Man vs. God

[Adam]

I wonder if Dave's post was re-worded to: The first requirement of faith is to discard reason.
That may work better? (Dave, not trying to put words in your mouth. Just helping)

It wouldn't have changed my thoughts, though. From Merriam-Webster online: "FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof."

 

[highfigh]

Truth.



The first requirement of belief is to discard reason. Once you get people to discard reason, you can convince them that any action is justifiable against the enemies of their belief, the more fervent the belief, the more despicable the actions.

This is assuming the people have the ability to reason in the first place. Granted, many of the worst events in religious history came at a time when the average person wasn't schooled at all and it was only nobility or monks who studied at universities but when the heads of religions have so much power that they are effectively the government, they can do whatever they want. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church split in the early part of the Second Millennium over this point, as well as whether priests should marry.

As far as one religion vs another, times haven't changed much, IMO. I saw a sign at the side of a road yesterday that had 'Islam is Justice' on it. If that's not open to interpretation, I don't know what is.

 

[jinjuku]

I don't agree with that statement, Dave. I don't think that it's a requirement to discard reason in order to believe anything, including believing in something that you personally have never experienced. I've never been to Neptune, witnessed a top quark, or seen a black hole up close - but I believe that they exist. Heck, I've never been to Idaho, but I believe that it actually exists and that potatos aren't formed in factories. I don't think that requires me to discard reason. My beliefs are formed upon my intellectual examinations of what I consider to be facts or supporting evidence (my trust in the source of the information, for example).

I hate to point out but Neptune, a top quark, black hole are all verified phenomenon. It's isn't a belief thing. You don't have to believe in Neptune if you don't want to. Doesn't mean the you lack of belief fails to make them exist.

My issue with organized religion is that there is a belief in an entity that has never showed it's hand and can not be proved to exist (just because millions of people believe something never made it a fact). Religion calls into question many intelligent scientists and their painstaking research. Calling into question many a forthright individual that had the gall to ask when, how, and why. All this at the same time they think that all the men that wrote and edited the Bible/Koran/other religious text are not fallible through a simple act of self proclaimed divine intervention/enlightenment.

 

[NicolasKL]

This is confusing to me- if it was infinitely dense, wouldn't it also be hot enough to cause one element to change to another, by fission and fusion?

At those temperatures and pressures elements can't exist. It was just particle soup. Elements didn't form until after the big bang.

If so much mass could be in a space that's infinitely small, how can we now have billions of galaxies, tens of billions of stars, hundreds of billions of planets, etc?

I don't really see why the two would be mutually exclusive.

 

[NicolasKL]

Where's Nick with his definitions when you need him?

What he said didn't really have anything to do with a definition, it's more of an observation or opinion.

Now if he'd said "I love my wife, she's such a great pederast" and I responded by saying "What the hell, how can you say that" and he then said "oh, I don't think pederast means what it says in the dictionary, to me it means that she's a great cook." That's when you start to have problems.

 

[Adam]

I hate to point out but Neptune, a top quark, black hole are all verified phenomenon. It's isn't a belief thing.

It sure is a belief thing. My point is that I (nor probably any of us) have first-hand actual experience with and evidence of those things, but we believe that they exist because of what others tell us. That doesn't mean that we must discard reason in order to hold that belief (which was my response to Dave and the context of my statements).

 

[Alex2507]

I absolutely refuse to look up the word pederast but will now use it alot.
It's meaning to me will be transient and private.
Thank you.

 

[Adam]

What he said didn't really have anything to do with a definition, it's more of an observation or opinion.

I completely agree with you. Sensi's post and our responses are, IMO, a good example of religious texts and people's interpretations. While I (at least think that) I understood the meaning behind the post, you and others understandably concentrated primarily on the wording of the post. My comments weren't meant as an insult to you or anyone.

 

[Adam]

I absolutely refuse to look up the word pederast but will now use it alot.
It's meaning to me will be transient and private.
Thank you.

