Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1662/2297
(28-Jan-2008 at 12:50)


Okay, let me try this one more time before I give up due to an apparent complete lack of comprehension skills.

Let's start with your example of being hypnotised. Hypnotising (and conditioning) is based on the unconscious. As soon as people realise that they've been hypnotised, there is the opportunity to resist.

The same goes for religion. It's not just that people are conditioned. They -realise- that they have been conditioned. At the moment that you realise that you have been conditioned, it is impossible to just go along with it. Of course you can go along with it, but only after you've decided that that's really what you want to do. Even if you only really want to do it -because- you're conditioned, it doesn't matter. You still have to mentally agree to it. This is NOT a -free- choice, but it is still a choice. You have to decide, no matter if the result is determined or not.

Now let's analyze the following sentence:'I believe that the Allah exists'.

What does this sentence mean? Suppose that you think that your brother is at home, but you're not entirely certain. You could say: 'I believe that my brother is at home'.

Obviously, these to uses of the word 'believe' are different. The second involves a matter of chance. The first does not. When someone like Armitage says 'I believe that Allah exists', he does not mean that he thinks it's likely that Allah exists, he means that he feels entirely certain that Allah exists.

Now, suppose he'd say: 'I believe in Allah and my believing in Allah is completely conditioned by my culture'.

That sentence could be perfectly true. Still, there seems to be a really bad contradiction in saying something like that, because acknowledging that it's -only- culturally conditioned does not at all carry the same amount of certainty that seems to be there when someone says that he believes in Allah.

Therefor, someone who truly believes in God can never admit that his believe is completely culturally determined, but he must -always- say that there's a personal element to his belief.

Let me repeat again, just to be sure: Even if it is true that religion is -completely- determined by culture, you can't acknowledge that, as a believer, because you'd be completely missing the point of religion.

Now, I'm going to give up, because if you still fail to understand this, then you are completely incapable of understanding the truly religious so there's little point in me going further.

Modern world I'm not pleased to meet you

You just bring me down

Last edited by Caelis666, 28-Jan-2008 at 12:51.
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Caelis666 Add Caelis666 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 169/294
(28-Jan-2008 at 19:05)
666, I thought your response was well thought out, however, the next to you insult my intellegence, to prove a point... I am not responding to you, no matter what you arguement is Ok? We were having a nice little religious discussion, can you handle a discussion with out insulting someone? Just simply say your points and if people fail to understand them, put it in a diffrent way.

What you are saying about being hynotising is only partially true. You can resist being hynotised in the sense that they can't hynotise you at all.
If you are comparing this to a child asking about religion, with his parents then its inaccurate to say the child will not be brain washed and has a real choice in the matter, espesially when the parents are forcefull in there messege.

Here is exactly how hypnotising works. The patient agrees to relax or actually trust the doctor (or parent). Say the client wants to discontinue smoking for example. So the patient is hynotised and cooperating. The doctor then begains exploring there subconcious mind and transfors the thought of smoking to some other relaxing thought.
The patient will not do anything out of the ordenary that they wouldn't already do but the patient will have an innate response the thought of smoking, which might be a thought of golf for instance.

When you are a child and your parents tell you what they believe in, that alone will be suggestive let alone the forcefullness of it, when it comes to religion being pounded into your head.

Realizing that you are socially conditioned and still beliving religion is not a contradiction.

For instance, my father was put into a private catholic school from the time he was a little kid. As luck would have it, my dad just happend to be left handed. The catholic nuns thought, this was litterly satan trying to control my dad. So everytime he wrote with his left hand, the nuns smacked it with a hard metal ruler. My dad is obviously now right handed and realizes he has been socially conditioned and thats why he is catholic but if a messege is literly beatin into you, that is a good reason for not changing.

Knowing you are socially conditioned is most definitly not a contradiction at all in the sense that you were talking about.

Take shock thearpy for instance. Everytime you touch your eye.. you get shocked. What happens? The conditioning makes it so you will not touch your eye any more.

Take a dog for instance, if you beat it with a paper every time it uses your sofa as a toliet, then the dog is not gonna behave in that manner anymore.

Some people really do have the absolute freadom of choice but if you are socially conditioned you don't.
The religion is still going to effect your subconcious mind.

Thats a fantasic point, what if you teach kids all religons with no biasness.
This world would be a better place.

However, I don't think a lot more atheist would spawn out of that
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 379/611
(28-Jan-2008 at 22:33)


Peppie your idea wouldnt work. Its not because i think its not possible. Its possible to have an unbaised education of religions (when teachers of respective religion introduce their religion in school context and not some chrisitan teacher trying to teach islam or vice versa). The problem would be that our society doesnt put much trust in the childrens ability to decide for their own. Every decision a child would make concerining religion after being taught of world religions would be opposed by the teachers, parents, society they live in, peers, etc. Also by the time you teach them children are mostly believers of their parents religion. They wouldnt easily change their religion then. How would you want to tackle these problems? You would have to change society first before you start teaching the children.

Peppie, if your mother would have been a believer do you think you would have rather choosen a religion?

[Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Furqan; the Criterion]
Blessed is He who sent down the criterion to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures (25:1)
But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged [...] (25:4)
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Armitage Add Armitage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 171/294
(28-Jan-2008 at 23:26)
Good points on the bias nature of society when it comes to accepting religion.

If you are born into a society with a specific way of life, it is almost certain that you will choose the religion that is around you.

When you finaly have an apiphany(sp?) and reach that moment of clarity about religion, then you will decide if the religion is non sense.

The cultural biases that form your beliefs in the first place will have a major rule in your clarity.

Through social conditioning, its almost impossible to figure out what you truly want and what is truly logical.

If you are atheist and your mom is atheist that could be because of genetics. Being atheist could also have to due with your life experience.

William james says conciousness is like a river forever flowing.

My point

The river that is forever flowing isn't the same if toxic waste is dumpted into it. You still have your conciousness but its too poluted to make a choice based on freedom of mind.

