Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[ThaFleastyler]

I'm just gonna put something out there, if you don't like it then just send it on back.

Deal.

What's the deal with being a christian? The base exercise of Christianity are to live for God, isn't it? Well, what was the point in Jesus/God giving us life, sparing our sins is all we are left to do is to live by his rules.

If i was alive around the time when Jesus had his cross over his shoulders, dragging it through town and he asked me "if i spare your sins and let mankind be spared, will you devote your life to me", i would if said "fuck no, i'm off to Taco Bell for a cheese burrito".

See, I don't fully understand all this myself, as there are any different literal and symbolic meanings wrapped up in Jesus' death. One way in which I take it is this: God allowed His son, Jesus, to die on the cross, in our place, to show that there is a) nothing we could do make Him not forgive us, with Jesus' death replacing our own figurative "death" at the hands of our sin, and b) replace the need for sacrifices as per the Old Testament laws (which is why you sometimes hear Jesus referred to as the "living sacrifice"). It also allowed God/Jesus to do the other main thing that was needed: conquering death by rising again 3 days after his death.

Either way, through this series of events, our sins were forgiven and the way to heaven was opened for all who would accept God and Jesus as their own.

(this is also why I'm not forceful in trying to push my beliefs or get people "saved" - it took a long time for me to really understand God, and I still don't really to this day, but I keep reading and learning more and more and trying to figure it all out. I really think that is how it should work.)

I don't think it's that i don't believe in God, it's just that i don't acknowledge him with his whole "i control you" bs as if we all have ariels sticking out our heads and he is up there with a remote control.

I don't believe that is the case at all.

Yes, there is a certain level of pre-determination - that is, God sets out a path before us ... however, we can choose not to go down that path if we so desire. If God had a remote control, no one would ever sin.

Its complicated again (theology often is) bt the ideas of free-will and pre-determination actually work in together. If you want I can try and find out more - it'll probably come up in the book I'm reading at the moment.

I've even TRIED it. I've had a paster (sp) poach my cell number from a survey/competition and ring me up, trying to get me to meet up with him so he can persuade me to be a christian. But i just can't bring myself to follow a set of rules that will inhibit my life enjoyment.

See, I can't understand why people feel like belief in God, or attending a church, will inhibit life enjoyment. For me, its had quite the opposite effect - not only am I having more fun in life and Im happier than I was before, I feel like I'm living with a purpose - I can't even tell you what a difference that makes to the satisfaction I get from every part of my life. For example, before going back to church, I played in bands, and just sort of did my thing, made money, and was happy with that; now, I realise that I have a purpose in everything I do, so I try to figure out how to do the music thing while actually having a purpose for it as well.

As far as material enjoyment, I still go out to the same parties, listen to the same music, go see the same movies, hang out with the same friends ... plus, my relationship with my family has improved AND I've made a bunch more friends through church.

So yeah - I mean, that won't be the same experience for everyone, but thats why I can't understand why people think that being a Christian would inhibit life enjoyment. For me, it's been enhanced.

Hope that answers some questions


As an aside, I'm reading a book called 'unChristian', which looks at the perception of the Christian church as explained in surveys with young nonChristian American people aged 16 to 29. Some of the figures were pretty shocking: 91% felt Christians were anti-homosexual, 87% felt Christians were judgmental, 85% felt Christians were hypocritical, 72% felt Christians were out of touch with reality, 70% felt Christians were insensitive to others.

It seems like a lot of the attitudes in this discussion are also in line with these figures. Which is the problem: those figures are the opposite of what I feel like the church should be, which is also the point of the book.

[philo-sofa]

Yeah, what I'm saying is rough and its at odds with the dictionary definition of "religious", but it is a term thats been adapted to fit within the Christian worldview - its become a kind of jargon, if you will.

Rather than a "cynical attempt to redefine things away from something that's unfashionable", its more a case of trying to avoid the pitfalls as it were, and seek to have a real relationship with God, based on God himself, rather than any doctrination created by man.

