Re: Religion

by **Seranita** Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:18 pm

therefor to awsome gene's logic god is not forgiving.. is cruel and wholy not a nice being..

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:19 pm

Geneviève wrote:
Further, if Lucifer could fall, what chance do the rest of us have even if we are allowed past the Pearly Gates. If there is even the slightest chance that an angel can fall, then we must also be susceptible, and if there is even the slightest chance then eternity is long enough that it is certain to happen.

Allow me to introduce myself.

by **Seranita** Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:40 pm

lol intreeging and funny XD

by **Eowale** Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:22 pm

Thelos wrote:
Eowale wrote:
Tbh, if I went to Heaven.. Fuck me, I'd be bored. What can you do there, sit on a cloud and do utterly nothing? Fuck that, Valhalla for me.

Of all the things you can say against Heaven, that has got to be the silliest. What part of "Eternal bliss" can you possibly misunderstand? Boredom isn't part of perfect happiness, you know, it cant possibly be if it could be a reason for you not to want to have it.

Thing is, how can I possibly be in this 'perfect happiness' if my friends and family are in hell? What sort of happiness is that? I wouldn't want to be there without the people I love and care about, not for a single fucking moment. Also, at that, Im perfectly content living like I am, spending time with my friends, playing WoW, eating and drinking, seeing my girlfriend. What could heaven possibly offer that could make me pass on those things? Not many things, Im guessing.

by **Mandui** Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:27 pm

Eowale wrote:Thing is, how can I possibly be in this 'perfect happiness' if my friends and family are in hell? What sort of happiness is that? I wouldn't want to be there without the people I love and care about, not for a single fucking moment. Also, at that, Im perfectly content living like I am, spending time with my friends, playing WoW, eating and drinking, seeing my girlfriend. What could heaven possibly offer that could make me pass on those things? Not many things, Im guessing.

Well imagine your life (as it is for the time being that is, and it sounds pretty careless, which is normal until the time comes when you have to pay your own bills) only without all the drama, the pain and generally anything negative. That's what Razz

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Wich means all the good things are the normal things so there are practicaly no good things.

by **Eowale** Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:12 pm

Mandui wrote:
Eowale wrote:Thing is, how can I possibly be in this 'perfect happiness' if my friends and family are in hell? What sort of happiness is that? I wouldn't want to be there without the people I love and care about, not for a single fucking moment. Also, at that, Im perfectly content living like I am, spending time with my friends, playing WoW, eating and drinking, seeing my girlfriend. What could heaven possibly offer that could make me pass on those things? Not many things, Im guessing.
Well imagine your life (as it is for the time being that is, and it sounds pretty careless, which is normal until the time comes when you have to pay your own bills) only without all the drama, the pain and generally anything negative. That's what

I am paying my own bills, actually. Costs quite alot. But, I see the point. Though, if there is any heaven, I'd choose Valhalla.

by **Lini** Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:25 pm

Or...Heaven is eternal bliss because you get to be with God and are freed from the Original Sin (and conveniently the free will that came with it).

Welcome to the collective known as God. We are the collective consciousness of Mankind.

Hmm...I'm not really sure where I was going with that.

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:29 pm

Lini wrote:Or...Heaven is eternal bliss because you get to be with God and are freed from the Original Sin (and conveniently the free will that came with it).

Welcome to the collective known as God. We are the collective consciousness of Mankind.

Hmm...I'm not really sure where I was going with that.

Well, I can say that you aren't going Q for this one.

by **Thelos** Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:36 pm

Lini wrote:Or...Heaven is eternal bliss because you get to be with God and are freed from the Original Sin (and conveniently the free will that came with it).

This is actually rather well put I feel. There's no "buts" to the bliss of Heaven, otherwise it wouldn't be Heaven, but something else. What that means cannot be so easily understood. God knows we've tried to depict Heaven in literature and art many, many times, but for obvious reasons we have always failed. It is a concept that transcends human reason, it is not simply "A place above the clouds thats like, way better than here". That's a gross oversimplication, and a simplification that is easy to ridicule and mock. Keep in mind that your body isn't coming with you to Heaven; what that means is vague. Most likely that whatever you are going to be in Heaven, it sure as hell (pun intended) is going to be uncomparable to what you are now. Indeed; free from Original Sin and Free Will; that is, perfectly happy and blissfull, a proper Eden up there. Dont try to belittle this grand ideal with your silly speculations.