Religious beliefs are typically due to social natrual selection and not due to actual choice.

Do you choose to use religion or does religion choose to use you? Ask your self fundimental questions.
Am I truly self aware? Is society effecting my choice?

Just basic everyday things you don't even pay attention to affect you in ways you can not understand.
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1474/1675
(29-Jan-2008 at 21:41)


Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Armitage: View Post
Peppie your idea wouldnt work. Its not because i think its not possible. Its possible to have an unbaised education of religions (when teachers of respective religion introduce their religion in school context and not some chrisitan teacher trying to teach islam or vice versa). The problem would be that our society doesnt put much trust in the childrens ability to decide for their own. Every decision a child would make concerining religion after being taught of world religions would be opposed by the teachers, parents, society they live in, peers, etc. Also by the time you teach them children are mostly believers of their parents religion. They wouldnt easily change their religion then. How would you want to tackle these problems? You would have to change society first before you start teaching the children.

Peppie, if your mother would have been a believer do you think you would have rather choosen a religion?
i know its not feasible ;p its just nice to imagine such utopias

if my mum wouldve been religious, fat chance i wouldve been as well. Probably not at this age since Dutch society forces most people to seek a middle ground and fervent religion is very rare within families and most regions in this country. Id most likely not have paid attention to the beliefs themselves and just used the denomination as an identifier.

"Observers worldwide have been expressing great pity for the people of Gaza [...] This pity may be a natural emotional reaction, yet it is unethical and immoral." - Adi Dvir, Ynetnews editor
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Peppie Add Peppie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 312/493
(29-Jan-2008 at 21:56)


Mate, I am a Muslim.

But I have been educated in all the world's major faiths.

In primary school, I learnt about all the major faiths.

In seventh grade history, I learnt about Buddhism.

In eighth grade, I learnt and got top marks in the grade for the topic Islam and the Crusades.

In ninth grade, I delivered a detailed presentation on Judaism.

In tenth grade, I learnt extensively about spiritual issues in Divinity.

I have attended an Anglican-affiliated school for the past 5 years, and naturally been exposed to a plethora of different religious and spiritual viewpoints in Religious Discussions in Utopia Temple forums.

Being religious does not by its nature preclude a holistic and balanced education.

Never give in, never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. - Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School
#26  
View Public Profile Visit hussein's homepage Find more posts by hussein Add hussein to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1833/2035
(29-Jan-2008 at 22:27)


Re: Religion

Originally Posted by hussein: View Post
Mate, I am a Muslim.

But I have been educated in all the world's major faiths.

In primary school, I learnt about all the major faiths.

In seventh grade history, I learnt about Buddhism.

In eighth grade, I learnt and got top marks in the grade for the topic Islam and the Crusades.

In ninth grade, I delivered a detailed presentation on Judaism.

In tenth grade, I learnt extensively about spiritual issues in Divinity.

I have attended an Anglican-affiliated school for the past 5 years, and naturally been exposed to a plethora of different religious and spiritual viewpoints in Religious Discussions in Utopia Temple forums.

Being religious does not by its nature preclude a holistic and balanced education.
Being educated, or worse, suffering from the delusion of being so, is in no way synonymous with being open minded or intelligently informed. Some of the least intelligent and belligerant people I have ever known received top marks in school.

To be religious does necessarily attempt to preclude further significant change and development on a personal level. When you have arrived at the point where you describe yourself as the adherent of a specific organized religion you are declaring your search ended. You know the one true way. At that point, you may learn about other religions, and perhaps better understand their views, but you inherently are predisposed against synthesizing this information into your own belief system. If this is not the case, than you are not a true believer since you are still seeking.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard
"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
- Lao Tzu
More Quotes...
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Syke Add Syke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 175/294
(29-Jan-2008 at 23:55)
Syke, I am going to have to agree with you on your points about education.

I would like to add that religion and science is often consumed by everyone because they are very fantasized ideas on how reality works or should work.

Everyone will always dream of a utopia type life reguardless because thats human nature.

So what you are basically saying is you read into every religion and are knowledgeable about the history and the faith itself?

I am not clear on weather you were an agnostic or not before you choose your religion.

Your points on having extensive knowledge on religion, doesn't mean you disbelieve what the religion believes as far as faith goes, thus you are not that religion.

For instance, I know a lot of information on astrology but don't really believe astrology the way someone who does would. Why do I know about astrology? Its interesting but that doesn't mean I actually listen to its messeges. I might try to apply a horoscope to daily life.

Being knowledgable about religion doesn't mean you are fully engulfed in the belief the way others are.

It seems like you just trying to analize religion in a 3 point perspective instead of a one point, which means you only understand facts at that point.
#28  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 187/212
(30-Jan-2008 at 09:05)


Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
So I have too ask why are you christians still christians too today?
I am a Christian because I have no reason not to be. Allow me to explain: I was born into a Christian family. That much I can't deny. But even growing up in church, going every week for years, I still came to fear death. I was about 12 or 13 years old when one night I just started crying in bed. My parents came in to see what was wrong and when I told them, they decided to talk to me about "getting saved." I didn't realize that I wasn't already, so of course I wanted to know more. After talking to them, I decided to pray for peace and salvation. At 12/13, of course you can't fully understand religion and all the implications of faith and all that, but in my own way I understood what it meant to believe in Jesus as the Christ and I did.

As I've grown older, my beliefs have changed a lot from that point. I've been introduced to supposed contradictions in the Bible, inconsistencies between what the Bible says and what Christians do, the fact that there are periods of history and pre-history in science that aren't fully explained by the Bible, etc. And yet, I've managed to maintain my faith. I don't know if it's because of the churches I've attended or my own personal study, but I have yet to find contradictions that I couldn't explain. And I'm not talking about the idea of the Trinity or Jesus being God and man at the same time. Those are things that you just have to believe. They're not things that can be scientifically tested. But it's no more strange than believing in the Brahma of Buddhism or the multi-faceted gods of Hinduism. You could throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that all those supernatural, untestable things are false, but for some reason there is a calm and peace in my mind about the things I believe, that goes beyond simple belief in myth. I truly believe that God is guiding me.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
Do you think science is false?
I can't believe that all science is false. Otherwise, why would I be a biomedical engineer working in bionanotechnology? Obviously, I've got some street cred with the scientific community.

