posted
Theories about the nature of the universe, philosophy, science -- all of these have had to be modified or abandoned decades or centuries ago.
Yeah, that Greek dude 2500 years ago who knew almost the exact circumfrence of the Earth? Had to throw that out. And of course Gallileo was the absolute first to come up with the heliocentric model. And Columbus did, in fact, prove that the world was round, even though anyone who actually gave it some though for, oh, ever already knew that it was.
As our methods of reasoning and tools for learning about the universe around us have improved, we have consistently modified those beliefs. And yet throughout that, religious beliefs have stayed basically static.
And the simple explaination for this is that religion is not science! Except for people who use science as their religion, of course.
That, in my mind, is one of the primary reasons why religious beliefs are regressive, superstitious, and without real basis.
So because something doesn't change, it must be wrong? Illogical. What if it was right to begin with? If you accept the concept of divine revelation, if it DID change it'd be wrong. You're purposefully setting up a no-win scenario.
I suppose it's a use of Occam's Razor: if non-Christian religions are wrong, then why would Christianity be right?
What should one have to do with the other? The truth value of one set of beliefs has nothing to do with the truth value of a completely different set of beliefs.
Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha -- all of these were almost certainly real men, with many great beliefs and actions attributed to them. Each is supposedly well-documented. Yet just what makes Islam the "real" religion over Hinduism? Or any of the others?
Well, the Bible's main strong point is internal consistancy over a period of many centuries, among multiple authors, including definite prophetic statements. No other religion has any of those. You want what makes Christianity unique, that's it.
History is replete with examples of the mass propagation of thoughts that have twisted versions of the truth, or are completely false. Whole societies have been changed, controlled, led astray, directed or otherwise misled. From harmless superstitions about sailors falling off the edge of the world if they travel too far from land, to the purely evil assertions that the Caucasian race was superior to those of African descent -- social history is full of stories of untruths widely adopted by entire civilizations.
True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand, unless you can already prove religious belief to be false.
Religion is simply the last major holdover of our ancient background and the quest to achieve understanding about that which could not at the time be explained. Today, I think, the majority of religious people are simply afraid; afraid of taking responsibility, afraid of feeling alone, afraid of perceived hopelessness. The concept of a god allows them to place an almost desperate hope on some illusory being who can change that which might not be changed.
Here you're stating your opinion as fact, with no evidence to back it up. Take out a few words, though, and you've got something that's essentially correct: "The concept fo God allows hope." Just what hope do you have, sir? What do you hope for?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega on December 03, 2002 at 16:28 - We do not ADVOCATE damnation for non-believers. We simply believe it's the nature of existence. There's a difference, unless there's some odd definition of "advocate" that I've never encountered.
quote:Originally posted by Omega on December 05, 2002 at 23:08 - What should one have to do with the other? The truth value of one set of beliefs has nothing to do with the truth value of a completely different set of beliefs.
Hmm... I'm tempted to invoke some of the lessons from the Logic course that I'm taking now. Because your argument is what my professor would call INVALID. By your reasoning, one religion's truth is not affected by any of the others. Therefore, according to your second quote, it's possible for BOTH Christianity and Islam (and any others) to be equally true. Which I know you don't suggest at all, knowing the typical Christian elitist viewpoint.
quote:So because something doesn't change, it must be wrong? Illogical. What if it was right to begin with? If you accept the concept of divine revelation, if it DID change it'd be wrong. You're purposefully setting up a no-win scenario.
Touch�.
Let me approach this from another angle: Jesus spoke almost entirely in terms of "he" and "your brother" and many other such gender-specific ideas... simply because that was the way things were at the time. As society has changed, so has the interpretation of that meaning -- which effectively negates a large portion of the concept of divine law. How can it be absolute and unchangeable if it's open to interpretation? The Bible itself has been translated, edited, and altered in so many different ways that it's simply sickening. The King James version, the New American Catholic Edition, and a bunch of others. Just which one is right? (If any?)
quote:Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha -- all of these were almost certainly real men, with many great beliefs and actions attributed to them. Each is supposedly well-documented. Yet just what makes Islam the "real" religion over Hinduism? Or any of the others?