Mind you I dont even believe in an afterlife myself, but I do not like to see the idea of Heaven being ridiculed. I feel it is all too easy to misunderstand what it means.

Oh and by the way Lucifer you're thinking of is the character from Milton's Paradise Lost, not any particular character or entity from the Bible.

by **Ave/Sariella** Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:42 pm

Aka, locked in a prison, thinking everything is fine.

by **Mandui** Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:12 pm

Eowale wrote:I am paying my own bills, actually. Costs quite alot. But, I see the point. Though, if there is any heaven, I'd choose Valhalla.

Valhalla it is then! *notes down*

by **Gahalla** Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:14 pm

I find these kind of discussions to be amusing due to the great irony present in them. Things that come up yet again against religion (and when it really boils down to it... rather are arguments against a charicature of christianity) are that some notions it teaches are flawed, that there's no proof, that it is intolerant of other views and breeds fanatics.

All of this arguments that we should move on from our primitive roots, embrace science and move on to the better transhumanistic society.

Or in simple terms: Science is right, religion is wrong.

The great irony is that making this statement, many people are doing exactly the same thing they criticize religious people for.
Preaching that their view, and only their view is correct. The reasons and justifcations are rather irrellevant really.

Yes, modern science relies on proof. But there's three flaws in holding it above religion.
1) Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. You cannot prove a negative with no evidence. It's not scientific to posit that no evidence proves a lack of a divine being. Until proven or the absense has been proven, the existance of divinity is neither false nor true.

2) 75 years ago we couldn't prove the existance of a neutrino and the established theory of astrophysics was that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Today we have proven neutrinos and also that they can travel faster than light. Old theories are proven wrong as our measurement tools improve. Science as a whole posits that something proven is true... "until proven wrong".

And most importantly... 3) Science is just a method. A tool for logical reasoning. And to a lot of people's surprise... used extensively to study god and god's work. Theology is not only a firmly accepted scientific discipline. It's also the first of the modern university fields. The first field in which aristotle's line of thought was first implemented following the fall of Rome.
Virtually every modern logical tool we have in science, was developed as means to study God.
Fun trivia tidbits.

And as I said... when a lot of people argue against religion, at least on the internet like this. It's really just arguments against a charicature of christianity. There are for instance religions without gods at all, such as certain brances of Hinduism (contrary to popular belief... it's not -one- religion) and confusianism... which is essentially worshipping law (much simplified description). In the late Roman Republic, Plato's philosophy was a religion for the upper class.

Religions are very complex societal structures, deeply rooted in philosophy, ethics and morals. Some are very similar. Some as far apart as night and day. Ultimately... the only things they seem to have in common is mystery and beneficial core values.

Fanatiscism has never been part of religions, but rather seem to be coupled with people defending ideas. Because indeed, there have been and still are, non-religious fanatics.

by **Thelos** Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:39 pm

Thank you, Galhalla, for saying much of I wanted to say and more in much clearer language than I am able. I full subscribe to all of your arguments there.

by **Geneviève** Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:18 am

No, Thelos. The Lucifer I'm thinking of is the one found in Judeo-Christian Scripture.

I hope, Gahalla, your post is not aimed at me. Because I hope I've shown the lengths I go to to accomodate personal faith and private religion. However, as soon as something is presented as 'truth' or proposed as guidance in how others should live their lives then it is open to criticism. Certain claims cannot be challenged withour ridicule. It is very hard, for example to discuss the old Biblical story of Daniel and the Dragon without sounding...humoured. I've tried but I'm just not that good an actor.

I've stressed time and time again that Science has nothing to do with God or religion as a whole but rather with certain claims made about God. In this regard it is not science vs religion, but a search for the truth. If that truth leads us to God or was inspired by the search for God then that is fine, great even! So long as the search is intellectually honest and what we have is the truth and not merely a conveniant answer that is in reality an intentional roadblock placed between a person and the hard work of genuine investigation. Truth for truths sake is not scary or threatening as Thelos would have us believe. It does not need to be held back by anything besides the conscience of humanity when it comes to it's implementation.