The fact is, I think that there are things within science that are pure and true. I also think that there is a massive bias forming within the scientific community, and other scientists are beginning to back me up on this. I recently read a paper that talked about the exaggerations and sensationalism that has crept into the peer-reviewed journal world. People want to make HUGE discoveries, and they often blur statistics or creatively word their conclusions to make more of what they've found than what they've really got.

In a sense, science has a series of lamp posts that shed light on certain parts of our world and existence. And every scientist is trying to get under one of those lights and get noticed rather than take shots in the dark and PROVE them true like our forefathers from the Renaissance and Enlightenment Ages.

As I said, I believe in all the basic laws of science. I believe that we learn more and more about our world everyday. However, I think that many things scientists attribute to evolution and the like can just as easily be reworded and attributed to Inspired Design. Most people who ascribe to the theory of evolution think this unscientific and absurd, but then again, using the fact that both snakes and humans have shoulder/hip bones means that they came from a far-gone common ancestor seems pretty absurd to me.

And yes, I know that the DNA of chimpanzees is 98% the same as human DNA and that even mice have many similar genetic codes...but look at the phenotypic differences that even a 2% genotype difference makes. Chimpanzees are hardly anything like humans. And when you think about how difficult it is to change DNA in our modern human bodies, how difficult it is to introduce new proteins without a function for packaging them, when you think about how much stuff even within 1 cell has to work seamlessly in order for the cell to proliferate, it becomes very quickly statistically impossible for evolution to occur on a major scale even within millions of years.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
Why do you specifically believe the bible?
I specifically believe in the Bible because I have been brainwashed by my ancestors. *kidding* Honestly, I believe that the Bible is true because I have questioned it, critiqued it, openly learned about it from others who have dedicated their lives to studying it and opening up its secrets, and from others who have spent their lives pulling out the contextual information surrounding the events of the Bible. I have come up with no better explanation for the history of the world than what the Bible has to offer. A lot of the things that have been predicted to happen since the time of Christ have happened. Even the reinstatement of Israel as a nation was predicted. And the Jewish community has even quietly started preparing to build a new Temple, which is also predicted. Who would have thought that after 2000 years they would still be interested in it? Most Jews aren't even Jewish anymore... There were other predictions that came true from the Old Testament that happened during the intertestamental period or during the time of Christ. There is even some scientific evidence to believe in things like the global Flood in Genesis and things like that.

Also, all "contradictions" aside, there have been very few successful arguments against the Bible. Many try to use logical fallibility to explain away the miraculous claims of the Bible, but I think logic is in itself flawed. Logic essentially relies on things that can be broken down into "yes" and "no", 1 and 0. And what happens when you see something out of the corner of your eye? What happens if you are entirely blind, but still see? What if you wander even when you're not lost? Logic can't explain everything...it can't explain the expression of emotions or why people choose certain things. No person has ever lived completely by logic, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now. Logic dictates that the best world is one where we live in peaceful coexistence without money, giving to each as s/he has need. Indeed, that is the existence that the Bible claims God desires...and what will happen when He returns.

To return to the original question, I have had my doubts before. I have doubted God, and the veracity of the Bible, I've doubted my salvation, my faith, my beliefs, everything. But I can never get over the fact that Jesus existed. And I believe deep down that He did and that He did die and raise from the dead. If He hadn't, surely someone would have said so. The Romans would have produced His body, or even A body and claimed it was His...but they didn't. Rome had no tolerance for what they considered upstart and/or false religions. They tolerated Judaism (for a time) because of its antiquity. They respected the Jews although they thought them mistaken. They had no reason to tolerate Christianity...and yet they did. I can't get over the fact that what those early believers said about Jesus' death and resurrection was true. And because of that, everything else falls into place.

I don't claim that this is a way for everyone to come to Christ. Every Christian has their own reasons for believing the way they do. I'm not looking to answer a lot of questions or debates. I've come to realize that debating on internet forums is like fighting with retards...in fact, most times it IS fighting with retards...or people who have already made up their minds and are just trolling. And I don't have time for that.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
I out of all people am not making fun of you and DO NOT RESPOND to the people who are. I want too know what makes you, "YOU". I doubt there are christians on this board though... let me know!!!
I appreciate your honesty and candor. It is rare on any online forum. And yes, there are Christians who play Utopia, but due to the overwhelming majority of atheists/agnostics, most of us remain quiet about our beliefs. However, because of the simplicity and unaggressive nature of your post, I decided to respond.

Elder of Nex Imperio
Proud Monarch of E v e n t Horizon
I <3 halflings, Norbert, and kitties!

Last edited by ninjaphobos, 30-Jan-2008 at 09:10.
#29  
View Public Profile Visit ninjaphobos's homepage Find more posts by ninjaphobos Add ninjaphobos to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 179/294
(30-Jan-2008 at 20:24)
Thank you for your imput and well thought out post ninjaphobos, you seriously deserve 'props' for that. Thats exactly what I wanted to hear, someone intellegent seriously posting there belief. (I am not saying everyone else isn't intellegent, I am just saying this is an honest attempt to explain things.)

Honestly, even though I am agnostic for the most part, I still am not hear to judge your beliefs or make fun of your beliefs and call them wrong.

Actually, my first post in the religious section, I was actually hoping for answers like the ones you just posted ninjaphobos. In the atheist thread, I was clearly trying to get someone to respond to my questions in an intellegent way. People could learn from you ninjaphobos.

