those terrorist attacks from the region, I think some people would be so scared they would see terrorists everywhere.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: AssemblyBandit on October 02, 2013, 10:50:47 pm
@JuJu: The thing is, I think one would have a better chance at winning the lottery than getting harmed by a terrorist! Except for the tsa and my government spying on me, terrorists haven't wronged me none :)

Still true:
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 03, 2013, 04:13:05 am
@Willrandship, the Bible and evolution do not go together. There's enough proof for that online.
Also, not to be rude, but for me I believe Mormon is false religion because it contradicts things from the Bible.

As much as people will deny it, evolution is basically a religion on it's own, with all the poor evidence it has.

I would ask how this is that Evolution has such poor evidence? I can think of several very good examples within relatively recent timeframes.

The most popular example is Human breeding of dogs from wolves. However, Humans have also done the same with Horses. Horses as recent as the Roman eras were little more than ponies barely suitable for riding. That's why in early Bronze Age history, horses were used for chariots, they couldn't support the weight of Humans. True war horses weren't available until around the 18th century, iirc.

The there's the conceptual side of things. DNA is like source code. We know DNA mutates (at it's core, it's point mutations that drive all of evolution). The only thing that separates life forms from one another is DNA. Since we know DNA defines the organism, and that changes in DNA can be passed down, as you change the DNA, you change the organism. Eventually you get to a point a group with such different DNA that it cannot reproduce with others of the same species, and thus it becomes their own species. Where's the hole in that?
I believe that this is a form of de-evolution, which makes a ton more sense.
Also, to clarify I believe in micro evolution, just not in the macro stuff.

It makes complete sense to me that the first ancestors where perfect, but as they multiplied they became "less" perfect. Then around Moses time incest got forbidden(making sense too, since how further you go, the more harm it does.)

And also because I am a programmer, it's even a stronger reason NOT to believe in Evolution.
Just think about a little Hello World program and a simple calculator to run it. Be honest, such a thing will never occur from itself. Just as you can see on something so inferior to the human, that it was designed you should see it on the human as well. ;)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: harold on October 03, 2013, 04:33:40 am
De-evolution makes no sense, really. If that was a pattern, that would mean that "worse" individuals would systematically be more successful (ie has more offspring that is also itself successful), which is a direct contradiction of what it means to be "worse" in evolution. Being systematically more successful by definition means better.

Also, in programming, evolution algorithms (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithms") are perhaps not used widely, but they have their uses. They work on the same principles as real life evolution, and they do work - which isn't exactly proof that they have to work in real life as well, but at least an indication that it's not completely crazy. Note the step "select the best-fit individuals for reproduction" - that's the crucial part, the entire theory of evolution (and evolutionary algorithms) hinges on that very non-random selection.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on October 03, 2013, 06:40:22 am
I believe that this is a form of de-evolution, which makes a ton more sense.
Definition of "evolution" in biology: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

So your "de-evolution" thing if it exists is just part of evolution. So you just said "I don't believe in evolution but I believe in evolution".

Also, not to be rude, but for me I believe Mormon is false religion because it contradicts things from the Bible.
And everything is a false religion because it contradicts things from Lewis Caroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Heh, it is a book like another, why not use that one as an argument in front of another book ? And don't tell me "because Bible comes from God", he didn't write it himself. And even if it is meant to be his "ideas" inside, the real people who wrote the book could have failed writing exactly what God wanted to be written.