I don't really understand your assertion that 'reasons and justification' don't matter. I maintain that a person should be able to justify everything they do. If you intend to assert that I am 'preaching' my view and that only my view is correct then I refer you back to every statement I've made, I want to be contradicted. I want people to criticise the statements I've made and provide evidence to the contrary. Not with regard to God who cannot be proven or disproven. But my poor opinion of religion, it's morality, and behaviour. Something which I've seen nobody attempt to address. But then I don't expect anybody on here to try and defend the indefensible. Because if someone can prove to me that religion is not a negative influence on humanity then that's one thing less I've got to try and address in my on going efforts to improve the world.

1) We're in complete agreement. As is the vast majority of the Western World. I hasten to add I have no proof of this. But I hope my trust in humanity is not misplaced.

2) A terrible example as it is factually incorrect but the premise is correct besides a few corrections. A hypothesis is held as false until it has been proven to be an accurate model of the universe, supported by the evidence to hand, peer reviewed and tested. It is then held as a theory until new evidence proves it false or a better theory supported by more evidence supplants it.

3) Theology was held as a science. Today no Russel Group Univsersity (yes, I only checked the top twenty Universities in my country) includes it as a science, but as an art along with philosophy.

I confess I do deal mostly with the three monotheistic religions. Because I'm not concerned with private belief, but with belief that affects the world. Principally only the worship of "God" has the potential to damage the world. I may find the implications of Karma repugnant but as I lack belief in it that doesn't bother me. I don't believe in God so he doesn't bother me. But I do believe in his worshippers and the organisations they empower do have the power to do great evils in the world and frequently use it.

I agree that they have mystery in common but beneficial core values? I'm forced to disagree. There is only one situation in which it has been demonstrated that belief is beneficial, survival situations. SERE teaches us that survival skills play a very small part in the chances of survival. Desire to live plays a much larger part and evidence suggests the religious often have a greated desire to live. Take from that what you will.

As I understand Hinduism, my exposure to it has been very minimal, I find myself respecting it far beyond any of the monotheistic faiths. I've been told by an individual whom I trust that it is impossible to be a heretic within the aith, for example? That any belief is acceptable. It's a concept I struggle to wrap my head around but as I'm unaware of any widescale damage caused by it's faithful I leave well alone.

I'd argue that fanatacism has more often than not been a part of religions, but not nessecarily the religious. There will similarly always be non religious fanatics and non religious fanatical organisations. I work against them just as actively as I work against their religious equivelants. I can offer no solid evidence but plead that people believe me that I do not have tunnel vision with regards to religion, I'm equally critical of everything I see as dangerous, immoral, or damaging to people around me.

I think this link best explains my problem with Christianity. Judaism and Islamic scripture speaks for itself with regards to earning my dissaproval. But the Bible is sneaky. http://www.wayofthemaster.com/goodperson.shtml

Whether or not a religion is true, with regards to the existance of their deity, their version of creation, their assertions regarding history etc really don't concern me. The fields of science and history have inherent, built in protection measures and need no help from footsloggers like me. But the morality found in scripture, and the ustification it gives to fanatics concerns me a very great deal. It kills my friends in the Middle East. It caused ordinary young men in Newcastle to nearly kill two of my friends in a club. It devestates lives in Africa and South America. Even in the US it abuses the freedom we give it to restrict the freedoms of others. The answer to this is not to restrict religion or impose sanctions against it. But to remove it's special place in society, it has a special protected status against criticism, it recieves unjustifiable tax breaks, it has seats in the House of Lords reserved for it. It is afforded the right to be bigoted towards others whilst any who criticise it are in turn accused of bigotry. There is an unfair standard by which religion has propogated itself not through honesty, but through protectionism.

by **Gahalla** Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:55 am

It was not aimed at you or anyone in particular. It was more aimed at the general statements that tend to pop up in threads such as these. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.

Often though, the Scientific-Humanistic values of modern western society gets puts forward as an alternative. That we should living according to those ideals. Rise up above our primitive and misguided roots. And what not.

I'm not saying anyone here believes that (especially since at best it's a gross simplification). Nor do I say that anyone should believe that or that any one religion. Just that people should spend some thought on what they're actually saying.

Because I'm quite convinced that the very same arguments have been used to once advocate a religion.
And thus... with the Science presenting an explanation and the Humanistic values a core philosophy... it becomes increasingly difficult to tell it apart from a religion.

