|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted October 22, 2007 12:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
there is no 'proof' in science.
Quote:
The person who made the sniper rifle is responsible for it's use. Nothing to do with religion though.
Religion is just another one of those bad things, which helps nobody.
Quote:
Well if i can think of one thing right now its maybe that science causes deaths. but its mostly religion that causes people to hate each other.
Quote:
I challenge you. What charitable things have you ever done with your life? Don't come here spouting how you think religion is ruining the world when you're doing nothing but draining it's resources and happily gorging yourself without giving back. It makes me sick to hear complacent, selfish, so-called intellectuals bash people who sacrifice so much time, effort, and money to make a positive effect on the world around them.
And let's not forget one of the most productive and thoughtful posts around:
Quote:
I think that wins my vote for worst post ever.
For Pete's sake people are you even a tad bit aware of how ridiculous you sound? It looks like you're all too busy trying to bash the other side to write things that make sense... For every good post I see here, I see twenty posts of generic, ignorant, intolerant crap.
This entire discussion has become an absurd charade of personal issues and fanaticism, which people are trying to present as rational thoughts. A freaking fair of demeaning and loathing everyone with a different opinion.
Gah.
So the latest trend is trying to find out whether more people were killed by religion or science.
NEWSFLASH: Religion doesn't kill people. Science doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Theists and atheists. They kill, steal, rape, torture... On the other hand, they give charity, help people out, create works of art and science, and generally try to make the world a better place.
It's up to the person, not belief.
Learn to live with it already. Both theists and atheists can be ignorant and bad persons, and both can be intelligent and good. Enough with religious chauvinism already.
Imagine how Maria Curie, who exposed herself to radiation throughout her lifetime to help the humanity find new sources of energy, would feel if she heard you blaming her because some jocks indirectly used her research to make the atomic bomb.
Or imagine how the apostles, many of whom were martyred just for spreading Christianity, would feel if they heard you saying they are responsible for the crusades.
You would spit on anything and anyone, if it gave you at least a bit of a chance to prove your weak or non-existent point.
But it doesn't really matter. Whatever anyone writes here will, if even read by anyone, just be scanned for something that can be taken out of context - so that it can be quoted and bashed, and then forgotten. That's your idea of internet discussion.
Pity.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 22, 2007 01:25 PM |
|
|
Shadey:
Quote:
TA
That's as much as I'll quote seeing as we seem to be unable to communicate on a human level. I never blamed religion for evil doing of humanity. Don't misquote me, and call me ignorant for it.
You have no idea what the bottom line is, so don't make a smart ass guess in effort to dodge a substantial argument. Religion has never slighted me. I could not care less. I couldn't care less about alot of things I like to argue about.
I'm simply taking a logical stance.
If religion has caused at least one death, then it is a bad thing, seeing as it gives no benefit.
Saying that ALL charities are based on religion is a straight out lie and you know it. And the ones that are, doesn't that mean they are giving simply to benefit themselves (and secure their cloudy chair next to the big guy?), which makes me sick. Truly good people don't need an incentive to do good. It is possible to give to someone without expecting something in return.
As for your challenge. I could ask you the same question but it wouldn't be relevant, I don't see the point you're trying to make. People living their lives is a drain on resources? I haven't heard a more obvious statement in my life.
What do you think should be done about it. Maybe there should be another plague to get rid of all us complacent, selfish, so-called intellectuals.
Maybe that will help you formulate a proper contention without resorting to personal attacks.
Baklava:
Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Anything else?
Obviously people kill people. So do falling vending machines and the flu. But the difference is people need a motive. And one of those is religious.
Just like any other difference between two people, people don't like differences. So why wouldn't having one less reason be a good thing?
As for the 'latest trend': Just no. You miss the whole point of that argument. Imagine if one day you actually read a post in context without quoting things to make them look bad.
Science is not opposed to religion (nor is it any more than remotely linked)
And saying there is no proof in science... this is a fact, what's wrong with this? You can't prove anything 100% except in mathematics. I was clearing up the use of the word. There is only evidence in science.
Not that complicated.
Didn't think it needed to be brought up again and again, misunderstood by so many.
If you don't like the thread, don't post your cynical comments in here so that you feel like you've just trumped everyone.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 22, 2007 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.
There isn't really much to add. And it's not really a sensible discussion.
It was fun at first and, if you remember, I took part in it some time ago, though I never had a fixed side I'm on. But I've just overgrown if after a while. And I think you should too.
Your argument that religion is bad just because it can be interpreted to kill somebody is ridiculous. So cars shouldn't exist because of car accidents? Come on. You're a smart guy, you know all that doesn't really make sense.