And also because I am a programmer, it's even a stronger reason NOT to believe in Evolution.
Just think about a little Hello World program and a simple calculator to run it. Be honest, such a thing will never occur from itself. Just as you can see on something so inferior to the human, that it was designed you should see it on the human as well. ;)
So all of your programs were perfectly perfect ? You never had any optimization fail that induced weird behaviours in some precise conditions (too precise for you to notice it when first testing) ? So maybe the main program we're in was not supposed to allow evolution but an exception makes it happen once every I-don't-know, which explains why we can't pop a third eye in a second but why monkeys can become humans in milleniums.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: shmibs on October 03, 2013, 12:09:20 pm
Hayleia, be careful to avoid insults and sarcasm. they are both disallowed and counter-productive to you getting your point across.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Hayleia on October 03, 2013, 12:21:01 pm
Hayleia, be careful to avoid insults and sarcasm. they are both disallowed and counter-productive to you getting your point across.
I agree that I used a lot of sarcasm, but I didn't write any insult, did I ?
And for sarcasm, I just wanted to avoid being boring, but if you prefer me not using sarcasm, I won't do it next time.

edit There are several definitions of sarcasm. The one I used is not meant to wound but just to defeat opposite arguments by making them sound funny.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: willrandship on October 03, 2013, 12:57:21 pm
Where are the biblical contradictions for mormonism? I'm genuinely curious, considering I've read quite a bit of it and haven't noticed any.

Also, the argument of macro-evolution vs micro-evolution is quite weak. There is not some magic line where alterations in physical features are under different genes.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 04, 2013, 03:51:15 am
Where are the biblical contradictions for mormonism? I'm genuinely curious, considering I've read quite a bit of it and haven't noticed any.
Here's a webpage that explains the contradictions quite well: http://carm.org/biblical-response-to-mormons

And since it is also said in that Jesus fulfilled the law, I doesn't make sense to me that a new Doctrine has come. ;)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: willrandship on October 04, 2013, 02:23:07 pm
The whole point of mormonism is that it isn't a new doctrine. It's the old doctrine, without 2000 years of corruption.

I don't see any references in that link that aren't entirely up to interpretation/misuse of either vague or context-sensitive scripture.

On his point 4: "Ask again what it is and listen closely for any hint of the free forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. You usually hear an answer dealing with works, obedience, doing something, etc." This, while common, is incorrect doctrine. The Mormon church believes as much as anyone that we are 100% saved by Jesus. The difference is, he cleanses us, to the point where we can then be judged for our capacity to be certain exalted beings. That's not judgement in the accusatory sense.

No one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.

Point 5: The church was not prevailed against during the time of Peter's service. That came after he was crucified upside down. The savior's promise was that while the church had Peter as their rock, the gates of hell would not prevail against it. No such promise for afterward. (That's 100% interpretation right there, but that enforces the point that most of this is interpretation that doesn't match the mormon interpretation)

On point 6, he argues that the priesthood after the order of Melchezidek was only ever held by the Savior. This is simply not true, as a prime example would be Melchezidek himself. The order gets its name from him, although he was not the first to have it. He was the only one to have it at the time (due to various Old Testament happenings), although he later granted the same priesthood to Peter so he could lead the church. (Matt. 16:19) Peter did not get the chance to pass it along, so it stopped there. The catholic church was later formed out of the various bishoprics, with only the Levitical/Arronic priesthood.

Point 7: While Mormonism believes in plurality of gods, there is an important distinction to be made. The only god with authority over our world is our one God. All other gods are either his children, or (depending on whether you consider our God the first or not, I'm not sure which is correct) his relatives. Since, in order to become a god, you need to become one with the Father, there is no conflict between the gods.
The scriptures he references can be classified into two groups: Rebuttal of nature worship, and situations where Jehovah is referring to himself as God. (A frequent confusion) Since mormonism believes Jesus and the Father are separate beings, it's important to understand which is speaking to get the correct context. In the Isaiah verses, he is referring to being the one and only who can redeem their sins. There will be no Savior before or after him.

Quick resolutions to the "Errors" in point 8
A. Here's the scripture, which he doesn't link to. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." He claims this is an error since Nephi states that grace saves us, despite what we can do to purify ourselves being lacking. Isn't that the whole point of being saved by grace? Where is the error?

B. He claims that Moroni is quoting New Testament scripture, when in fact he is not. He is quoting prior writings of his people. If he was quoting those verses, he did so quite poorly.The confusion stems from the fact that the footnotes point to the accused New Testament verses. The footnotes are for gospel study, and only point to similar topics. They do not indicate quotation, and are not part of the actual scriptural text.