I'm not saying it is a religion. But some people seem to be on their way to make one out of it. Intentionally or otherwise.

Not aimed at anyone in particular. Just food for thought.

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:14 am

Gahalla wrote:

Because I'm quite convinced that the very same arguments have been used to once advocate a religion.
And thus... with the Science presenting an explanation and the Humanistic values a core philosophy... it becomes increasingly difficult to tell it apart from a religion.

I'm not saying it is a religion. But some people seem to be on their way to make one out of it. Intentionally or otherwise.

Not aimed at anyone in particular. Just food for thought.

They take the things that are socialy seen as "acceptable" and try to leave out things like: acceptance of slavery and discrimination because of sexuality?

Also these two came to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_ethics

by **Eowale** Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:22 am

Mandui wrote:
Eowale wrote:I am paying my own bills, actually. Costs quite alot. But, I see the point. Though, if there is any heaven, I'd choose Valhalla.
Valhalla it is then! *notes down*

Wat? It's the clear choice! If you die a honourable and brave death in battle, you go to the Halls of Valhalla, where you get to drink, eat, fight and shag all you want! I'd rather do that then sit on a cloud, tbfh!

by **Thelos** Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:22 am

Geneviève wrote:No, Thelos. The Lucifer I'm thinking of is the one found in Judeo-Christian Scripture.

This was directed more at Kristeas, actually, but I still think its worthwhile to note that the character of Lucifer is highly problematic since it has changed so much troughout interpetation and culture, especially in more recent culture where it is more normal to depict the devil than it is to depict gods or deities. Caution is adviced is all I'm saying; not all Christians would even accept the excistence of the Devil or Lucifer or any positive evil in general. But I disgress.

Geneviève wrote:
Truth for truths sake is not scary or threatening as Thelos would have us believe. It does not need to be held back by anything besides the conscience of humanity when it comes to it's implementation.

I said that Science for the sake of Science is dangerous and frightening, because we are in danger of treating the actual means to the end (that is truth) as the end itself. I also combat the claim that Science is the only method to reach said truth. The scientific method does not have monpoly on the Truth and all other sorts of meaningfulness. So no, truth for truth's sake is not at all frightening but rather a beautiful and deeply particular Human drive, it is Science that is often treated as an end in itself rather than the means it is that frightens me.

Geneviève wrote:
I want people to criticise the statements I've made and provide evidence to the contrary. Not with regard to God who cannot be proven or disproven. But my poor opinion of religion, it's morality, and behaviour. Something which I've seen nobody attempt to address. But then I don't expect anybody on here to try and defend the indefensible. Because if someone can prove to me that religion is not a negative influence on humanity then that's one thing less I've got to try and address in my on going efforts to improve the world.

Would it be enough to proof that Religion is not just a bad influence on Humanity, but good as well as bad, or do you need proof that religion is a completely good influence on Humanity? Because while I feel is is impossible to proof whether Religion is a completely good or completely bad influence on Humanity, I do not think it has to be difficult to proof that it has had and still has good influence as well as bad. Or do you simply want to be told that it does not have "A netto negative influence but a netto positive influence?" Such things are impossible to argue. One side will dig up a positive thing, and then the other a negative, ad infinitum.

That, and I do not much like arguments from the third person. I do not like to speak of "Humanity", and "What has [Force X] done for Humanity". It makes me think of those impossible utilitarian or consequentionalist theories of normative ethics where a moral agent is asked to calculate the consequences of his actions to absurd extremes. This "Humanity" of which you speak is so distant to me, such an abstract notion, perhaps even moreso than God.

Rather, I'd like to see things from the perspective of the individual, or the first person. Has Religion made life better for some? Can it make life better for me, has it made life better for me? I say yes to all those things, but that may not be the kind of awnser you want to hear.
Either are impossible to proof.

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:49 am

Thelos wrote:
I said that Science for the sake of Science is dangerous and frightening, because we are in danger of treating the actual means to the end (that is truth) as the end itself. I also combat the claim that Science is the only method to reach said truth. The scientific method does not have monpoly on the Truth and all other sorts of meaningfulness. So no, truth for truth's sake is not at all frightening but rather a beautiful and deeply particular Human drive, it is Science that is often treated as an end in itself rather than the means it is that frightens me.