The only thing I was trying to point out about religion is if you were scared of death and wanted to be secure and told your parents about your fear. Your parents are probally going to explain there religion to you. Its very comforting to listen to your parents.

Everyone I one I know is some what afraid of death. Weather you think heaven exist or not, most people still fear death.

The only way to stop my fear of death, is not to think about it. I pretty much avoid the issue completley because I know one day, I am either going to be judgd by god and my fait is gonna be decided for me or I will just cease to exist and lose all thought.

It seems like nothing in life matters up until that point reguardless. The thought of your last seconds is a scary one and wish I could avoid it all together.

I noticed personaly my immediate family can't go with out bragging about there good deads and how selfless they are for giving to charity.
I can't really identify with them even if I truly believed religion because in the bible it says that you have already recieved your reward.

Whats confussing to me is why people think science disproves god because science will never disprove god, no matter how much science we are able to prove.

You couldn't have put it better.. sometimes people word scientific findings strange.
For instance, its just like fox news wording the story so it fits there beliefs.
Science and religion are one in the same. The priest have also taken stories out of the bible or worded it diffrent than it was meant to be worded.

I have a question... do you think the big bang happend? Do you think this effects the notion of god in any way?

You make awesome points about dna and points on how science works.

Thanks for sharing... and again, I am not here to judge your beliefs and tell you off.. thats pretty mean.. and I really don't understand that logic. Insulting people for no reason.
#30  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1834/2035
(31-Jan-2008 at 10:52)


Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
Everyone I one I know is some what afraid of death. Weather you think heaven exist or not, most people still fear death.
What's to fear? The fear itself is mostly instilled by society, and specifically by a society that relies on a comfort blanket to avoid dealing with that aspect of life in a reasonable manner. It's like pushing someone while standing at the edge of a cliff then grabbing them before they fall. Yeah, you may have saved them, but they wouldn't have been in the situation if you hadn't of exerted that pressure onto them in the first place.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
The only way to stop my fear of death, is not to think about it. I pretty much avoid the issue completley because I know one day, I am either going to be judgd by god and my fait is gonna be decided for me or I will just cease to exist and lose all thought.
Death is an aspect of life (and an important one at that); come to terms with it. Impermanence is the spice of life. And you're not going to be judged, so you can breathe a sigh of relief on that front. That's just a nifty little mechanism by which you're made to externalise your societally-induced super-ego.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
It seems like nothing in life matters up until that point reguardless. The thought of your last seconds is a scary one and wish I could avoid it all together.
Dry up those tears and actually contemplate life a little bit. It's not so scary, and living in fear or self-imposed ignorance is a ridiculous existence indeed.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
I noticed personaly my immediate family can't go with out bragging about there good deads and how selfless they are for giving to charity.
I can't really identify with them even if I truly believed religion because in the bible it says that you have already recieved your reward.
Every act is inherently selfish. If you do a good deed and then brag, you're trying to craft an image of yourself to others (and thus yourself as well, if that's where you draw your esteem) as a giving and charitable individual. If you refuse to brag about the act, you're trying to craft or maintain a self-image of yourself as a giving and charitable individual.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
Whats confussing to me is why people think science disproves god because science will never disprove god, no matter how much science we are able to prove.
Science doesn't, scientific method and thought does. If you examine organized religion with any amount of rigor it can't stand as even remotely probable. With that in mind, it's a simple leap to "there is no God."

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
You couldn't have put it better.. sometimes people word scientific findings strange.
For instance, its just like fox news wording the story so it fits there beliefs.
Science and religion are one in the same. The priest have also taken stories out of the bible or worded it diffrent than it was meant to be worded.
He's talking about within the scientific community itself. There is a massive difference between the mainstream media and the former. Science is based completely off of accuracy, reliability and truth. When you start fudging the facts to support or bolster your desired outcome you're spitting on the entire basis upon which scientific thought is founded.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
I have a question... do you think the big bang happend? Do you think this effects the notion of god in any way?
As he said, he's dealt with all the trivial and non-essential questions that naturally get posed to theists who don't live in caves. He's obviously rationalized it in such a way as to make the point a non-issue, which isn't very difficult since you're dealing with an argument which is based completely on an inarguable premise. I myself could come up with a hundred ways to explain the phenomenon of the big bang whether it happened or not in a theologically sound way, but it's a rather pointless exercise.

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
Thanks for sharing... and again, I am not here to judge your beliefs and tell you off.. thats pretty mean.. and I really don't understand that logic. Insulting people for no reason.
It depends on your focus of arguing. Expanding your understand of the thought processes of others requires an apt listener, not a speaker. If your desire is to foist your beliefs on others, it requires the will to yell louder than anyone else. If you want an intelligent exchange of ideas it requires an open debate and conversation (which can often lead to the shouting match when someone has their views challenged).

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard
"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
- Lao Tzu
More Quotes...

Last edited by Syke, 31-Jan-2008 at 10:57.
Edit reason: Fishing for fallacies, and all I got was a boot.
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Syke Add Syke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 180/294
(31-Jan-2008 at 19:14)
Thanks for your reply.. I like your creative expression man very cool.

Like "if you do a good dead and brag you are trying to 'craft' and image of your self.

As far as things go.. in this thread I wasn't going for fact vs fiction and trying to debate falacy vs fact but I was trying to gain insight on peoples individual views and why they express themselves that way as far as religion goes.

I have a few comments though to your respones. I would just like to point out a few things.. well I understand what you are saying for the most part, I some what view things diffrently.

Lets take science.

A scientist could say something like
"A fearsome comment is going to demolish all biotic life forms on the earth in 2017. Armagedon is here.

A scientist could say
"There has been findings of a comment thats on a path to earth, in the year 2017 but is not determined weather its on a definite collision course to earth."

I know these statements don't prove anything but they are worded in a way that arouses diffrent thoughts. They are almost saying the same exact thing but in a diffrent way.

Pretend you are science getting ready to dump your girlfriend.

