Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[dirtyape]

Yeah I reviewed pre-post and decided to edit out some comments and modified it so you were not the subject of any criticism, but I forgot to remove the disclaimer.

And I didn't expect you to agree tbh. Your agreement is not conducive to my arguments success.

[cobra]

What I'm getting at is that civilisations have always felt something was out there. Not necessarily a Christian "God", as I pointed out earlier, but something.

Humans like to put human attributes on everything around them - If you observe people with pets they will tend to give them human motives and reasons - If you give human motives and reasons to natural objects and phenomenon (wind or clouds) you get gods - Your religion says god created us in his image where the truth is we created him in ours

If god was having influence wouldn't the beliefs of different religions be similar - surely god is broadcasting the same message, and powerful enough to get the right message across but the belief structures are very different - even in different sects of christianity

It isn't science that stops me believing in a god - Its the fact that if there is a god he doesn't have any impact on reality, he is exactly the same as a god who doesn't exist

[dirtyape]

Nicely put cobra, to expand this a little further.

Have there been any ancient deities that are not modelled after Humans?

Even the Native American Indians, who have stories of Raven and Coyote, have given them human qualities. Perhaps it is a requirement of the oral tradition that was used to transfer the stories. Perhaps these required humanisation in order to be successful?

Or perhaps people just didn't want to hear/think about things that were not humanised. I think this makes better sense. If you consider the stories of oral tradition as the earliest form of mass media, and likened it to TV today, then the audience would decide the success of the story and the story teller based on the stories content - not it's truthfulness.

And stories that liken deities to Humans would most definitely have been more successful than stories that painted them as alien entities that the audience simply could not relate to.

[Arnifix]

[video]7JYIJPjpCFc[/video]

[Dr Woomanchu]

OMG I have had a revelation!!

This thread has been resurrected at least 17 times, and is therefore the Thread of God

[psyche]

This thread is proof that atheists and agnostics are obsessed with religion, God and their personal beliefs as much as what any religious person is.

Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition with the goal: "toward God!"  - Max Planck

[psyche]

This thread is proof that atheists and agnostics are obsessed with religion, God and their personal beliefs as much as what any religious person is.

Both science and religion wage a tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition with the goal: "towards God!"  - Max Planck

[Tiwaking!]

This thread is proof that atheists and agnostics are obsessed with religion, God and their personal beliefs as much as what any religious person is.

Both science and religion wage a tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition with the goal: "towards God!"  - Max Planck

"If you tighten the string too much, it will snap. And if you leave it too slack, it wont play" - Musician to Pupil

[psyche]

"If you tighten the string too much, it will snap. And if you leave it too slack, it wont play" - Musician to Pupil

Sorry, I don't see the relevance...

[Zarkov]

It didn't hurt like hell

I don't agree with you either though.
My own experience indicates (to me, at least) that there is a God.

Hope you don't mind

How was the Pope?

[ThaFleastyler]

How was the Pope?

Why would I know?
He leads the Roman Catholic church, of which I am not a member.

[Ngati_Grim]

The same god?

[ThaFleastyler]

Yeah, the same God, but I'm not a Roman Catholic, so why would I go see the Roman Catholic leader? He's just a guy, far as I'm concerned - and a guy with a poor working understanding of science, and thus its place in the world, at that. I wouldn't go and see Robert Mugabe, since I'm not Zimbabwean ... ok, bad example.

Plus, he was in a different country.

Maybe if he was in NZ ... ?

Maybe.



The real problem I have is this: Why does everyone make a great big deal about the Pope? Why not make an equally big deal about the leader of the Presbyterian church? Or the Anglican church? Or my church? Frankly, Roman Catholicism is a fairly good example of a religious denomination putting the man (in this case, Benedict) above the faith.

[Ngati_Grim]

As the title suggests, it is christianity which has elevated man. It's a good model for social control (or was until we rationalists came along!)and allows all sorts of 'outs'.
I guess that's one of the problems with having an interlocutor.1
It's a degree of scale thing, but it happens in other denominations besides Roman Catholicism.
My Father was a Presbyterian Minister and he was on a pedestal* of sorts (not of his own design) because he was perceived as the intermediary, I guess. It is a position of power and thus people will fawn to you or hang on your words and as we have seen many times, this position is open to abuse.

If the god is the same, then why wouldn't you go and see 'his prime earthly representative'? Surely you must want to have a bit of pomp and splendour to mix it up a bit from guitars and handwaving? :rnr:

And if it is the same god then 'his earthly representative' would speak for him?
So, if you refused to go see him because of his Roman Catholicism, then that would imply that it isn't the same god, because, underneath the packaging it's basically the same, just a few tweaks of ceremony.

Just trying to work it out.

