Designated Religion Argument Thread

Remove all ads!

Darkthrone, I haven't studied a lot of physics, nor am I a genius. I have studied math and taught it on a grade school and high school level. I did write a grade school level modern math course. I am above average intelligence according to IQ tests. What I am trying to say is that I think I have a logical, pragmatic mind.

You start with physics and if I understand you correctly the rest evolves from that. Now I have no quarrel with evolution. By no stretch of the imagination can I be considered a fundamentalist.

Coincidence? All this marvelous universe simply came about from same fluke? True a monkey can paint a 'picture' but there has to be a monkey to paint it.

With my dying breath I will proclaim-- Nothing begets nothing! There is a First Cause...Call it what you will!. I will then happily pass on mayhap to find out who is right.

With that said let us agree to disagree but whatever you do please do not lump me in with some fundamentalist point of view simply because I believe in something that caused all this wonder I see around me.

 

It is amazing, isnt it?

 

To me it seems this all comes down to our lack of knowledge and insight. We are by far too small-minded and inexperienced - too young as an inquisitive species - to make any kind of qualified guess as to what started it all. We are immatures.
Not too long ago dieties were appeased and befriended in hopes of not having the crops die on the fields, the weather being friendly etc.
Phenomena were observed, but no explanation came forth. Religions stepped in, to give answers and also provide people at least the illusion of some measure of influence on the forces shaping their lifes.

We have moved past that basic level (or have we? oh well...), having learned why it rains, or what causes droughts. Same for diseases plaguing the crops, the livestock, whatever.

Now our ever-questing minds have turned to the universe itself, what brought everything into existence - and how. Again religions are at the ready, giving answers to those who are in need of answers. Different topic, same pattern. Religion substitutes knowledge. I for one am contend to know I will never learn the truth. Ever.

Some folks are just too impatient. I am certain humanity will discover a power/factor we, right now, just dont have the slightest concept of. In our endearing naivety we attribute a conscience to it, split it into dieties or roll it into one god... and actually believe it would pay us any special attention. Testament to how much of a developement lays ahead of us. Although I think we are, in a way, connected to this higher power, guided, shaped by it. We are a part of it. Like everything else. Though nothing of it in the fashion some assume.

I think it will take a tremendous amount of time for us to grow to a state wherein we can truly recognize our world, and ourselves. If we are to survive that long, which I doubt.

 

Nakia, everyone who is intelligent enough to consider BG a good game (and hence is sucked into this board) is intelligent enough for a good debate, right.

What I'm saying in the above post is the following: science is just about observing matter (living and dead). We can say: "Aha, because the atmosphere of the earth is rich with oxygen it follows that the lungs of mammals have to be capable of withdrawing oxygen from the air to enable them to breath here." You could exchange the word oxygen with sulfur if we lived on a planet with sulfureous atmosphere, and again, you would just have gained understanding why a mammal is built in the way it is built.

We cannot say, however: "Aha, because a human being is meant to breath oxygen, it is clear that someone has provided a planet with the correct atmosphere so that we can live here." Do you spot the difference?

The later case is due to the old egocentric world view nurtured by the traditional churches. The human is center of the attention of a whole universe. This is romantic and understandable but hardly a logical consequence of what we observe.

You view the universe and life as a marvelous thing due to your perspective. You have grown and evolved (well, not you personally, obviously, but you know what I mean) into your environment. A different environment (evolving in a barren waste of sulfureous acid for example) would have a different impact on your sense of aesthetic; I think you will find that the characteristics of such a sense would differ in different environments - save the fact that an intelligent being will have such a sense. Because it is a trait that helps you survive, because it is a fast system for categorization of your surrounding. It smells good? Beautiful, lovely fruits, maybe I can eat them! It smells bad? Rotton water, better not drink it.

"Nothing begets nothing"! OK, why not. But I fail to see why there has to be a cause for anything at all. Like I've said, there is no cause for radioactive decay - in the sense that we cannot determine anything that tells the atom core to fall apart in the very moment it chooses to do so . They just do. Or they don't. Each in its own time. A cause is a very human concept. If a believer insists on the existence of something he admittedly cannot understand - then why can this thing we humans cannot understand be the absence of a cause?

But even if there was a first cause - I do not think that it is unimportant what the name of this cause is. If it is "god", then we assume some kind of intelligence behind this cause. If the name is "coincidence", we can hop happily along without all the nasty implications an intelligent cause brings with it.

 

If it is an intelligence, then that imparts upon us a certain dignity; we are the corporeal harbors of this intelligence. If it was a coincidence, then you and I are no different than bugs; in absolute isolation within the universe, one of us murdering the other would be meaningless and unrecorded.

Even if I didn't like reading your posts, your innate dignity prevents your removal.

But, arguing against myself, it must be said that the universe (as created or coincidenced) grants us no dignity. It is apparently a concept that only appears within the minds and actions of intelligent beings.

 

Well, this is true and false at the same time. You are changing perspective during your reasoning without realizing it, I suppose.