C. Once again, a "quoting problem". Those quotations are straight out of the 5 books of moses, which they had. Once again, footnote confusion.

D. He simply states that "Jesus, a Son of God" is incorrect. I can only assume that he's referring to Mormon non-trinity belief. Not an error. Besides, this is a guy remembering what his father had taught him years before, while he's going through a horrible trial. (in coma, all sins brought down upon him, etc) after being an anti-gospel preacher for years.

E. I'm not sure where he gets his reference for claiming that King Benjamin was the one who could translate foreign languages, most especially since later Mosiah is the one to do it. A translation error fixed before publication is not an error in the publication, it's an error in the original manuscript. (there have been many corrections)

F. The BoM claims Jesus will be born in Jerusalem, "The land of our forefathers", where he was born in Bethlehem. Keep in mind, it has been almost 600 years since anyone was in that area. Jerusalem was only 6-8 miles away from Bethlehem, so if we assume that they were saying "he will be born in the land of our forefathers, the land of Jerusalem" it's extremely accurate. Far more precise than many other prophecies.

Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 08, 2013, 03:54:11 pm
I admit, I am not an expert in Mormonism, but some fairly obvious things stand out, so I don't have to waist my time on it.
Quote
No one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.
Ehm, this alone already contradicts the Bible:
Quote from: Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8
The Great White Throne
20:11 Then1 I saw a large2 white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven3 fled4 from his presence, and no place was found for them. 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then5 books were opened, and another book was opened – the book of life.6 So7 the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.8 20:13 The9 sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death10 and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. 20:14 Then11 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire. 20:15 If12 anyone’s name13 was not found written in the book of life, that person14 was thrown into the lake of fire.

21:8 But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells,15 idol worshipers,16 and all those who lie, their place17 will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur.18 That19 is the second death.”

Also, mormon.org says that God in some cases demanded polygamy. This is not so. Yes, God doesn't always make a point about it when it is done, but all the times when polygamy was in the Bible it was a human choice(without God's interference)

God does not contradict himself.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Scipi on October 08, 2013, 11:54:37 pm
Quote
No one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.
Ehm, this alone already contradicts the Bible:

I won't pretend to have too much knowledge of the Bible and other Abrahamic religious texts, but it is to my understanding that Hell is never actually described in the Bible. There is a passage saying something about flames and the "gnashing of teeth", but it was only a single passage. Earlier Greek texts actually had different words for Hell, possibly referring to different "Hells" or different places altogether. In fact, I seem to recall that Hell was first considered to be more like a Hades, or "abode of the dead" where souls were placed in an endless slumber, or something similar. It wasn't the place of punishment that was popularized by Dante's Inferno and Puritan sermons. The best theory about Hell I've seen as a conclusion to this, is Hell is really just nonexistance. Which makes a lot more sense to me, personally. It's as if you're given a choice to accept God or to return to peaceful nonexistance.

Quote
Point 7: While Mormonism believes in plurality of gods, there is an important distinction to be made. The only god with authority over our world is our one God. All other gods are either his children, or (depending on whether you consider our God the first or not, I'm not sure which is correct) his relatives. Since, in order to become a god, you need to become one with the Father, there is no conflict between the gods.

I find this part very interesting, since in the past I've come to a similar conclusion about Christianity (from a theoretical standpoint, at least) to where if God is the "Father" and Humanity His "Children," it would stand to reason (continuing the analogy) that we would eventually grow up to become the "Father" of our own "Children."

Something I like about that description over other sect's (to the best on my knowledge, that is) , is it gives a continued purpose to the whole thing. Most other Christians would claim "God's plan is unknowable" as substitute for their scripture never defining a reason for God to have created us in the first place. Your scripture would imply a cycle, in which its own perpetuation would be it's own reason, and arguments can be made as to it's never having a beginning.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: willrandship on October 09, 2013, 03:22:47 am
@scipi that's pretty much exactly right. Also, why would a God bother with sacrificing something tangible of their own something basically portrayed as a pet project? Clearly we are worth a great deal. (explained by the doctrine of us being children of said God)

Hell isn't really a popular term in mormon sects. The general term used is Outer Darkness, described as being filled with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (from the other inhabitants of said place). This place is reserved for those who knowingly reject the atonement, e.g. participation is 100% voluntary.