"I am dumping you because you are not good enough for me"
"I am dumping you because you are conceaded(sp) and stupid"

Well both of those statments you told her ultimatly mean the same thing, they are saying something diffrent. The person actually reading those statements from a 3 point view.. might not understand it exactly how you mean it because its 'mis-leading'.

another words

carefully worded scientific analysis can mis-lead the audience. (intentionaly)
Vaguely worded scientific analysis can mis-lead the audience. (Intentionaly or accidently).

Next I would like to point out that I personaly have rationaly analized death and understand that its just apart of life and its going to happen to everyone weather they like it our not. I understand that we will all die at some point.

Rationality does not take away from the fear at all. Say you are afraid of 'grass hoppers'. You have a phobia of grass hoppers so to speak. Even if you rationalized your phobia and even if you know that grass hoppers are not going to hurt you, that does not take away from the fear at all. In that instance, the fear that I am talking about is irrational but in the instance of death it is perfectly rational to fear death with out any social conditioning.

Its a fact, that its human nature, to fear death. What prevents people from walking into oncomming trafic? The fear of death. What prevents people from doing all kinds of stupid things that might kill them? The fear of death.
The fact is the fear of death is so common that it has now become a multi billion dollar industry, emulating that fear.
For instance, theme parks, haunted houses, horror films, and just about anything that gets your adreniline going because of the fear of death.

I know in scientific terms there are some anomitys of fear in general because that part of the brain does not work but in most cases the fear of death is very real and instictual.
So when I say that most people are scared of death, thats because they actually are.
Which brings up the subject of heaven and hell or dying and having no conciousness ever again.
Thats what I think generates most peoples philosphy on religion. (me personaly)

moving on.

Sometimes giving to the poor has nothing to do with your own self image its just most people have an inferority complex. Sometimes people just want to help.
For instance, some people don't 'refuse' to talk about giving to the needy but just think its a "waste of time". Actions are productive and words or not.

Whats your personal belief on life?
#32  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 188/212
(04-Feb-2008 at 09:26)


Originally Posted by ninjoo:
do you think the big bang happend? Do you think this effects the notion of god in any way?
Obviously, something happened to start all of this mess, and I think the Big Bang Theory can fit in quite nicely within a theological mind-frame. In fact, I think that believing that "God did it" explains one of the few questions that scientists still have about the Big Bang. So far as I know, there are no really good, provable explanations as to how or why the Big Bang happened. We all have our theories. One that I found from an atheist quantum physicist was INCREDIBLY amusing.

Theory: There is an entire dimension devoted to universe generation. It is much like 3D + time, just a different dimension than those. In this dimension, there is a "machine" for lack of a better term that not only creates universes, but also sets the dimensions and other physical properties (rates of gravity, thermodynamics, electricity, etc.). The "machine" in this dimension is not necessarily affected by these physical properties as it is able to control their setting on any particular universe that it spits out. The earth is a unique byproduct of this "machine" randomly generating universes at an unknown rate. This "machine" exists outside of known time and space.

The thing is, we Christians (and other religious) have had that same extra-dimensional machine this whole time. We call it God.

Honestly, I can find no better explanation as to how (and ultimately why) matter was first split from anti-matter or that matter was first generated (however you believe it happened) than that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In Hebrew, the word 'created' literally means 'to make something out of nothing.' Notably, the Hebrew word translated as 'created' throughout the rest of Genesis 1 is 'to build up something out of pre-existing material.' When God creates the sun, the actual earth, etc., He is using pre-existing material to do so.

What I think happen is that God instituted the universe and began that initial chain reaction that we call the Big Bang. With energy that concentrated, you would literally have no thermodynamic loss...meaning, no effective entropy. Any energy that was "lost" at that stage was immediately reabsorbed into other particles. The only reason we have entropy now is that things are so spread out. Anyway, in that initial expansion, I think that things could happen at much faster rates than they do now, which explains a lot of the "oldness" that we see in the universe. We have rock that looks like it's billions of years old because when it was first created, it came out of that nearly pure nuclear fission during that beginning expansion of the universe.

Of course, I have absolutely no data to back up my answers. It just seems like common sense based on what I know about the universe. As syke said, an infinte number of theories could be made up about those first few moments of the universe. And discussion about it, at this point so far in the future, is rather trivial.

Syke made some interesting points as well. However, unfortunately psychology proves him wrong. There was a test involving infants who were basically newborn. They had not yet learned to talk or respond to their parents in any way except by crying for what they wanted. They hadn't yet been taught about fear, even...fear of fire, fear of water, fear of otherwise harmful images. These tested babies were subjected to various things that older people fear: water, fire, heat, rather realistic images of animals, sounds, etc. However, the only test that made the babies react was to put them on top of a table. The table actually had clear plastic really close to the top, so the baby wouldn't actually have been injured if it had "fallen." However, the baby refused to walk off the edge. None of them would do it. Their fear was innate. Even as infants, we fear death. We fear injury. Society may shape our more developed fears and categorize them, but the fear of death is something that exists even in the newest of humans (or any other animal).

Originally Posted by ninjoo:
It seems like nothing in life matters up until that point reguardless.
I have no better response for this than the following:

Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes:
"Vanity of vanities," says the Teacher, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity." What advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun? A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; and hastening to its place it rises there again. ... Is there anything of which one might say, 'This is new'? Already it has existed for ages which were before us. There is no remembrance of earlier things; and also of the later things which will occur, there will be for them no remembrance among those who will come later still. ...

I said to myself, 'Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over this place before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge.' And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.

I said to myself, 'Come now, I will test you with pleasure. So enjoy yourself.' And behold, it too was futility. ...

Thus I considered all my activities which my hands had done and the labor which I had exerted, and behold all was futility and striving after wind and there was no profit under the sun.


And as for what we should do, God speaks it plainly to us.

Originally Posted by Micah:
With what shall I come to the Lord and bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before your God?
And as for me...what should I do?