Made me google a bit and found something that might fit this. But it's more in the "argue for the sake of arguing" or "watching tv for the sake of watching tv" kind of science for the sake of science.

Spoiler:

However, I'm not quite sure what I should understand under the kind of "Science for the sake of Science" that is dangerous and frightening, I can't think of a practical example. I can only think of "Science for the sake of Curiosity" and "Science for the sake of Prosperity, both financial and health.".

Disregarding what is "truth" and if the scientific method is able to give it or not (an absolute truth, not for a long time if ever), what other ways besides it are there to acquire a "truth".

by **Shaelyssa** Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:29 pm

The old discussion in the vent thread made me start thinking again (oh no) and I'm still not sure exactly what I believe in, but while I do not actually identify as a Muslim, I still acknowledge a few parts of Islam as being useful. I don't really believe in hell honestly, or at least I don't want to believe in hell because it's such a cruel concept and that'd make it's creator, God, cruel too! Which is definitely not a nice thought. :(

Oh and on a side note, in Islam, Lucifer/Iblis isn't an angel, but a jinn. The jinn are another class of beings with conscious thought and free will (like humans) that God created that have free will like humans, but are made of smokeless fire and live on another plane of existence, but can still see humans and often live in our homes (their favorite part of our homes being the bathroom). Iblis was such a devout worshiper of God that he let Iblis join his inner sanctum of angels or something.

I like that interpretation of Lucifer better than Christianity's one because at least it doesn't contradict the fact that angels are supposedly not even physically able to deny God's will.

Anyways, good job guys on keeping this thread nice and clean :p. Also, keep up the discussion cause even if I don't have much to contribute, it's still interesting to read!!!

by **Shaelyssa** Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:31 pm

Geneviève wrote:It kills my friends in the Middle East. It caused ordinary young men in Newcastle to nearly kill two of my friends in a club. It devestates lives in Africa and South America. Even in the US it abuses the freedom we give it to restrict the freedoms of others.

Religion didn't do all that, but people did!!!

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:42 pm

Shaelyssa wrote:
Geneviève wrote:It kills my friends in the Middle East. It caused ordinary young men in Newcastle to nearly kill two of my friends in a club. It devestates lives in Africa and South America. Even in the US it abuses the freedom we give it to restrict the freedoms of others.

Religion didn't do all that, but people did!!!

Aka

god/allah/fsm didn't tell you that, you imagined that yourself you dick!!!

by **Geneviève** Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:30 pm

Science does not have a monopolgy on the truth. Perhaps I should state that Tarvik's studying for a degree in Philosophy and is the person who has had the greatest influence on my thinking. But it is a method of searching for the truth hence my statement. Given your example of the 'morality of faith' holding back science in a positive way I've this contrasting example to present. If science wanted to mutilate children against their will as part of a study it would not be allowed. Not because of religious morality but because of scientific ethics. When, however, religion wants to mutilate children it is allowed to and any criticism of the practise is deflected as bigoted.

Again I'll stress the difference I make between personal faith and religion, religion being the multinational organisations that seek to dictate and control others faith. Faith can be beneficial to a person as I've stated. But there is no good within religious organisations that cannot be achieved throgh secular means. Whilst religious organisations are allowed to lie to people South of the Equater in ways harmful to their health and contrary to medical knowledge because of the protected status of religion.

I do not intend to prove that faith is wholly bad because it is not. Neither is religion wholly bad. But what good it does can be achieved through secular means, whilst the bad it does can only be justified and indeed is promoted by palming off responsability to their deity. Unquestioning obediance is made a virtue, critical thinking a barrier between you and God. So I suppose I'll end with a few questions, what good does religion do to society that cannot be achieved through secular means? What secular arguments do people present to justify 9/11 and 7/7? What gives the Catholic Church the right to protect guilty priests?

By no means is religion the root of all evil. Or even most evil. But what evil it does cause can be combated effectively by ending religions protected status and demanding people take responsability for their own actions.

Religion does harm all over the world and I'm forced to subsidise it.

by **Shaelyssa** Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:49 pm

Guns and knives and bombs and all sorts of other weapons cause harm all over the world too

by Sponsored content