On the other issue, I miss the point, do I? Well go ahead, explain it to me. Enlighten me as to how blaming people for misuses of their creations helps prove that God doesn't exist.
And saying there's "no proof" in science, and then saying there's "only evidence" in it is... shall we say a bit contradictory.
Hm... This has an aura of fun actually. I might even hop back in here. Just look at me as the third side, agnostic or something. Arguments are way more fun if you have three sides, aren't they? 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 22, 2007 08:28 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:28, 22 Oct 2007.
|
Quote:
And saying there's "no proof" in science, and then saying there's "only evidence" in it is... shall we say a bit contradictory.
Actually, it's not contradictory at all. It's a true statement, so far as we know at the time.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 22, 2007 09:11 PM |
|
|
I may be wrong of course, but I am pretty certain that "evidence" is a synonym for "proof". How can you say something has no proof, but has evidence?
Maybe you formulated it incorrectly, or I misunderstood.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 22, 2007 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I may be wrong of course, but I am pretty certain that "evidence" is a synonym for "proof".
It all depends on how you define your terminology, of course, but in a strict sense, you are wrong. Evidence implies a suggestion of truth, whereas proof implies absolute truth.
For instance, if I believe John murdered Jack, John's fingerprint at the scene of the crime would be evidence for that conclusion, because it suggests that John could have murdered Jack. It certainly isn't PROOF that John murdered Jack, as I can think of many other conclusions that John's fingerprint could be evidence of. John could have been there the day before, for example. Thus his fingerprint is really only evidence that John was THERE, not that he murdered Jack, although the murder deduction could be made if OTHER evidence was also present, such as a gun registered in John's name (and the fingerprint was on the gun!). Of course, even THIS isn't proof. Maybe John went to Jack's house the day before to show him the gun. Maybe, maybe.. Legally, we say that when there is enough evidence to "prove" John's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he can be conviced. But what is reasonable doubt?
Which bring us to "proof". What is proof? In a scientific sense, something proved to be true is absolute truth. There IS no doubt. You could say that a piece of evidence (or a body of evidence) would constitute proof if it was so strong that the margin of doubt is infinitely small. Can we really PROVE that John killed Jack? In an absolute sense, I'd say no, so we use an arbitrary "reasonable doubt" criterium. Can any scientific law or theory be proven? As far as I know, the answer is no.
Two reasons why: First, NO scientific theory can be flawless, because no human mind - whence theories originate - is flawless. Science is also incremental and builds upon itself. The step from incomplete theory to flawless theory (absolute truth) would have to be insurmountable in a single step, no matter how far advanced the old theory was. As a consequence, no theory can be proven to be correct, because no theory IS correct. You can certainly find evidence in support of a theory's capacity to explain a scientific phenomenon under a stipulated set of conditions. But no amount of evidence in support of Newtonian Physics will PROVE Newtonian Physics to be correct, because Newtonian Physics is NOT correct. You can't prove evolution is correct, because there will always be doubt, always things that the current version cannot explain. Theories will always have to be improved to incorporate new evidence, and so you can never prove that the current iteration is right, beyond every modicum of doubt!
Second, on a more fundamental level, if there WAS proof in science, that would have quite impressive implications. Most notably, it would imply that there's some absolute truth, an absolute endpoint to science. I'm not so certain that that's the case. Absolutes often violate the principles of quantum theory, but then again that's just a theory and so there's no proof that nothing is prove-able.
As for mathematics, well, mathematics and science are two very different creatures. Maybe there are absolute truths in math. But as far as we know, there is no such thing as "proof" in science.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 04:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for mathematics, well, mathematics and science are two very different creatures. Maybe there are absolute truths in math. But as far as we know, there is no such thing as "proof" in science.
Mathematics is a science. It's just not a natural science.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 08:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Your argument that religion is bad just because it can be interpreted to kill somebody is ridiculous. So cars shouldn't exist because of car accidents? Come on. You're a smart guy, you know all that doesn't really make sense.
I'll just mention that that wasn't at all the point I made.
I won't explain my actual point again because even I feel like a broken record by this stage.
To be clear: just because you think A about object A, doesn't mean you also have to think A about object B. If you have 10 bad things, and 9 of them are necessary, is it ridiculous to not want the extra 10th?
Quote:
And saying there's "no proof" in science, and then saying there's "only evidence" in it is... shall we say a bit contradictory.
Again. I was only clarifying the use of the word. Evidence supports a theory in science. Evidence does not prove a theory. It's really not important, just definitions... I don't see a contradiction. Just that most people when they say proof they mean evidence.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 08:36 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:18, 23 Oct 2007.
|
Quote:
Quote:
there is no 'proof' in science.