Originally Posted by Micah:
But as for me, I will watch expectantly for the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation. My God will hear me. Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy. Though I fall I will rise; though I dwell in darkness, the Lord is a light for me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against Him, until He pleads my case and executes justice for me. He will bring me out to the light, and I will see His righteousness.
The message of the Bible is hard to swallow because it contains much about a judgment that is to come. And even without eternal judgment, we already see the physical judgment of what happens to people on earth who do evil. They either die, or are successful, but despised. Very few are the times when evil men both succeed and are well-loved. And in the end, those evil people usually get their come-up-ins (as we call it, here).

However, the Bible is also really is a message of hope. In order to believe in the hope, you have to believe that what it says is real...but if you do, then you have hope. ^_^ I guess that's the same with any book/religion...but the Bible seems to put it exceedingly well.


Originally Posted by syke:
Every act is inherently selfish. If you do a good deed and then brag, you're trying to craft an image of yourself to others (and thus yourself as well, if that's where you draw your esteem) as a giving and charitable individual. If you refuse to brag about the act, you're trying to craft or maintain a self-image of yourself as a giving and charitable individual.
As far as altruism goes: skype is basically right. Every act is done with at least a two-fold purpose. As humans, when we do something good for someone else, we gain positive feelings even without receiving positive feedback. This essentially negates the altruism of any supposedly altruistic act. If you're doing something without hope of external praise, you might still praise yourself, which is praise, which means you're not doing it without hope of being praised... Make sense?

The only problem I see with the other parts of syke's argument is that there is a big difference between pride/false-humility and true humility. I do believe there are some people who do and say things out of as true a sense of humility/altruism as can possibly be expected of a human being. Of course doing something good for others makes us feel good, but refusing to brag about it doesn't necessarily denote false humility (i.e. being humble for the sake of being recognized as humble). Some people genuinely do good things. Most people don't....you could certainly argue that...but to throw the baby out with the bathwater is rather extreme.

Say I gave you a cookie and said you didn't have to pay for it. Then I went around and acted like nothing had happened. If someone comes up and asks about it later and I still act like it was no big deal, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm out secretly fishing for approval. Just because I feel good when someone praises me doesn't mean I was seeking it in the first place through false humility. I might seriously have thought giving you a cookie to be no huge deal. Or indeed, I might think nothing of doing good things for people.

Originally Posted by ninjoo:
I noticed personaly my immediate family can't go with out bragging about there good deads and how selfless they are for giving to charity.
I can't really identify with them even if I truly believed religion because in the bible it says that you have already recieved your reward.
Jesus talks about this false piety and ascribes it to the pharisees as evidence of their hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Matthew 6:
Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Originally Posted by Matthew 23:
The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; ... But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the marketplaces, and being called Rabbi by men. ... Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
I hope this answers some questions. ^_^ You see, not every Christian is perfect...just as no person on earth is perfect, religious or otherwise. You cannot base the belief in a religion on the people who practice it. Otherwise, you would reject all religions, even science. The people who practice any faith, belief, or theory are flawed. Their conclusions about what is written may be flawed. Their education by other flawed people may be flawed. You see, Jesus was born a Jew. He lived as a Jew. But the people who were teaching Judaism at the time were so far off-base that apparently God had to come down Himself to right it. Even though the religion of Judaism itself may have been the perfect plan to 'save' humanity, the people who taught it so distorted it that it became a method to condemn people rather than teach them how to be saved.

Likewise, I fear the same thing has been done to Christianity. Through historical events like the Crusades, slavery, the Protestant Reformation, the Protestant/Catholic wars throughout history and that continue until today, the anti-semitism and racism of the Church in various periods of history. All the mistakes that the people practicing the religion have made have cast a bad light on the religion itself...when in fact the religion itself teaches peace, love, and right living. That is not to say that judgment should be completely excluded from Christianity. The "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" still exist...but by believing in the Messiah, you have direct contact to God and to that love that (according to the Bible) He promises to so freely give out. Can you feel the love tonight? ^_^

Elder of Nex Imperio
Proud Monarch of E v e n t Horizon
I <3 halflings, Norbert, and kitties!

Last edited by ninjaphobos, 04-Feb-2008 at 09:30.
Edit reason: syntax
#33  
View Public Profile Visit ninjaphobos's homepage Find more posts by ninjaphobos Add ninjaphobos to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 186/294
(05-Feb-2008 at 06:07)
Once again ninjaphobos, I would like to thank you for your thoughts and insight on this topic. Also thanks for posting some of the quotes from the bible to clearify exactly what I was refering to.

You brought up the emotion of fear being innate, good job, I was going to bring that up my self but I didn't have any sources. I read it somewhere but never got around to finding an artical about that again.

I would like to comment on your 'jesus being a jew' paragraph.

No offense, but your statements in that paragraph seem to be a little bit on the 'anti-semetic' side.
The notion that you brought up in that paragraph is 'divine intervention', which would mean that jesus was born to stop judiasm, which in a sense, makes "hitler" seem like a profit.

I think the purpose of "jesus" being born was to make things easier on humans. 'Everybody just can't sacrfice sheep 'willy nilly"'.
Not only that but I gathered that god put jesus on the earth because of multiple reasons that had nothing to do with judiasm.

For instance, satan tempted adam and eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, while god gave people the choice to disobey him and knew well that they would, he thought they still should have the option of free will.
Even though they didn't listen to him, he still has forgivin humanity because they basically don't know what they are doing. Thus the sacrifice of your only begotten son is honorable proof of love.

Not only that but god didn't want everyone to suffer in hell.
God also wanted to experience the life they live, to understand exactly what its like.

To comment on the big bang theory
I don't believe in the big bang theory at all because basically what the 'big bang' is ultimatly saying, "we are all on a causual chain".
When I say 'causual chain', I am not referring to cause and effect but more statistics than anything. You also must remeber, probability and statistics are very important in science and the fundamentals of an idea working.

The big bang like most ideas to me seems statistically improbable.

