Ye Religion Thread

[QuakeDuke]

there are planes of existences that science cannot and never will be able to "proof".

In other words, here's an example of how I think theists mentally handicap themselves:

  It's perfectly OK for scientests to wonder,
  "What triggered the Big Bang?"

  But it's not OK for theists to ask,
  "What triggered God to want to trigger the Big Bang?"

See what I'm getting at?  Am I mistaken?
Regards,
quadz

I don't know about theists in general, but I will most certainly agree that many christians handicap themselves in that manner - however,  I don't think (I could be wrong) you are putting all theists (christians) into that same handicap are you? I know many christian preachers who have discussed that very thing - and I for one do not believe and do not teach it is wrong to question God, or to question why He might decide to anything - that includes the concept of why he might trigger the Big Bang.

I'll go farther and even say I don't believe anyone can find (if I'm wrong I'll be the first to say so if I'm shown to be so) in the "original languages" translations of the bible where God has ever ever got on someone's case for questioning what He did, or planned to do. Blind obedience is not a requirement for belief in, or living in obedience to God. Tragedies like the inquistion, witch trials (and in case someone might say that's old history) Jonestown happen because people don't question, think, or check things out. I don't find that in the bible. I for one would have a hard time having a relationship with a God whom I couldn't question why he might perform a particular action. In countries where it can mean your very life to attend church (and I know several very well) I can guarantee there is a lot of questioning, examining going on before decisions are made.

Oh, and in case some might wonder why I continually refer to the original languages when I speak of the bible is because just about everybody and their dog has continually "re-vamped/translated" the bible and most of the time to fit a particular theological doctrine rather than to help us to understand more clearly what is written.

If we keep on seeking & questioning we keep on learning. It's when we've decided we know, that we quit thinking & learning. THAT attitude causes more problems for man than any other, I don't care what you call yourself

I had thought this thread perhaps might might be one where ideas and concepts could be presented, examined, talked about and left up to the reader to decide if the information provided meant anything to the reader (and there has been some comments like this) but I'm afraid it's gone the woeful way of most discussions like this end up - "I'm right, you're wrong, you'll never convince me of anything else and if you don't believe what I'm telling you you're obviously __________ (fill in blank with stupid, ignorant or whatever)."

Oh well. It was still a good idea Thanks for hosting it.
   
QD

[QuakeDuke]

this is the religion thread, i am not talking about picking and choosing in general (all humans do that). belief in life before conception is something a non-religious person would likely never accept because there's no evidence of such a thing. it is 100% baseless. it is likely, however, that a religious person may believe this while acknowledging there is no evidence, and it pretty much does not make sense in reality. this is the difference, because reality/reason/logic restricts one thinker, and nothing restricts the other.

The question I asked was based on the statements (enclosed below so no one has to comb the thread to find them) you made during the thread. It appears to me to are specifically refering to me (as a religous person) picking and choosing what I wanted. The question I then asked you was how was this diffrent than anyone else (as a non-religious person) picking and choosing what they wanted. You still haven't answered the question, just tried to redirect the conversation.

picking and choosing is indeed picking and choosing. the difference on this subject, however, is the method of doing so. if someone concludes that christ literally does not have a biological father because of a sacred text, that is different from reaching conclusions based on evidence. sure, in the eyes of the beholder he/she may be 100% convinced muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, but it does not make it in the slightest bit probable (we cannot disprove this either). a skeptic may ask why nobody before/after muhammad flew to heaven, but a believer will say it's in the koran so there is no reason to question it's validity.

As for reality/reason/logic restricting one thinker and nothing restricting the other - that's bull*  Whether it makes sense to a particular persons worldview or "reality" has nothing to do with being able to think and consider concepts.

Answer the question or don't. I'm not going to argue with you about your limited ability to conceptulize there are planes of existences that science cannot and never will be able to "proof". I still say the more man learns, the more the smarter of man knows we don't know anything yet.

QD

you're right, a sacred text usually limits the religious thinker. there is no way around this if one literally believes their book is the word of god (i'm speaking of religious in the sense of christian/jewish/muslim/etc., not the einsteinian religion). why do you think there is such thing as creation science? people 'know' they are right so they will do whatever they can to prove it. imagine that forensic archaeologists unearthed DNA evidence showing jesus indeed lacked a biological father. it's not likely that christians would say "who cares? science means nothing in regard to theoligical questions." they would certainly celebrate this finding.

this, in a sense, is my point. a religious person (believing god wrote their sacred text) does not acknowledge any evidence against their case. if they measured the evidence on both sides in an unbiased manner, we can rightfully assume a significant chunk of believers in the sacred text would dwindle. but no, they simply 'know' they're right, or simply want to believe because they get a warm fuzzy feeling in doing so. a non-religious person is obligated to truthfully investigate the matter at hand and make a fair assessment based on the evidence/lack of presented.

this is not supposed to imply theism vs atheism, but perhaps christianity vs non belief.