@Stefan A detail to remember is that mormons consider revelations highly symbolic. This does not mean we discount the doctrine, but we don't think Hell is literally made of fire, for example. (Not an important point)

More importantly, the standard mormon doctrine says that the Hell described in revelations is the spirit prison, not outer darkness. (similar, but spirit prison is definite in length, and technically a state, not a location) This is a state of relative suffering, post death and pre-resurrection. The people who stay there (the ones who don't repent - which they can) continue in this until their resurrection, which happens after the resurrection of the more righteous.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 09, 2013, 03:38:27 am
Well, I do believe in the underworld where all the dead people go and wait till judgement day.
But Hell is also described as the second death, which makes the idea even more plausible.
Here is a very interesting article: https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/hell-sheol-hades-paradise-and-the-grave/
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: bored_student on October 09, 2013, 05:57:47 am
Hell isn't really a popular term in mormon sects. The general term used is Outer Darkness, described as being filled with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (from the other inhabitants of said place). This place is reserved for those who knowingly reject the atonement, e.g. participation is 100% voluntary.
I don't know much about the mormonism but i think this is also the catholic image of hell.
Nobody has to go to hell because god want's to save everyone, but humans are created as free individuals.
So everybody can refuse God's love and can live without him in eternity.
This place without God and love is called the hell.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 10, 2013, 03:06:29 pm
Hell isn't really a popular term in mormon sects. The general term used is Outer Darkness, described as being filled with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (from the other inhabitants of said place). This place is reserved for those who knowingly reject the atonement, e.g. participation is 100% voluntary.
I don't know much about the mormonism but i think this is also the catholic image of hell.
Nobody has to go to hell because god want's to save everyone, but humans are created as free individuals.
So everybody can refuse God's love and can live without him in eternity.
This place without God and love is called the hell.
The majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible:

Matthew 7:13-14
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Another contradiction...
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: DJ Omnimaga on October 10, 2013, 10:24:04 pm
The majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible

Aren't we already in Hell? ??? (seeing in which state some parts of our world is)
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 11, 2013, 05:58:07 am
The majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible

Aren't we already in Hell? ??? (seeing in which state some parts of our world is)
:P
Sadly, it can get worse. A lot worse...
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: willrandship on October 11, 2013, 05:40:35 pm
Stefan, in Mormonism Eternal Life refers specifically to Godhood, ie the Celestial kingdom. This is why so many scriptures say "Immortality and Eternal Life" since they are not considered the same. The path to Eternal Life is quite small, and many won't make it, but those people won't necessarily go to hell.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 12, 2013, 01:42:08 pm
Stefan, in Mormonism Eternal Life refers specifically to Godhood, ie the Celestial kingdom. This is why so many scriptures say "Immortality and Eternal Life" since they are not considered the same. The path to Eternal Life is quite small, and many won't make it, but those people won't necessarily go to hell.
So, basically you say that Bible verse means that the narrow path goes to Eternal Life and part of the broad path(or even most?) receive immorality, while it says that it only leads to destruction...
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: bored_student on October 12, 2013, 01:46:24 pm
The majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible:

Matthew 7:13-14
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The Bible also says that God wants to save everyone (2 Peter 3:9)
Why should God let himself nail on the cross, when not to save all humans.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: Stefan Bauwens on October 12, 2013, 01:59:31 pm
God indeed wants all to be saved and so He does all He can, but He will not choose for you.
It's comparable of God throwing ropes out to everyone so they can climb up to Heaven. But you still have to hold on and climb.
Title: Re: Religion Discussion
Post by: bored_student on October 12, 2013, 02:26:38 pm
That's exactly what I meant with "refuse God's love"