1. When viewed from above, on the scale of, say, the universe itself, we are indeed all insignificant. We will leave no lasting impact. We will not survive as a species. We are doomed.
2. No one with a right frame of mind thinks in the above categories. What matters to us is our worldly here and now. Here, on this planet earth, on the scale of a human lifetime we are all but insignificant. Murder has meaning. Love has meaning. The origin of our lifes has nothing to do with our feelings and our emotions. Anyone who places his feelings and actions towards others on the question of god/no-god (in the way outlined above) has serious issues.

Your last sentence is true: we ourselves grant each other dignity. We do not need anyone else to do it for us.

But Late-Night Thinkers post raises an interesting question. If there is reason and determination behind our world - why has god chosen to provide his king creatures with something imperfect? If the earth was created for our pleasure and needs alone - why has god provided us with something that does not last? For we know that the earth will eventually die. And that the universe will ultimately die. Is this the best god could do for us?

I fear that I already know the answer: this life is just a stage, right? We are all tested and god will end this process sometimes in the future - and then we will either rot in hell or live in paradise. Which raises the following question: if god planned to abandon this stage from the very beginning he must have been aware of the fact that this would mean that he would end up with a limited supply of human beings. Why is that? And what are his criteria for deciding how many human beings the heaven could accomodate? I always assumed that heaven = infinity in some way or other. Now it seems to be very finite and limited.

Hm. After all, the difference between 2 and a million is just a number, whereas the difference between a billion and infinity is, well, infinity. Why didn't he stop after Adam and Eve? Why didn't he stop after Christ's first coming? What the hell is the old man waiting for!?

 

Sorry all, but I must punt...

Heading to the beach for the weekend!

Six guys, including myself, no girlfriends,...it's going to be fun! (in a purely hetero way...although, with the sunset and a few drinks....nope, in a purely hetero way)

Thanks for the heads-up DT, I had no idea about the PM limits.

I'll be back on Monday with both my startling acumen as well as my bent-knee humility...and probably an unhealthy hangover to boot.

Good luck defining God all!

 

Darkthrone, your posts and CLSVABCH's are the perfect example of why I pretty much stay out of these debates.

I agree with both of you. well maybe not 100% but 99.99%.

I have to interject a little personal information that may explain why I can be a confused fence straddler.

At 15 my Grandfather, who was my father figure, died. I worshipped him and I do not use that word lightly. My family was nominally Espiscopalian-Anglo Catholic and Christian Scientist. At 16 I chose to be baptised. For the next 23-25 years I read extensively. Studied theology and eventual ended up where I am now. Believing in cause and effect. For the rest I can only say, "I do not know."

Now the following is strictly my personal view. I stress this in order to avoid the idea that I am in any way speaking dogmatically.

I have the theory that if all humans were wiped from the face of the Earth Mother Gaia would (figuratively speaking) heave a sigh of relief and say, "Good that parasite is gone." That doesn't mean I don't like humans, I do, even love a few.

In these debates we get the extreme point of views. I like CLS' post because it is not extreme. On the other hand when one's answer to most questions is "I don't know" it is difficult to contribute to the debate.

The only valid contribution I can make sounds rather insulting but isn't meant that way. I'll phrase it this way.

We do not know the answers. The scientist can only go so far. There is always that wall beyond which we cannot see. The strongly religious person turns to personal experience which proves nothing to anyone but him/herself.

So I end up sitting confortable on the fence laughing and occasionally wanting to make a mocking comment.

 

Agreed.

I don't think I should justify my beliefs to anyone. If someone is curious as to what I believe, and has a definitive interest in it, they can simply come to me and ask. I'll share my personal experience with such individuals but that's only if they're interested.

I understand that the Bible says to go out and preach the gospel but I don't interpret that as meaning I should go out and just talk about it everywhere I go. I interpret it as meaning that I should act as an example of what I believe and from there people can ask me what it is that makes me the way I am. There's a big difference between preaching what I believe and acting it out.

If you sincerely want to know what I'm about and why I believe what I do then ask me. But if you really have no interest then don't waste your time.

 

Why must the universe conform to man made aesthetics? I'm sure that the speed of light was determined long before the length of a metre was determined...

D'uh, We're talking religion here, taking God as the cause of what Science observes. That is a starting assumption and an alternative way of looking at the evidence--which will be no doubt rejected by some of the science promoters here. They'd rather criticise the new Christian than to consider that their revered Scientists may be wrong--then complain that we religious folk refuse to consider that our beliefs are wrong...

Put it this way, the odds are quite against the second, and the third is absurd. Science stemmed from people asking why this and why that. To assume suddenly that something has no cause would ultimately abandon the reason for science in the first place...

It is not the words of man that bring people unto Christ, but the spirit of the Lord, that leadeth us all to the Father. If you do not have faith to begin with, then your heart will already be closed to this possibility...

Certainly by labeling it coincidence, you hop merrily along, only caring when it's convenient for you, but if there is a God, shouldn't we be grateful to Him for what he hath created for us? Further, suppose he had given us instructions on how to care for the Earth he made for us, ought they not be followed? Further, suppose we had to share it with other humans that he also loves. Wouldn't that commit that we follow His rules of conduct in regards to these other people we have to share the world with?