Moving on
religious events that happen like miracales are also statistically improbable but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

As far as the bible goes. I don't think its full of metaphores, which is most of the logic I hear. Everyone either gives an A or B option when it comes to the bible, with no grey area. For instance, "No one takes the bible literly now days who is remotley sain, christians just look at the bible as a book full of metaphores"

Me personaly, I think the bible was meant to be realistic and not taken as a bunch of metaphores. I think the bible is just worded weird because of the decades of translations.
For instance, jesus feeds 400 people with a loaf of bread and a fish and they are completley full.

To me thats just a way of saying they loved him. They were happy with what they got. Not to be confussed with a metaphorical way but a poor translated way of saying it.

The now day version of that might be. "400 people ate with jesus and while there stomics were empty, there hearts were full of love" it still might be some kind of metaphore but maybe I just worded that wrong. None the less articals explained like that make it so its not statistically improbabal that the events from the bible did happen.

Syke, I agree with what ninjaphobos has to say about the charitable giving thing, it makes sense.
The death arguement also makes sense because we are all instinctavly afraid of it but you did make some extremely good points

Last edited by Ninjoo, 05-Feb-2008 at 06:14.
#34  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 191/212
(06-Feb-2008 at 20:17)


Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
I would like to comment on your 'jesus being a jew' paragraph.

No offense, but your statements in that paragraph seem to be a little bit on the 'anti-semetic' side.
The notion that you brought up in that paragraph is 'divine intervention', which would mean that jesus was born to stop judiasm, which in a sense, makes "hitler" seem like a profit.
1) I am not anti-Semitic. In fact, I am what some would consider a Zionist. I think that the Jewish people have a right to the land of Israel as prescribed in the Bible. Now, I don't think we should forcibly remove all the Palestinians (the modern word for Philistines), but I don't think the Palestinians should have control of the whole area either.

My comment about Jesus coming down to right the wrongs of the Pharisees was no more anti-Semitic than my statement about the Christian Church having undergone the same hypocritical movement is anti-Christian. The fact is, the Jews at the time of Jesus had completely screwed up the religion. If you go and look at some of the latest prophetic teachings from the Old Testament that were the last prophetic writings prior to Jesus, you'll find that even their own prophets believed that what I said was correct. Jesus even said, (paraphrase) "You guys screwed up, you hypocrites. Here's where you went wrong..." (/paraphrase) I think you just misunderstood me.

2) On Hitler. I do believe that his coming was prophesied by both Old Testament and New Testament prophecy. He was not the "Antichrist" so to speak as is talked about in Revelation, but he was someone who had the "spirit of Antichrist", which John talks about in one of his letters. He was an evil man and I definitely want no association with him.

3) You are right about the purpose of Jesus. His purpose was: 1) to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah, who was to be a Savior of both Jews and Gentiles; 2) to explain and correct we who have gotten off course; 3) to make it so that no one could claim (to God) that He didn't know what it was like to be human.

I have every belief that God could understand everything that we could possibly experience on Earth even without actually having physically been here. However, because He spent that time on Earth, now no one can claim "You don't understand what it's like."

4) You don't have to believe that the Big Bang theory is real. But everything we understand about the universe suggests that it hasn't existed forever. There was a beginning to this 'reality'. Whether or not there were other real things before is up for grabs...but we came from somewhere that had a beginning. The Big Bang is just as plausible as an eternal universe AND scientific evidence points to a Big Bang more so than an eternal universe.


Originally Posted by Ninjoo: View Post
I think the bible is just worded weird because of the decades of translations.
For instance, jesus feeds 400 people with a loaf of bread and a fish and they are completley full.

To me thats just a way of saying they loved him. They were happy with what they got. Not to be confussed with a metaphorical way but a poor translated way of saying it.

The now day version of that might be. "400 people ate with jesus and while there stomics were empty, there hearts were full of love" it still might be some kind of metaphore but maybe I just worded that wrong. None the less articals explained like that make it so its not statistically improbabal that the events from the bible did happen.
The only problem with this way of thinking about the two feeding events (feeding of 5000 and feeding of 'a multitude', which are accepted to be two separate events based on where they supposedly took place) is that they didn't stop with "Jesus fed the 5000 and their hearts were content." The story continues and the writer states that they not only had enough to feed the group of people, but also had at least a dozen baskets of food left over after everything was said and done. No matter how you look at it, 5 loaves and 2 fish can't fill 12 baskets after people have already eaten off of them. You could say that the story was just made up OR that it was "miracle"-ized later, but then you could do that with everything in the Bible, which you claim you don't want to do.

Also, the Bible -is- full of metaphors. However, the Bible is also extremely clear about what is to be taken literally and metaphorically. Metaphors and similes use "like" and "as". Also, you can count Jesus' parables as metaphorical since He later goes on to explain what they meant and that He was trying to get a point across. There are also some prophecies that don't make much sense if you take them hyper-literally (meaning you don't believe that anything other than the exact literal translation will happen). The thing is that you have to read the Bible and talk to other people who also have read and studied the Bible in order to understand what is written. It would be like me reading some ancient Hindu texts without talking to a Hindu person. I guarantee you within 5-10 pages I'd be lost in space.

People who read the Bible (or any religious text) critically without speaking to learned members of the religion can't expect to fully understand what's written and certainly shouldn't be relied upon for knowledge of the Bible. That's why I don't like arguing with people from the internet. They largely have read only a few passages, got all their information from some Bible critic website, or grew up in a Church that had vastly distorted views on what passages in the Bible mean. If that and the hypocrisy spewing from "public Christianity" is your only source of information about the Bible, then it's no wonder you outright reject the religion. Unfortunately, there have been far too many mistakes made prior to people within Christianity realizing what was going on and where they messed up...and a great misconception about Christianity has begun that will take a long time to rebut, if it's at all possible. That is a great travesty.

Elder of Nex Imperio
Proud Monarch of E v e n t Horizon
I <3 halflings, Norbert, and kitties!