Yeah I appreciate it's quite the opposite of cynical reasoning, just framing why I think so.

[Ngati_Grim]

Nothing much to add at the moment, except to say that I'm having coffee with a Theologian next week and should have some interesting things to post after that (asking about his take on Atheism/Agnosticism/Religiosity/Faith as well as debatable issues about the reality/fallacy of the existence of Jesus...)
If anyone has something they would like me to ask, I'll try to oblige (if it is framed properly and not abusive).

[philo-sofa]

^^ Actually, one off topic thing - sorry if I was strangely silent last night Ngati; it's been a while and I forgot that squad chat and Teamspeak are set up on different buttons.

*slaps forehead*

[Ngati_Grim]

lol....no worries bro...I find if I talk it affects my gameplay adversely!

Righto: back on topic:following on from philo and pyro...arguably if religion hadn't been the major dominating factor in the Dark Ages, we would be 1500 years ahead with our technology.
Makes you think!

[ThaFleastyler]

Righto: back on topic:following on from philo and pyro...arguably if religion hadn't been the major dominating factor in the Dark Ages, we would be 1500 years ahead with our technology.

I'd be interested in your argument to that effect.
That sounds like a variant of the Historical Fallacy to me.

[philo-sofa]

lol....no worries bro...I find if I talk it affects my gameplay adversely!

Righto: back on topic:following on from philo and pyro...arguably if religion hadn't been the major dominating factor in the Dark Ages, we would be 1500 years ahead with our technology.
Makes you think!

The dark ages happened because of the collapse of Rome, not due to religion per se AFAIK.  Religion was the one thing they could still turn to, but unlike now, the religious classes were just about the only literate people in the middle ages, and pretty much the only people of learning.  Priests were also just about the only set of individuals who had the luxury of spending time on academic enquiry (and running completely against my point, possibly the only ones sufficiently beyond reproach not to fear being burned at the stake for dabbling in 'arcane arts').  

One way or the other, I would argue they more or less kept the light alive during the dark ages - if we'd removed religion I don't think we would've moved from the sacking of Rome by northern European tribes to the enlightenment. Perhaps it's more accurate to look at religion viz science in Western cultures as having had a moderating effect over the last few millenia - keeps it going in the down periods, tends to hold it back in periods like the present.

[psyche]

So let me get this straight, in laymans terms:

Faith = belief in something that can only be "sensed".
Atheism = rejection of the notion that such a being exists.

So how does Atheism require Faith?
Pure and simple, it doesn't.

Idiot.

'Faith' is not something you associate only with religion. Atheism DOES require faith.

Main Entry: 1faith  
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths  \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust

firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)

To be a true atheist is to believe in something for which there is no proof.  So next time you consider calling me an idiot without a good reason, maybe you should just STFU and eat a dick instead.

"To be an atheist requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny." - Joseph Addison

Pseudoscience

And what have I been discussing that is pseudoscience?

Guess what? String theory/M-theory/multiverses are pseudoscience bullshit.

crap

Oh well, if you seriously believe mankind will evolve to a stage of being able to create universes like our own from nothing then you really aren't worth arguing or discussing anything with.

lol supreme alien being. Go read some more Richard Dawkins and further delude yourself buddy.

lol....no worries bro...I find if I talk it affects my gameplay adversely!

Righto: back on topic:following on from philo and pyro...arguably if religion hadn't been the major dominating factor in the Dark Ages, we would be 1500 years ahead with our technology.
Makes you think!

What a load of shit.

[ThaFleastyler]

'Faith' is not something you associate only with religion. Atheism DOES require faith.

Main Entry: 1faith  
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths  \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust

firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)

To be a true atheist is to believe in something for which there is no proof.  So next time you consider calling me an idiot without a good reason, maybe you should just STFU and eat a dick instead.