So you believe that dignity is only understood because we hare intelligent. Ought we not show ourselves and others dignity? I believe that obedience to God's commandments shows that dignity to ourselves, others and God.

Remember that we only exist for a brief period of time too. Perhaps when all his children that want to come to earth have had that opportunity, He will no longer need it as such...

There are things that were seen by the prophets of old that have yet to come to pass. It must happen that these things DO come to pass before the Lord will return.

That actually explains my frustration here. My personal experiences only prove my beliefs to me, but really mean little to the rest of you, and those that try to cram science down my throat really can't answer my questions satisfactorily (or perhaps they refuse to).

I find that the topic of religion does come up. As the world plunges into evil, the righteous will stick out like sore thumbs. They will be noticed and questioned...

 

Consider yourself asked. It's the purpose of this thread, after all. A simple explanation will do, there's no justification required.

 

Please, PLEASE back that one up. Personally, if I hadn't argued with you in these threads before, I'd think you were refering to the first both times..

 

Heh.

I believe what I do because I don't think there are some things that we'll ever be able to understand. I think that the only explanation for certain unexplained phenomena and the fact that the universe we live in is so geometrically perfect is that there is a God. I'm a nondenominational (whatever you choose for that to mean) Christian who believes that the universe is too complex and orderly to have just been an accident.

I look at people, the many different varieties, and I look at nature - mountains, rivers, the sky, trees, animals, etc. - and I wonder to myself how someone could think that there is no God. This all can't possibly just be an accident.

Of course, this is all my personal belief and conclusion. Everyone is welcome to believe what they want.

 

Yirimyah, I'm going by CLSVABCH's numbers for that. To require 1 followed by 15000 zeros universes to have high odds of getting one planet like ours means that Co-incidence is extremely unlikely, and that to say that this all sprung from nothing? Wouldn't that contradict science somehow? For those two reasons, I'll take that as a high probability that God exists right there. It is the personal experiences and feelings that prove to me that God is real.

 

That's exactly my feeling also.

 

Want to know my sure-fire way to cure the world of religion problems? Disband ORGANIZED religion.
And, here's why:

1. I don't see why people have a need to be in a church. After all, if God created everything, shouldn't you enjoy his creation? And shouldn't you seek to cultivate and nurture his creations, instead of paving over them and mass-producing places of worship? To me, all these new churches are club houses, not religious sites.

2. Why listen to sermons and the like? Shouldn't you follow what is in your heart? If you need someone to tell you not to kill people, then are you really a good person? Or, are you just biding your time to earn yourself a cozy place in whatever afterlife you believe in.

3. How the hell many wars have been fought over religion? This last bit alone is would be enough for me to destroy it.

 

BC:

1: First off, the Lord's House is a house of order, thus proper worship requires order and organization.

2: It is through the sermons and the like that we learn the doctrine. Not killing people is a learned behavoiur...

3: I've been through this ad nauseum, but here goes again for the benefit of those of you who weren't paying attention. For thousands of years, the people have taken the name of God in vain, despite commandments forbidding it. They tell the people that to vanquish an enemy is God's will, in hopes that their poliotical opponents will keep their trap shut or face diminished influence because they don't follow God. They use the Name of God to accomplish their own ends. As a result, God's name is defamed and these people will be held accountable for the attrocities they ordered committed in God's name.

If you think there's been too much war fought over religion, try to get rid of it then see what kind of fight you get on your hands...

 

As much as I agree with Biffle Chump, I also agree with Gnarfflinger. Organized religion may be b***s*** (imo), but if it's broken up, it will simply go underground and become a LOT more spiteful. How do you think Al-Qaeda got started? They weren't allowed to practice the way they wanted to, so they congregated in secret and started a hate campaign to stick together. The same thing would happen with ANY other organized religion that was suppressed. It may be bad, but it could be a hell of a lot worse. Religion will exist, period.

I do feel the need to respond to some of Gnarf's statements, however.

Don't even get me started...

... which has nothing to do specifically with religion, and everything to do with family and the community. Said community could have a single religion they all follow, but it's more to do with general beliefs (sanctity of life) than specific beliefs (God).

 

Wow, good comments. But...

1. If said 'God' made the universe, then he also made chaos as well as order. For a mere human to presume to know what it is he prefers and desires his worship to be like is just utter non-sense.

2. (I'm afraid you made the mistake of using the word 'doctrine', which sets you up for a whole bunch of stuff.) If one must be indoctrinated in to a religion without personal experience, then who is to say that that person is truly of the said religion? For all intents and purposes, that person would have been brainwashed in to believing what he does.

3. I conceed this point. However, I did not say to destroy religion; I specifically said 'organized religion'. This way, you wouldn't have the pampered upclass priests waging personal wars.

And, I'd like to end this post with this: Perhaps the perfect religion isn't worship of a god, but worship of the community.

 

Well, okay. What caused the first cause?

I mean, if we're saying "the universe couldn't exist unless an outside entity created it" doesn't it follow that "an outside entity couldn't exist unless another outside entity created it [or something to that effect]"?