Last edited by ninjaphobos, 06-Feb-2008 at 20:20.
#35  
View Public Profile Visit ninjaphobos's homepage Find more posts by ninjaphobos Add ninjaphobos to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 913/1637
(07-Feb-2008 at 08:30)
Re: Religion

Originally Posted by Caelis666: View Post
[...]

Let me repeat again, just to be sure: Even if it is true that religion is -completely- determined by culture, you can't acknowledge that, as a believer, because you'd be completely missing the point of religion.
It is as if one asked the Believer "Why do you believe?", the Believer would say "I don't know". For the Believer does not 'know' or have a reason to believe, or set upon his belief in dispute or idleness. Faith pre-exists these meanings or reasons or questionings and once inspired never needs these later, lower ranks of spirit which spawn from a weakened and fearful state of man.

Thought, dear friends, is the greatest procrastination. Even planning, calculation, risk-assessing: all suggest a fear of error in some way. But what is error if not what you yourself suppose, and indeed what is fear? If it was only for faith from the very beginning!

What is it that is more misled than to hide in a house of reason? And then, to suggest that this is better than all else while you yourself can not stand the sight of what is outdoors!
#36  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 205/294
(09-Feb-2008 at 06:43)
I didn't say you were anti semitic, the messege I got out of that paticular statement even out of context seemed a little bit anti semetic to me.

As far as the big bang goes.. I don't believe it but I have no theory to replace it with, so you could understand the dilema I am in. I like to see solid evidence and eventually facts.


If god existed then yes he could understand everything about our situation. Gods son was more of a sacrifice.

Personaly me... I just think the bible was added to or mis translated in some aspects. or even, there might have been lack of litature for some of the exact details we are looking for.

A person can only write so much. I think there is more to that fish story than leads on.. opposed to a miracale happening.

I think one of the authers didn't add enough detail. I think it was meant to be takin literly but its incomplete... which essentially it is.

For instance

"there were 600 starving people and we only had 1 fish and a loaf of breadf"
"we went fishing and found more bread"
"600 people were filled with the limited food"

If you take out one of those simple sentences it makes the messege something diffrent completley.

"we went fishing and found more bread"

If that wasn't there.. someone might assume a mirical but maybe jesus was a good fisherman and didn't want his followers to starve to death.
#37  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 918/1637
(09-Feb-2008 at 08:58)
Imagine your mind walking through a beautiful landscape. "Maybe this landscape is wrong?" No, make it easier on yourself. Take the words as they are. Alternatively, leave them as they are. No one wants you to squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle (or God through the eye of reason?). If you can not digest the words in earnest from the very beginning, you never will. Do you see gaps in order to measure? There are none besides what you have been seduced to see. You alone built these measures and you alone can abandon them.
#38  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 208/294
(10-Feb-2008 at 01:47)
That definitly makes sense but as far as the litature of the bible goes and especially since its meant for humans to understand, believe and follow. It wouldn't make sense if it was meant to only be understood through omnipotent eyes.

The bible is a document for a person to clearily understand religion. If god sent someone down to earth to make the bible for people to understand and follow religion he would have had it make sense so everyone can understand it, especially when it comes to the tortures if you don't.

The fact is certain parts are taken from the bible and we did not uncover all of the dead sea scrolls intact meaning statements could have been mis made.

One instance of a quote

"jesus walked on top of the water"
another version simply says that was mistranslated
the new quot being
"jesus walked aside the water.

Which means something compeletly diffrent in its own respect. One seems scientifically impossible and the other seems highly probable.
One is maybe read as a miracale or a metaphore but im just saying its mis translated.

moving on

Frued says that we all have inferority complexes which can essentially have something to do with the fear of error.

What I was saying when it comes to society.


John:"what is your religious belief?" Mike:"I am a christian" John:"why are you are christian?" Mike: "It makes sense to me and there are many signs that I think are true. John: "what if your religion is wrong?" Mike: "I have sincre faith that its not".

This is more what I meant by bringing up social conditioning and a lot of people are approuching the discussion the wrong way.

Its not a situation like
john: "why are you religious?" Mike: "I just am I don't know why".

Thats not what I was applying social conditioning too. in the first sequence of thoughts. Mike knew exactly why he was religious but didn't know he was socially conditioned to see things that way.

His logic from social conditioning could have made christianity a religion more sense to believe than not.

I would like to point out its not obvious being socially conditioned (even in logic) in the first place because everyone is born into a society. If your aspects of morrality are socially conditioned than your moral judgements make sense to you because you were born into your mind and it has been molded.

No one is ever EVER gonna say something like
John:" why are you religious" Mike: "because I am socially conditioned"

That obviously wouldn't make sense. Mike would say something like "because I have faith in the lord" even though mike is unaware that he is socially conditioned to think that way.
#39  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Ninjoo Add Ninjoo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 4113/4241
Donated $0.60
(10-Feb-2008 at 13:15)


I believe that science and Bible do not exclude each others out. Problem is that we just think they do. As religion can blind peoples, science can blind peoples aswell. That is because we're humans. We rather stubbornly defend what we believe against someone who doesn't share our view.

I believe that Bible has told things that science has later explained. Like most plagues, water turning into blood Science has explained. What science hasn't been able to explain how random event's can chain up so well.

What I believe is that science can explain a lot things but only to extent and religion can explain a lot things but only to extent. I think they're not mean to compete but co-exist.

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga
#40  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments AsianAmerican Religious Discussions 54 27-Aug-2005 15:08
The illogic of religion Gus Mackay Religious Discussions 46 05-Aug-2005 13:28
On the topic of Evangilism and Finding your religion. pump Religious Discussions 17 31-Jul-2004 12:13
Religious survey,all input welcomed Jean831112 Religious Discussions 29 13-Apr-2004 17:52
Question on Religion from an outsider Cleyra Religious Discussions 52 16-Jul-2003 06:24


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 14:22.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.