"To be an atheist requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny." - Joseph Addison

Wow, you can use a dictionary! OH WAIT! So can I!

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.  
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

To relate the religious idea of "faith" to atheism, you would have to be an idiot.

Idiot.

[psyche]

Depends where you get your definition of faith from then, doesn't it? There are many people that would agree with me that atheism requires a form of faith. Whatever, agree to disagree anyway, pretty pointless thing to argue about.

[Ngati_Grim]

 So next time you consider calling me an idiot without a good reason, maybe you should just STFU and eat a dick instead.

dick recipe


I might just do that. Geez, I don't know what's wrong with you. You post some good things and then stuff it up by getting all defensive and abusive.

Yes philo, I get the point about the sack of Rome and the holding of the candle. I will try to find the reference from which I got that notion. It puts it better than my 5 second effort! You might, however, be able to argue that if Rome had remained pagan it might not have gone through the same ructions. That is mere speculation at this stage from me, and I am aware that there was already a decline in pre-Christian Rome anyway...


I've just got a book called "irreligion' (A Mathematician explains why the arguments for God just don't add up) by John Allen Paulos. I haven't read it yet, but there is a great quote on the back from Sam Harris: " John Allen Paulos has done us all a great service. Irreligion is an elegant response to the manifold ignorance that still goes by the name of 'faith' in the twenty-first century."

Lovely!


Nice quote from Joseph Addison, psyche. Shame that he lived over two centuries ago, before the time of Darwin and that his whole world view was built around a religious climate and isn't relevant now due to the advances in Scientific and philosophical knowledge (even religious, if you look at people like Lloyd Geering and, dare I say it, Roland Barth and Donald Cupitt!).


It's a shame that you think Richard Dawkins has nothing to offer. You should read some of his scientific books that don't approach the topic of religion and you may (one always has to have hope in this) realise that you have no basis to dismiss him as outrightly as you have based on a misunderstanding of what he says (as others have pointed out).


This weeks 'New Scientist' has an interesting editorial:

Editorial: Not unique but special

    * 21 May 2008
    *
    * Magazine issue 2657

IT IS finally time to kiss goodbye to the idea that humans are qualitatively different from other animals. The notion has been ingrained for centuries, yet in recent years research has found overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We are not as unique as we thought.

Hardly any aspect of our biology is distinctly human. There is no definitively human type of neuron, and while it is possible that there are a few human-specific genes, they alone cannot explain the differences between "them" and "us". Recently, we have found that even most human mental tricks have some rudimentary analogue in the animal world and most elements of human culture have a resonance in other species.

To anyone schooled in Darwinism, this should come as no surprise. Humans sit on a tiny twig of the much larger tree of life......

(continued if have online access, or go to the library, or buy it!)

[Black Heart]

are atheists not meant to be able to have faith ? Is it reserved for the minds of people who beleive in a god ?

If a self confessed atheist writes a letter and ends it "your's faithfully..." will the universe end ?

[ThaFleastyler]

are atheists not meant to be able to have faith ? Is it reserved for the minds of people who beleive in a god ?

If a self confessed atheist writes a letter and ends it "your's faithfully..." will the universe end ?

Not at all; you can have faith in people (the source of the "Yours faithfully" in letters), faith in a rope while mountain climbing, faith in a car getting you from a to b, faith in a bridge not collapsing, etc etc.

But stating that it takes the same kind of faith to believe in God as it does to NOT believe in God is sheer lunacy.

[Dr Woomanchu]

Not at all; you can have faith in people (the source of the "Yours faithfully" in letters), faith in a rope while mountain climbing, faith in a car getting you from a to b, faith in a bridge not collapsing, etc etc.

But stating that it takes the same kind of faith to believe in God as it does to NOT believe in God is sheer lunacy.

Well I have faith that there aren't little green pixies living under the surface of the sun. Is that the same?