If you don't look it up, how can you disagree with the definition?

Don't bother looking up "alot," though - it's too street to have made it into a "real" dictionary, yet.

 

[MatthewB.]

What I find interesting about Religion is how easy people are to believe a certain religion and diprove all others and each religion is either their way or the highway.

Take Mormons for instance. Their leader Joseph Smith who was a con man and convicted of child molestation is run out of town and hides in the hills and comes back two years later with this story about magic rocks and telling his story of how God spoke with him. When tested about these "magic rocks" the story was never the same even though Joseph should've been reading the same lines word for word if he truly were the only one who could read from them. So he builds a following who a few years later try to kill him and his brother and pretty much all of his followers leave finding out he is nothing but a con man and had duped his flock. But a few stick by him and the overtime convince more people and now we have the Mormons and some of their offbread shoot who apparently still believe in child molestation and multiple wives.

I know a very devout Jew and her and her family refuse to use electricty or cars from Friday at midnight till Sunday at midinght or after dark I forget. I asked her where it says in the scripture that thall shall not use electricity or automobiles and she says it doesnt. But because of their interpretations they have these bizarre restrictions. And I will never get the not eating pork thing. Mmmmmmbacon

Then there's the TV evengalists whyo preach from on high all the while asking for donations (cause their jets and Rolls need gas) Then we have all the priests in the news diddling little boys.

To me religion has become a business and is run by the biggest conmen of all time, and yet weekly millions go to church seeking salvation and an answer to all the prayers which as far as I know still haven't come, but I have to have faith that Rapture will come and all the good ones will go to heaven and all the bad will stay here in pergurtory. Well lets' recap what I know, so far, All the ultra religious are some of the meanest judgemental people I know, their leaders when not ruining a childhood are taking their followers money and the followers are like sheep doing what their leaders tell them.

Meanwhile as an agnostic, I judge people on their actions and help those I immediatly come into contact with, wether it be a person stranded or a homeless man who needs a few bucks for a meal (even though I know he'll buy booze) I don't molet kids and have never guilted anyone to try and make a profit.

Now when rapture comes, I think who has a better chance of getting in. The agnostic who was true to himself and tried to help others but had doubts in his faith or those who claim to have faith but commit a multitude of sins. The things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

 

[jinjuku]

It sure is a belief thing. My point is that I (nor probably any of us) have first-hand actual experience with and evidence of those things, but we believe that they exist because of what others tell us. That doesn't mean that we must discard reason in order to hold that belief (which was my response to Dave and the context of my statements).

Uh, black holes and Neptune are indeed verifiable facts. I don't have to discard anything to believe that black holes and Neptune exists. My belief or lack of does not change the facts that they exist.

Are you telling me Neptune and black holes don't exist?

 

[Adam]

...and each religion is either their way or the highway.

I was thinking that exact same thing earlier this morning! The thought of it is actually beginning to upset me, and let me try to explain a bit about why.

I don't believe that Heaven is a place. Rather, I believe that the term refers to a state of being. I don't believe that God is an individual entity, but rather is a symbol of that state of being. I also don't believe that Hell exists - from what I've read, the bible (which I haven't read much of) refers to that place as simply being the absence of God. In other words, Hell is simply the absence of that state of being.

So, to summarize - their is a state of being beyond what we are typically able to experience in these bodies. Some people have found a way to connect to that state, while others have not. If you connect with it, then you are "in Heaven." If you don't connect with it, well, you don't - and some would call that "Hell."

The approaches to connect to that state (the ways of living and thinking) can be learned on one's own, but like so many other things, it can be valuable to have helpful hints as to how to do it. I see the intended teachings of "prophets" to be those hints, and I view Jesus and Muhammad as being two prophets. These are people who were able to connect to that state and tried to teach others how to do it.