Quote:
The person who made the sniper rifle is responsible for it's use. Nothing to do with religion though.
Religion is just another one of those bad things, which helps nobody.
Quote:
Well if i can think of one thing right now its maybe that science causes deaths. but its mostly religion that causes people to hate each other.
Quote:
I challenge you. What charitable things have you ever done with your life? Don't come here spouting how you think religion is ruining the world when you're doing nothing but draining it's resources and happily gorging yourself without giving back. It makes me sick to hear complacent, selfish, so-called intellectuals bash people who sacrifice so much time, effort, and money to make a positive effect on the world around them.
And let's not forget one of the most productive and thoughtful posts around:
Quote:
I think that wins my vote for worst post ever.
For Pete's sake people are you even a tad bit aware of how ridiculous you sound? It looks like you're all too busy trying to bash the other side to write things that make sense... For every good post I see here, I see twenty posts of generic, ignorant, intolerant crap.
This entire discussion has become an absurd charade of personal issues and fanaticism, which people are trying to present as rational thoughts. A freaking fair of demeaning and loathing everyone with a different opinion.
Gah.
So the latest trend is trying to find out whether more people were killed by religion or science.
NEWSFLASH: Religion doesn't kill people. Science doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Theists and atheists. They kill, steal, rape, torture... On the other hand, they give charity, help people out, create works of art and science, and generally try to make the world a better place.
It's up to the person, not belief.
Learn to live with it already. Both theists and atheists can be ignorant and bad persons, and both can be intelligent and good. Enough with religious chauvinism already.
Imagine how Maria Curie, who exposed herself to radiation throughout her lifetime to help the humanity find new sources of energy, would feel if she heard you blaming her because some jocks indirectly used her research to make the atomic bomb.
Or imagine how the apostles, many of whom were martyred just for spreading Christianity, would feel if they heard you saying they are responsible for the crusades.
You would spit on anything and anyone, if it gave you at least a bit of a chance to prove your weak or non-existent point.
But it doesn't really matter. Whatever anyone writes here will, if even read by anyone, just be scanned for something that can be taken out of context - so that it can be quoted and bashed, and then forgotten. That's your idea of internet discussion.
Pity.
Unfortunately you are absolutely correct. It's become redundant and pointless. While trying to get people to understand that valuing other peoples ideas and beliefs, I got sidetracked. Let selective quotes and such get to me. Guess it's harder to just let things go then it should be. Nice post Bak...deserves a +QP.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 09:21 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
Ah. That was a misunderstanding in the definition of proof and evidence.
In some encyclopedias you will find them as synonyms. But there are also essays that imply the difference in practicality that you mentioned...
So it was an undefined statement. There are two definitions of the term and that explains the confusion that occurred.
Fair enough, I understand what you were trying to say. Though in this case none of us was really wrong, we just used different terminology.
MVas:
Mathematics actually is a natural science. Though it's rather abstract, it counts as natural.
TA:
But why do you so consistently fail to see the good sides of religion? Why do you insist that religion is evil? And why do you, of ALL the religions in the world concentrate ONLY on catholicism and occasionally Islam?
Let me tell you why. Because those religions are most often misinterpreted, and it's easiest for you to attack them. Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu religions and many other never harmed anybody - on the contrary, they preach peace, serenity, meditation and prosperity (catholicism and Islam also do, in theory, but ok, they were misused).
But you couldn't attack them, right? You can't have anything bad to say about Buddhism, no stains in the record. You just dig for dirty stuff about religions so that you have a straw to back up your fanatically atheistic theories with.
There's a big question actually: if you haven't been born in a catholic/protestant environment, would you be an atheist at all?
Mythical:
Thank you Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed and everyone else!
Finally someone who understood what I was saying!
This discussion is like a narcotic, just drags you into it  Leave while you can
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 10:19 AM |
|
|
@baklava:
Quote:
But why do you so consistently fail to see the good sides of religion? Why do you insist that religion is evil? And why do you, of ALL the religions in the world concentrate ONLY on catholicism and occasionally Islam?
Let me tell you why. Because those religions are most often misinterpreted, and it's easiest for you to attack them. Orthodox Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu religions and many other never harmed anybody - on the contrary, they preach peace, serenity, meditation and prosperity (catholicism and Islam also do, in theory, but ok, they were misused).
But you couldn't attack them, right? You can't have anything bad to say about Buddhism, no stains in the record. You just dig for dirty stuff about religions so that you have a straw to back up your fanatically atheistic theories with.
There's a big question actually: if you haven't been born in a catholic/protestant environment, would you be an atheist at all?