[psyche]

Well I have faith that there aren't little green pixies living under the surface of the sun. Is that the same?

No, that's irrational faith based on nothing..

[philo-sofa]

No, that's irrational faith based on nothing..

It's actually a very strong inductive argument that comes from understanding the situation and from experience.  So strong it justifies a cetain level of certainty without it truly being 'faith' or being open to the kind of challenges a more debatable belief has.

Yes philo, I get the point about the sack of Rome and the holding of the candle. I will try to find the reference from which I got that notion. It puts it better than my 5 second effort! You might, however, be able to argue that if Rome had remained pagan it might not have gone through the same ructions. That is mere speculation at this stage from me, and I am aware that there was already a decline in pre-Christian Rome anyway...

Nah is all good - I do understand what you mean and as I remember (and detect from your tone) this thread has had that debate, though one thing that I'd have mentioned was just how technologically sterile Rome was.

[Ngati_Grim]

No, that's irrational faith based on nothing..

....


Philo, that's quite right. I'm not sure, however, how to reconcile the other great empires of the time, such as the Chinese (can't pick the name of the dynasty) to my argument about religion as a backwater for scientific/technological development. Damn my Westernocentrism!

[psyche]

What I mean is, there is evidence to support God and there is evidence to support other theories, there is no evidence to support 'pixies' whatsoever so until there is it's a waste of time and intellectual effort to even mention it. Come on - did the greatest philosophical thinkers ever use ridiculous analogies like pixies? No, the majority of them were beyond that kind of immature notion so why should any of you stoop to that level? Richard Dawkins doesn't count as a philosophical thinker either, he's just a biologist.

[Dr Woomanchu]

No, that's irrational faith based on nothing..

There are an infinite number of impossible things we can imagine. Is not believing in all of them, even the ones we haven't thought of yet, faith?

Do you have faith that Zeus doesn't exist? what about the pixies I mentioned?

Not believing something is not faith. Not believing every unmeasurable, unprovable creation of the human imagination is not faith.  

My point, as always, is that not believing something you are told without any evidence, or even a supportable rational chain of reasoning, is not faith, any more than nymphomania is virginity.

[Ngati_Grim]

But what is the difference between 'God' and 'pixies'?
They are both manifestations of overactive imaginings....or are they?
The 'proof' for 'pixies' is as strong as the 'proof' for 'God'.

[cobra]

What I mean is, there is evidence to support God

this is a lie - there is no hard evidence for god

Richard Dawkins doesn't count as a philosophical thinker either, he's just a biologist.

um... Dawkins has a D.Phil, so he is a doctor of philosophy - again you have no idea about his works so you are just a shit geyser (spouting shit)

[dirtyape]

why is there need to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence to begin with?

Some would consider existence as proof of creation. If there was creation then was there a cause? And if there was a cause, then was it god? The atheist has faith that it is not. And the faith is based on... what?

Apparently in the same interview he was asked what he thought the likely chance of God existing is. He said "there is a 99% chance that God does not exist" - then when asked if it might be something close to 70% he said "it might be closer to 70% or 60%....oh I don't want to name a number.."  (not an exact quote but it is similar to this)

Well, have you even thought about this - or are you just shooting your mouth off after watching some dickhead fundi rant and rage about how much of a fool Dawkins is because he happened to logically nullify their entire belief system?

1. Now considering that we have observable evidence that life can exist it is feasible for it to exist in other parts of the universe.

2. There are area's of the universe which will have star that are further along their life cycle than our own. If these systems developed life then there is a potential for those lifeforms to be much more advanced. We are talking about many millions of years head start on humanity.

3. It is therefore possible for intelligent advanced lifeforms to exist.

4. Humans can genetically modify lifeforms. this developed in the space of 10000 years (mostly in the last 100 years). In 10 million years what could we achieve?

5. There is no evidence that god exists.

Do the maths.

Why the fuck are you even replying to my posts then numbnuts?