Thank you.  While I don't believe a belief in religious text necessarily limits a religious thinker,  I now better understand you're viewpoint. Oh, and FYI - the bible never makes the claim God wrote it. That claim falls into the falable realm of man (who like me can't spell worth a darn)

QD

[reaper]

quakeduke, there are formal figures like the pope who say how you should interpret the bible.

[DaHanG]

Thank you.  While I don't believe a belief in religious text necessarily limits a religious thinker,  I now better understand you're viewpoint. Oh, and FYI - the bible never makes the claim God wrote it. That claim falls into the falable realm of man (who like me can't spell worth a darn)

i'm aware the bible does not claim god wrote it - (one of many gods): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities and www.godchecker.com - searchable encyclopedia of approx 3,000 gods and goddesses from all cultures of the world. the bible has both many good moral lessons, but also some (far fewer, but they're still there) bad moral lessons. most overlook the bad and simply keep the good (cherrypicking). if someone truly believes god wrote their book, they cannot cherrypick. i certainly do not believe god ordered the killing of homosexuals, the raping of women, the killing of a man for not keeping the sabbath day holy, etc. i also do not believe in the supernatural claims the book makes. since humanity already knows what's good and bad (not all cultures have had access to the bible, but we see they all have a common moral foundation) i simply see no reason to look to an old book of unverifiable origin for guidance. i am speaking for me, personally. i do believe a religion can have positive effects on others (and a minority experience negative effects), and this is irrelevent to whether or not a particular religion is "right".

[reaper]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/physics/index.html

physics & religion articles ; o

some pretty neat stuff !

[reaper]

"Fortunately, we can avoid an infinite regress. We can just stop at the world. There is no reason why the physical universe cannot be it

[quadz]

I had thought this thread perhaps might might be one where ideas and concepts could be presented, examined, talked about and left up to the reader to decide if the information provided meant anything to the reader (and there has been some comments like this)

I was reading this tonight, so thought I'd post it ...

"It is true that science has discovered representations of the body and the brain--for example, a tactile mapping of the body surface distrubuted over the sematosensory cortex (SSC); see Figure 6.8."


 

[quadz]

"And our relatively complex universe could have arisen out of the entity that is the simplest and most mindless of all

[Whirlingdervish]

I'm not all that well versed in Eastern religions, but I've heard of "chi energy" being compared loosely to a general trend in the intentional direction of a person's concentration/attention towards an external or internal target.

say you were to focus all of your "energy" into a direction or purpose (ie.. you are going to punch a brick and break it):

to gather your chi you would in fact be "envisioning" (or imagining) the force that your blow will transfer, it's exact direction (towards the target), your body's required motion to get it there and the shift of your weight and strength towards that goal, with your highest level of concentration.

releasing that chi would be accomplished by physically punching the brick while mentally releasing those refined thoughts in it's direction.

It's more of an imaginary "force" than one that is "real" and acts on objects in 3-dimensional space, and I'd like to know how they compiled the results of observations in order to make those diagrams.. If anything, I'd say chi is technically nonexistent (unobservable) to anyone but the person who "has" it.

[reaper]

yeah who knows about that chi stuff, but i'm pretty sure you can think things and they happen.

[DaHanG]

why is it more simple for something to come from nothing, maybe it's even impossible.  maybe it is even more complicated than a god who made the universe

 

[reaper]

god doesn't appreciate your laughter dahang o_O, how does an eternity in flames sound!

[The Dreaming Dragon]

http://www.videosift.com/video/Jesus-Camp-Bush-Worship

Pardon me while I hammer planks over my windows and doors....

[Bleach]

Wait... Are we not gods?

[DaHanG]

http://www.videosift.com/video/Jesus-Camp-Bush-Worship

Pardon me while I hammer planks over my windows and doors....

i actually watched the entire movie Jesus Camp. i must say it was very disturbing. these kids are just completely brainwashed from ages 7-12 or so. they're crying (balling) and begging for forgiveness etc. most of us don't realize how far in the wrong direction christian fundamentalism has been taking us over the years.