Those helpful hints don't necessarily stand the test of time, though. Because of human understanding, the hints and guidance were phrased in ways in which the people of that time and in that region could relate. They are not going to be as effective to other cultures, either those of other locations or other times. This is why it's absolutely vital not to take everything literally. An added effect is the intentional manipulation of those teachings by certain individuals in order to gain wordly power, which can either be limited in their perversion of the teachings to a specific location or time, or they can spread throughout location and time if they become embedded within an organized religion.

People think that following the rules is going to get them a ticket to Heaven. I don't agree. They aren't supposed to be rules - they are supposed to be guides. Now, we have people hating each other under the pretext that their "rules" to get to a "better place" aren't the same as someone else's "rules." Unless hatred leads to connecting to that state, then it's all very counterproductive.

 

[Adam]

Uh, black holes and Neptune are indeed verifiable facts. I don't have to discard anything to believe that black holes and Neptune exists. My belief or lack of does not change the facts that they exist.

Are you telling me Neptune and black holes don't exist?

I'm not telling you that anything doesn't exist, and I honestly don't know how I could make my point any more clear. I'll try again, though. It's simply an issue of believing in something for which you yourself have no personal experience.

Have you personally experienced a black hole and been able to attribute that experience to them? If not, then you are believing what other people say. If so, then let's pick another example.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Eastern religions would what? Make up their own contrary definitions to common words in order to obfuscate discussion?

Is English not your primary language? You're writing on a western board in a western language. Eastern religions wouldn't use the word "faith" at all, because their foundations are not in the English language. It seems to me that, at best, you're mistranslating a word, which is causing you to completely change its meaning, which is obviously not a benefit to rational, efficient discourse.

Okay, so Y is good, and X is bad. Y seems to be a trait that is more in tune with science, and X seems to be a trait that is more in line with religion. Was that your point?

No, its just a definition that doesn't fit within our traditional model.

To use another example to illustrate, in the Western world we consider the world to be constructed of "something." In Western religion, God 'constructed' this model of clay and 'breathed' life into it. And our langauge reflects that. But when you look at modern science, string theory and such, they have found that language has failed them because they only speak of these things in terms of patterns and structure. Not matter. Now you move to the Hindu model of the world an they tell instead view the universe as a drama. In the Eastern world, the universe is an act. It wasn't constructed, it 'grew.' Implying that the start grew from the inside out rather than from stuff into a form. We grow out of this world, like mold on bread, or a flower in a garden, or a galaxy in a universe. These differences aren't made apparent by dictionary.com, or using boxed language.

You look at the math, which is far above my understanding of math, behind things like string theory, and the models are so complex and long, that you have to wonder if our math, our langauge, is just too 'one-tracked' and simple to describe something that has increasing chaos.

So, when I say I believe faith is about 'letting go' ... I picture a universe that is like our world. Planets growing and dying like plants in our fields, and if you find yourself in a current in the ocean... swimming into it you will quickly find yourself tired and you will drown. If you instead swim with it, along to the side, you have a chance of making it to the shore.

This probably sounds stupid, but, I can't find any other way to describe the feelings that I have other than using examples of natural things we all see.

My gripe with science is that I don't feel like we are going 'with' the universe. I feel like we are a product of chaos finding order by chance, and that we will eventually become chaos again, and that we spend our time with technology trying to prevent this. We view ourselves as seperate from the universe, and we fight it.

Again, in the science field myself, I love science and technology, but I also think we need to be careful not to get into the same rut as religion has. For every scientist following the path, a thousand more are setting up a cabin on it. Just like for every one person paving an understanding of their religion, a thousand more are sucking its ****.

I completely agree with you. Sensi's post and our responses are, IMO, a good example of religious texts and people's interpretations. While I (at least think that) I understood the meaning behind the post, you and others understandably concentrated primarily on the wording of the post. My comments weren't meant as an insult to you or anyone.