I think you need some time in the cooler. Grow up, you behave like an impudent child sometimes. How old are you? 16? 15?

Man, sorry for being curious about where the existence of everything came from, where we came from, and why and how and all these fascinating questions that one can ponder. I guess I should go play World of Warcraft and fondle my ballsacks for the rest of the week because that's a much more constructive thing to do.

You are not curious. The curious look for answers, you already have yours.

Atheism is a religion the same way BALD is a hair colour

Atheism is not a religion.

Not all faith is religious.

So let me get this straight, in laymans terms:

Faith = belief in something that can only be "sensed".
Atheism = rejection of the notion that such a being exists.

So how does Atheism require Faith?
Pure and simple, it doesn't.

Idiot.

If you do not know why there is existence then any opinion you have on what the cause was (or was not) will essentially be an expression of opinion, and therefore it is a belief. And it is a belief without evidence... which makes it.... ?

Faith.


If you say that pixies didn't create the universe then you have faith that pixies didn't do it. You do not know that they didn't - because you have no idea what did.

'Faith' is not something you associate only with religion. Atheism DOES require faith.

Yes, that's right.

And what have I been discussing that is pseudoscience?

How about your hypothesis that god exists? Shall we point out the logical fallacies again?

Guess what? String theory/M-theory/multiverses are pseudoscience bullshit.

No, not really. M-Theory is mathematical masturbation, but maths is the language of the universe. If something can be described mathematically then it is probably possible. e.g. Black Holes.

The only thing pseudo about M-Theory is that it cannot be confirmed by observation. Yet.

Oh well, if you seriously believe mankind will evolve to a stage of being able to create universes like our own from nothing then you really aren't worth arguing or discussing anything with.

Closed mind.

[psyche]

But what is the difference between 'God' and 'pixies'?
They are both manifestations of overactive imaginings....or are they?
The 'proof' for 'pixies' is as strong as the 'proof' for 'God'.

God is a word that (mostly, english) people use to describe the first cause that brought all physical being into existence, the source of life, intelligence, the cosmos and everything inbetween.

Proof of God for me comes back to the fact that time, space, energy, the universe, everything did not exist, so there must have been nothing. Yet somehow everything that we know came into existence from (arguably) nothing, now if there were absolutely no intention or purpose or intelligence behind that event whatsoever I honestly don't believe it could have turned out how it is now; there are too many coincidences to simply ignore in my opinion.

It's not undeniable proof but coupled with other evidence and various philosophies I find it to be a more realistic than most other, particulary atheistic theories about life and the universe. Now what implication I think that haves on our lives, heaven and hell and all that stuff... I won't say because i'm not religious, but to be quite honest I like the idea of moral punishment, I think murderers and rapists should receive some kind of eternal hell, and I also like the idea that there may be an existence that is beyond what we perceive in our mortal shells in this physical, material universe. That all the pain, suffering and misery with fleeting moments of love and happiness that we experience doesn't just continue in an endless cycle, but there's something more to it. Don't get me wrong, i'm not entirely convinced by the existence of God which is why im agnostic but I think it's a very plausible explanation for the beginning of everything that we know.

Just my thoughts..

If you want to call it 'pixies' instead, by all means, just don't expect me to take you seriously.

[psyche]

this is a lie - there is no hard evidence for god

Just your opinion really; many scientists, theologians, religious people and philosophers might disagree with you. Reminds of these two quotes:

God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. - J.B. Phillips

A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol. --Deitrich Bonhoeffer

um... Dawkins has a D.Phil, so he is a doctor of philosophy - again you have no idea about his works so you are just a shit geyser (spouting shit)

Well his philosophy sucks then >_<

[cobra]

Just your opinion really; many scientists, theologians, religious people and philosophers might disagree with you. Reminds of these two quotes:

give examples of this hard evidence, because most scientists and most modern philosophers might disagree with you