Well, the Bible's main strong point is internal consistancy over a period of many centuries, among multiple authors, including definite prophetic statements. No other religion has any of those. You want what makes Christianity unique, that's it.
Internal consistency. Aha.
So tell me, what is the similarity supposed to be between the God who causes the destruction of Sodom, who drowns the Egyptians, who turns the battle between the Isrealites and the Philistines, and strikes people down left and right throughout the Old Testament, and the same God who starts preaching peace, love, and compassion all of a sudden later on?
Where is the love in owning slaves? In condoning murder? And why would the same God who protected the Jews for centuries allow the destruction of his Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, or allow the Holocaust two thousand years later?
You call THAT consistency?
quote:History is replete with examples of the mass propagation of thoughts that have twisted versions of the truth, or are completely false. Whole societies have been changed, controlled, led astray, directed or otherwise misled. From harmless superstitions about sailors falling off the edge of the world if they travel too far from land, to the purely evil assertions that the Caucasian race was superior to those of African descent -- social history is full of stories of untruths widely adopted by entire civilizations.
True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand, unless you can already prove religious belief to be false.
It is not proof in and of itself, and I never intended it as such. I was pointing out that history has many examples of societies readily embracing false ideas which conveniently suit them for some reason.
quote:Here you're stating your opinion as fact, with no evidence to back it up.
As are you, good sir. As are you. This ENTIRE DISCUSSION is nothing but opinion. It's simply the nature of philosophical beliefs.
quote:Take out a few words, though, and you've got something that's essentially correct: "The concept fo God allows hope." Just what hope do you have, sir? What do you hope for?
I hope for peace between Humans (and non-Humans, assuming they exist). I hope for understanding, both of ourselves, each other, and the universe. I hope for personal comfort and an end to war, poverty, and personal ambition at the expense of others. I hope for respect.
And as I said before, I acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong; certainly the supernatural nature of any professed god is in some ways beyond my comprehension. But I do not accept that assertion to be "proof" of existence.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: And why would the same God who protected the Jews for centuries allow the destruction of his Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, or allow the Holocaust two thousand years later?
To quote from "Oh, God!"..
"One of my days isn't exactly as long as one of yours." "How do you mean?" "Well, when I woke up this morning, Sigmund Freud was still in medical school."
So maybe God ran to the can after eating Mexican & when he came out (or comes out) he's gonna be ULTRA-pissed.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Yeah, that Greek dude 2500 years ago who knew almost the exact circumfrence of the Earth? Had to throw that out. And of course Gallileo was the absolute first to come up with the heliocentric model. And Columbus did, in fact, prove that the world was round, even though anyone who actually gave it some though for, oh, ever already knew that it was.
Yeah, and we all know how happily the Church adjusted its dogmas accordingly.
quote:And the simple explaination for this is that religion is not science! Except for people who use science as their religion, of course.
Science, by definition, CAN'T be used as religion.
quote:So because something doesn't change, it must be wrong? Illogical. What if it was right to begin with?
A dangerous assumption to make, but then, religion is not, nor will it EVER be, science, which seeks pure, quantifiable, falsifiable facts.
quote:What should one have to do with the other? The truth value of one set of beliefs has nothing to do with the truth value of a completely different set of beliefs.
Christianity, islam, hinduism and judaism are completely different how?
quote:Well, the Bible's main strong point is internal consistancy over a period of many centuries, among multiple authors, including definite prophetic statements. No other religion has any of those. You want what makes Christianity unique, that's it.
Would that be the same internal consistency that was painfully torn to shreds on multiple occasions, yet stubbornly continues to exist in your mind because of your typical religious method of ignoring any and all arguments against said consistency that have been brought up in the not-so-distant past?
quote:True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand, unless you can already prove religious belief to be false.