Personally, I feel that the pope is an ass, a fear-monger and good on you for not going....now if we can only get you to....:asian:

We have a plethora of names for gods...why choose just one based only on hearsay and a strange warm feeling akin to pissing your pants?
O.k, that was jestful, but I feel that 'personal gods' are small tumours from the cancer of religion.
Hell, some people even transfer their addictions to religion....like the 12 step program...nasty, insidious pseudo-religious claptrap.

Me, I prefer cold hard facts, even if it means that we have no purpose beyond reproduction (survival of the species) and everything else is just made up mumbo jumbo and fancy stuff to make us feel better about being intelligent sentient animals.



1  But then I guess there are 'dangers' in not having an interlocutor as then people feel they have a 'personal relationship' and can 'make up the rules' with limited guidance.

*  that is, until he publicly spoke out against the '81 Springbok Tour  and we had parishioners ringing him up and abusing him, and some even refused to attend while he was still there.

[Ant-icapate]

OK so heres my theory :
Quantum mechanics( the study of mechanical systems whose dimensions are close to or below the atomic scale, such as molecules, atoms, electrons, protons and other subatomic particles ect ,)
Now it states in the bible somewhere (haven't opened it for some years)
That heaven and hell are all around us. That God and his angels are everywhere. If the Quantum theory is true then maybe God is real! And who says there can only be one god?

[ThaFleastyler]

If the god is the same, then why wouldn't you go and see 'his prime earthly representative'? Surely you must want to have a bit of pomp and splendour to mix it up a bit from guitars and handwaving? :rnr:

And if it is the same god then 'his earthly representative' would speak for him?
So, if you refused to go see him because of his Roman Catholicism, then that would imply that it isn't the same god, because, underneath the packaging it's basically the same, just a few tweaks of ceremony.

Just trying to work it out.

But who said the pope is God's "prime earthly representative"?
Did God say that?
I think not.

In fact, is there any mention of Roman Catholicism as being the true religion, or of the Pope being the most important, holiest man on earth, in any of the core documents of Christianity, or even Catholicism? I can't answer that, but I know that nothing I have ever read, in regards to Christian faith, has told me that I'm to recognize the Pope as being as close to God as humans can get.

The very idea of the papal "crown" (for want of a better word) flies in the face of one of the core things that Christianity should promote - equality among all humans. Allegiance to the papacy would say "everyone is equal, except that guy, who is almost God, and those guys who picked him, who are almost-almost God." Thats. Plain. Wrong.

Again, there is a difference between religion and faith. Roman Catholicism is a way of practicing faith and interacting with God, same as Anglicanism, Presbyterian and any number of Christian faiths, including mine - the important thing being, Christ is recognized as being God-made-flesh. We don't have different Gods, we have different ways of trying to understand the same God.

Personally, I don't think God has a "prime earthly representative", and such an assertion is borderline ridiculous. He doesn't have favourites. Furthermore, if God did have a "prime earthly representative", why would said representative be selected by other men who are presumably below him, and furthermore, why would said "representative" repel a larger number of believers than he attracts? None of it makes sense.

In fact, if all are equal, as I believe the Bible states, why do I not have my own Pope-Mobile? Wheres my ridiculous sized entourage? Where are the millions travelling to spot me?

[Ngati_Grim]

In fact, if all are equal, as I believe the Bible states,

Aaah...what about 'god's chosen people'? If I recall correctly, the old testament god is the same as the new testament god...

doesn't sound very equal to me!


(dammit, more to come, just have to do some work)

[psyche]

We have a plethora of names for gods...why choose just one based only on hearsay and a strange warm feeling akin to pissing your pants?

Does it really matter what name is used? God means different things to different people. It is quite possible that my idea of what God means is quite different to Thefleastyler's idea of what God means - in the end, I think there is a bigger thing that most of us can appreciate, and it really doesn't matter what name is ascribed to it. I'm not even sure why I use the word God, since I am not specifically Christian, but the fact remains that even if I lived in a completely cut-off society from the rest of the world and had never heard of the word God or christianity in my entire life, I would most likely still have some kind of understanding, or some appreciation for the beauty and order in creation which I would ascribe to something similar, whether I called it God or not.

To me, God encompasses everything. So some small culture living in the middle of nowhere that believe in a pantheon of gods which they have different cultural beliefs and rituals surrounding them, God is all of those. The same thing with a culture that believes nature is what we would call God, same thing just a different approach, know what I mean?

Some people say, either one of the religions is correct or they are all wrong. Yes it is true that the various religions around the world are significantly different, but perhaps they are all just different approaches to the same questions; that they do not all reach the same fundamental conclusions really is irrelevant.