I'm glad someone did. I understand my posts are cumbersome, but it is very hard to verbalize these sorts of discussions. When I try to formulate it, I find it all falls apart.

 

[croseiv]

I don't believe that Heaven is a place. Rather, I believe that the term refers to a state of being. I don't believe that God is an individual entity, but rather is a symbol of that state of being. I also don't believe that Hell exists -.

.

It's easy to ignore Hell. That is exactly what its headmeaster wants us to do. Then we don't have to be accountable for our actions. Life is all pleasure...and blind selfishness.

 

[Adam]

It's easy to ignore Hell. That is exactly what its headmeaster wants us to do. Then we don't have to be accountable for our actions. Life is all pleasure...and blind selfishness.

I wasn't saying to ignore it! Just that I don't see it as a physical place of fire and brimstone. There are two thoughts that I have on this.

First, if there is another level of being, I think that it needs to be realized and achieved by distancing oneself from our easily recognizeable five physical senses. Focusing on instinctual desires for physical pleasure and resource dominance (which includes selfishness) hinders that process. Therefore, it makes sense to me and my way of thinking that lessons on how to achieve that state of being would involve restraining ourselves from completely giving over to those desires.

On the other hand, I can see how such concepts could be conceived by humans even if no such state of being existed (or was known to by those who created the concepts). I think that most people can see how the concepts of Heaven and Hell could logically have been instituted in an attempt to maintain social order, as well. It's like the ten commandments. Those are logical rules for maintaining a society. Even the later "Golden Rule" is. I'm not saying that there isn't more behind them, but I can easily see how it's possible that they were completely human made - as they would make sense in trying to direct humans to progress as a group and not simply move forward with the base instinctual drive to propagate.

 

[croseiv]

Also, science is very good at explaining the physical universe that we live in, but it does a very poor job of dealing with the spiritual realm. Don't get me wrong I do science for a living, but it falls very short when it comes the things of the spirit.

 

[highfigh]

At those temperatures and pressures elements can't exist. It was just particle soup. Elements didn't form until after the big bang.




I don't really see why the two would be mutually exclusive.

That's what I meant but if elements can't exist at those pressures and temperatures, how did they become elements in the first place? We now know that H becomes He and so on from fusion but if the pre-Bang particle soup suddenly expands, as far as I know, sub-atomic particle collisions don't create new elements, they just release energy and leave some kind of trail, which is how they proved quarks exist. They could only see the trail from the energy but none has actually been seen.

All matter takes up space. Compressing it increases the temperature (an indication of average molecular velocity), so as mentioned before, if it's in an infinitely small space, hte temperature and pressure are immense. Post Bang, we know that the matter expanded into space and because of this, the energy released decreases, so it cools. If subatomic particles take up their given space and none were created during the Big Bang, how is it possible for these same particles to take up so much space now? If elements are compressed enough, they're either destroyed or fused, right? What happens to subatomic particles?

I'm not a scientist or mathematician, so I ask questions like these.

 

[Adam]

Also, science is very good at explaining the physical universe that we live in, but it does a very poor job of dealing with the spiritual realm. Don't get me wrong I do science for a living, but it falls very short when it comes the things of the spirit.

Solid point. It might get there, though. Science is an approach used to understand phenomena, and that approach may ultimately lead to a greater understanding of what we currently consider to be the spirit world. Like I said, though, I perceive the teachings of prophets as having the same goal. Science is just an organized approach to that.

Science has already helped us (IMO) understand the physical phenomena behind certain spiritual entities or occurances. Take our sun as one example. We now view it as a large ball of gases that are undergoing nuclear reactions, as opposed to an intelligent sky traveler. One ramification of this is that some people will view physical explanations for some spiritual entities as proof that all spiritual concepts are wrong. I believe that is a mistake, for it follows the thinking that we know everything that there is to know.

 

[Adam]

I'm not a scientist or mathematician, so I ask questions like these.

You just gotta have faith in the scientists that say it happened.

J/K!