Nobody will ever be able to prove it to be false, so I suggest you try to find some kind of consolation in that fact, because it's the only one you have.
quote:"The concept fo God allows hope."
And no other concept does? Like, say, moral philosophy?
I long for the day religion will be discredited as the irrational byproduct of fear and superstition that it is.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
My goodness, it's someone who wants to discuss religion without being automatically derisive! Hallelujah!
By your reasoning, one religion's truth is not affected by any of the others. Therefore, according to your second quote, it's possible for BOTH Christianity and Islam (and any others) to be equally true.
Ah, I stand corrected. I should have said that the NEGATIVE truth value of a given belief system has no effect on the truth value of anotheer system.
Jesus spoke almost entirely in terms of "he" and "your brother" and many other such gender-specific ideas... simply because that was the way things were at the time. As society has changed, so has the interpretation of that meaning -- which effectively negates a large portion of the concept of divine law.
I fail to see how such a thing would negate the concept of immutable divine revelation. Just because someone uses a male pronoun doesn't mean they're referring exclusively to males, at least not in our language, and I'm guessing not in a lot of others. It's likely more of a limitation of the language that Jesus was speaking in, or the language his words were being written in. You have to take things like that into account when reading the Bible for what it MEANS. The ultimate meaning is all that really matters. I mean, so frikin' what if we don't know exactly what a leviathan was? It doesn't really change anything.
The King James version, the New American Catholic Edition, and a bunch of others. Just which one is right?
Well, they all mean the same thing, 99.9% of the time, regardless of the exact language used. You'd have to point to a specific inconsistancy in the translations for me to be more specific than that.
So tell me, what is the similarity supposed to be between the God who causes the destruction of Sodom, who drowns the Egyptians, who turns the battle between the Isrealites and the Philistines, and strikes people down left and right throughout the Old Testament, and the same God who starts preaching peace, love, and compassion all of a sudden later on?
His ultimate goal. The idea is always to save as many people as possible, and if that requires the deaths of several thousand others, I'm sure he's not exactly HAPPY about it, but it's necessary to accomplish the greater good. Yeah, it's rather Machievellean, but if you're omniscient and you know all possible ends, then the ends DO justify the means.
Where is the love in owning slaves?
For varying definitions and conditions of slavery.
In condoning murder?
Which?
And why would the same God who protected the Jews for centuries allow the destruction of his Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, or allow the Holocaust two thousand years later?
They had a contract: God protects Israel, Israel does what they're told. Israel broke the contract, and thus God was no longer bound by its terms.
I hope for peace between Humans (and non-Humans, assuming they exist). I hope for understanding, both of ourselves, each other, and the universe. I hope for personal comfort and an end to war, poverty, and personal ambition at the expense of others. I hope for respect.
So now I must ask, "Why?" Is any of that really going to matter, in the ultimate analysis, if you accept a materialistic view of the world?
And now, to respond to someone who isn't quite so stimulating...
Yeah, and we all know how happily the Church adjusted its dogmas accordingly.
And the Catholic Church's actions are relevant... how?
Science, by definition, CAN'T be used as religion.
Define religion.
Christianity, islam, hinduism and judaism are completely different how?
In that they are not the same. Duh. Or did you really want an analysis of the major differences?
Would that be the same internal consistency that was painfully torn to shreds on multiple occasions
When? I posted a thread challenging anyone to post such supposed inconsistancies, and answered every one of them.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"The idea is always to save as many people as possible, and if that requires the deaths of several thousand others, I'm sure he's not exactly HAPPY about it, but it's necessary to accomplish the greater good."