I mean, you only have to look around you to see that everything is creation, in all it's splendor, beauty and imperfections - it doesn't take a scientific theory to figure that out. It is therefore somewhat natural to assume that creation requires a creator of some kind - I mean, that's just a natural reaction, a natural assumption to make when we witness creation in it's entirety. And furthermore to witness the order, complexity, intelligence and design in all of creation, it is again somewhat natural to think that there would be some kind of intelligence, some kind of order behind this creation. Fair enough?

This is what I think Max Planck meant by that particular quote, even if we have widely varying approaches to our understandings of creation, in the end I think we are all reaching for the same thing, and that is God... regardless of what you want to call it.

So that one thing that most belief systems have in common is arguably one of the most important, atleast to me, even if the different cultural "myths" and historical beliefs surrounding them are significantly different.

O.k, that was jestful, but I feel that 'personal gods' are small tumours from the cancer of religion.

To an extent I agree, I think it's a bit sad when someone thinks they can recieve personal miracles by praying and asking for them. Like "God, make me rich please and I will continue to worship you." Give me a break. I don't think that is what God is about at all, and furthermore perhaps God is not able to intervene in our lives or rather chooses not to for whatever reason (it would come to down to the very nature of our existence and whether or not we lived in a deterministic world where our every action was governed and micromanaged, which would suck, or if we are the authors of our own lives, and God is just what gave us the means to be the authors)

However, if we believe that 'God' is the source of all creation as we know it, it would not be unreasonable to assume that it has an admiration for it's creation, and perhaps even some kind of plan for it's future.

So on the other hand, I don't think saying a prayer to say thankyou for the universe, and thankyou for life, or any similar kind of ritual, is not a bad thing at all if this is how people choose to seek a relationship with what we call God.

yes, I realise it probably irks you to hear me mention the word God so much in one post. But remember, it's just a word. It's the meaning that is truly important.

[ThaFleastyler]

Aaah...what about 'god's chosen people'?

You mean the people of Israel?
You mean, everyone?

Far as I understand it, we choose to become one of God's chosen, so if you feel left out, its entirely possible its your own fault.

[Ngati_Grim]

Damn, I had a reply then someone came in a disturbed me, now it's gone....take 2


Lol@ Psyche...nice to see you being nice, and good reply. Nope, not worried about the recurring use of THAT word in your post. I'm pretty inured to it now. I think it's quaint :asian:
However, I think there were some assumptions in there, regarding the perception of creation etc.
Just because we are pattern-recognisers and like to make sense of things doesn't automatically necessitate the existence of a creator. All it does is tell us that we like to TRY to make sense of our surroundings

God's chosen people were the Israelites if I recall correctly. Then he changed his mind? For me, there is no choice as there is no divine power.


What about the bible. It's the same as the pope. A human construct. What is really different about someone claiming divine inspiration, and someone claiming to be the intermediary? Or can we pick and choose bits out of that anachronistic work to suit us and disregard the rest? Sounds like a pic 'n' mix faith to me, if that is so!
 I don't think it's my fault and I don't feel left out.

In fact, I wish more religious people/people of faith (how f***ing pc!) would see the world and life as I do. Maybe they wouldn't need their crutch then, but then I sense that there is the transferral of addictions sometimes.

I feel that we are here to ensure the continuance of our species. That is meaning enough for me and it's pretty awesome when you look at our evolutionary journey. (As an aside, I just got a book out of the library called:"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" It's an interesting thought and I'll  get back to you when I've read it. But it got me thinking about what would be the role of god if we became extinct?). We've battled the elements and become technologically skilled and reasonably intelligent (generally) and have created a whole mythos to explain our existence to the masses (those poor ignorant petals who can't comprehend a world without god because surely, just SURELY there must be a meaning greater than survival).
Anything else is gobbledygook that we make up to try to either allay responsibility or fill in the gaps. Those gaps are, thankfully, becoming less and less frequent as we remove the shackles of religion and gain a greater understanding about the world around us. There is no need for a creator.

[ThaFleastyler]

What about the bible. It's the same as the pope. A human construct.

The Bible is believed to be God-inspired.
The pope is not - he's "believed" to be God's sales rep.

[Ngati_Grim]

The Bible is believed to be God-inspired.
The pope is not - he's "believed" to be God's sales rep.

Why the difference between believed and "believed" ?

It's the same thing. A matter of faith, a matter of ignorance and superstition and a matter of opinion :asian:

[ThaFleastyler]

Why the difference between believed and "believed" ?

Because all Christians believe that the bible is God-inspired, whereas only some Christians believe the pope has a direct line to God.

[dirtyape]

I believe (no pun intended) that Grim was meaning that there is essentially no difference in believing the pope is gods right hand man, and believing in the bible. Essentially they are both assertions of opinion based without solid reason. And that makes them irrational to a objective observer.

[Ngati_Grim]

Snap!


Thanks Dirty, I was trying to come up with a reply, but yours is succinct and to the point.