Rationalization. You made it up. More specifically, you didn't make it up personally, but some Christian did. I'm pretty sure there's no passage in the bible where Yahweh says "yeah, I need to kill a bunch of people off, and it sucks, but most of you will be better off for it". Someone, at some point, realized that it didn't make any sense for such a "loving" god to make life so shitty. So, they invented the idea that there must be some sort of "plan".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why should it matter whether it was specifically stated in a verse somewhere? I consider it to be a reasonable extrapolation, because it fits all the data in question, and draws them into a coherant whole. Sure, it's rationalization, but it's a darned good one.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Because "omniscience" means you can do better. And "omnipotence" means you can do the impossible, so don't tell me there wasn't a better way.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But then, maybe he did. Maybe in the alternative universe all of mankind was wiped out in WWII, and this was God trying to compromise.
I dunno. Individually, people who get everything they want in life without sacrifice are rarely the nicest of chaps. For humanity as a whole to improve, maybe it does have to have the proverbial shit dropped on it occasionally. Bad stuff happens, people make sure it doesn't happen again. "No pain, no gain", and all that.
Or not. The main thing that always makes me uncomfortable about Omega's beliefs is the complete and total sureness of it all. When adopting that mindset, arguments will ultimatly fail because they can all be resolved with "It's God's plan". If God does exist, then there is a fairly huge chance that we cannot comprehend what he's up to, so it does make a certain degree of sense as an argument. But it's wholely unsatisfying from a human POV. Which is why a fair few people (I'd wager the majority) who believe in God aren't anywhere near as cocksure about it.
quote: We do not ADVOCATE damnation for non-believers. We simply believe it's the nature of existence. There's a difference, unless there's some odd definition of "advocate" that I've never encountered.
"We"?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
IF there's a "plan," then with omniscience and omnipotence added into the mix, it must necessarily involve not only good, but evil.
"God has a plan." "Yeah? Did God's plan include me shooting you in the face with a bazooka?"
God's plan seems to include a lot of crap happening to thoroughly good people, and a lot of evil fucks getting away with murder. It is therefore a stupid plan.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Here's the ultimate contradiction, in my mind: the conflict between the concept of human free will and the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Considering the theory that God loves each and every one of us, I ask the following question:
Did God love bin Laden so much that he allowed him the free will to choose to launch an attack that killed 4,000 innocent people whom God supposedly also loves?
I submit that any being who claims such love and yet allows such evil is evil itself.
To put in simpler terms -- say you owned two dogs in your household. You love both of your dogs, and give them free reign of the house. Then one day, for some obscure reason they get in a fight. Rather than pull them apart, you let one dog rip the other to shreds. How is THAT love for the dog that gets ripped to shreds?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Because "omniscience" means you can do better. And "omnipotence" means you can do the impossible, so don't tell me there wasn't a better way.
Not within the limit of allowing us freedom to make our own decisions. That's the other major consistant thread in God's actions.
Did God love bin Laden so much that he allowed him the free will to choose to launch an attack that killed 4,000 innocent people whom God supposedly also loves?
So where does He stop? Does He stop extramarital sex? Bad language? Our every sinful thought? At what point do we stop being human, made in His image, and thus worthy of defense in the first place? Remember, avoidance of death is not the end-all-be-all of our lives in God's eyes. You're forcing Him into a human perspective. As Liam pointed out, Christianity always has the fallback of God's omniscience and benevolence to explain all possible action or lack thereof on the part of God.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, the concept of omnipotence almost explicitly rejects the ability to do the impossible, which by definition can't be done. It isn't a matter of power.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Omnipotence means you can do ANYTHING. Even that which you can't, because there's nothing you can't do. An Omnipotent being HAS no limits, not even "Free Will."
In addition, Omega, "free will" only applies to the CHOICES you make, not how those choices pan out. If every decision and attempt to do evil failed miserably or backfired on the do-er without harming anyone else, that would STILL be free will (we can see this because some attempts DO pan out that way). People would still be free to choose and act.
There. I've figured out a way to prevent harm AND preserve free will that God didn't. I expect my promotion within the week. I promise to be a just and merciful Deity.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