I don't know why I fail to see any good sides of religion. Good question. How does anyone not see something that they, well, don't see? 
And I don't focus on catholicism really (although it is one of the more barbaric sects of Christianity), but mainly the Anglican side that I'm know the most about. Islam and Judaism I don't know as much about but I'm more familiar with the monotheistic theme than, say, Hinduism.
I also don't like scientology much
But to answer your question, I don't go into the specifics of these religions because I don't know enough about them, so I try to talk more about the general idea of supernatural god(s).
As for Buddhism: Buddhism isn't theistic. It is possible to be entirely atheist and Buddhist at the same time. I'm sure there has been corrupt Buddhists over the years but it hasn't affected my life and, I guess, they don't believe in a big man in the sky 
And the big question... I don't quite understand what you're asking.
If I were born in a Hindu environment would I be atheist? Or if I were not exposed to religion at all? Either way I can't say.
But for the record, I've never been involved with Catholicism, (though I'm not too good on all these synonyms for the same religion )
Though this thread is many pages long. There has been many topics. Only the last few pages have been about the wrong doings caused by religion (if that). Most of it is to do with the foolishness of religion And sure if you read some passages of the Bible or the religious texts of those you mentioned it'll tell you to 'turn the other cheek'. But I think we all know that those have no effect on what really goes on.
You can't focus on the details without being affected by the macroscopic dogma that we have become desensitized to. It's shaped our society to be what it is now. What seems to be written there is an advocation of violence towards anyone who is not of their religion, or more generally anyone who is different to them notwithstanding their morally bankrupt 'in group' mentality, and of course the male god and his son which have sported the hatred of women for millenia.
I know very well that it is the people that are responsible.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 10:55 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 10:56, 23 Oct 2007.
|
Now we're talking.
There are some good points in that post, and I even agree with most of it.
However, to make everything clear, let me draw a line between religion and the higher power, which I'll refer to as God.
1) God
If a higher power exists, it is quite obvious that we aren't supposed to understand it. If it wanted us to fully comprehend it, we wouldn't have worshiped bird-headed people and other deities for thousands of years. Perhaps everything has a point, perhaps not, but we cannot know that, since it is pretty hard to reveal to us. Maybe we're just an insignificant part of the universe, maybe we are the key to an inscrutable purpose. You can freely have an opinion on it, I don't think you'll be sent to hell if you don't believe in it or something (cause, well, we'd all end up in hell that way). But insisting that only your opinion is valid and logical is pointless, since if God of any sort exists it is certainly rather inexplicable by human sense. At least in this stadium of evolution.
2) Religion
Religion is many things. First, a primal attempt at explaining things around us which we couldn't understand. Second, our visions of the above mentioned God, created when we were desperately trying to find a purpose and point in our existence, refusing to realize that we can never know anything about that for sure. And third, a set of philosophical and moralistic guidelines which were supposed to create better and happier societies, and give ordinary people a sense of hope and serenity.
Of course, like any philosophy of that sort, it was easy to use by wrong people able to hypnotize the masses (much like communism which, in theory, is great, but practically it's one of the largest disasters of mankind. But it isn't wrong to believe in it by itself.)
Dwelling in the finer philosophical aspects of a religion requires full open-mindedness to any theory, and a completely neutral approach without any prejudices. If you succeed, it is perfectly possible to find reason in every religion and belief, and you will see that it, by itself, cannot be blamed for anything, and definitely doesn't deserve to be shunned as something bad by itself. Even the religions which have disappeared and are mostly considered surpassed and obsolete, such as Zoroastrianism, various types of paganism and similar, have their points and people can learn a lot from their teachings, whether they believe in them or not.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say I tried to explain it the best I could.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 11:33 AM |
|
|
Baklava is right, at least from my point of orthodox christian.
I haven't read all posts in this topic, but the Christianity... its not just "I believe in God" or "I give up on believing in God". Christianity is history, something more - culture! To believe in God is one thing, to "believe" in this great culture is another.
A friend of mine is a priest, I know him from my earliest childhood, here is what he said to me long ago:
"God is not corporeal, he is not in the skies, he is a force, and this force is everywhere"
...call this karma, call this fate, there is something, which can punish you for everything bad.
The Bible and the Christianity are, I can say "doctrine", which can teach us to live better.
Just for information in bulgarian "orthodox" mean "pravoslaven", this is mix word of 2 other words and basicly mean: "the right belief".
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 12:18 PM |
|
|
Baklava may very well be right, but that post did not follow the orthodox Christian beliefs.
Orthodox Christian is 100% by the word of the bible.
Baklava, does God (in your opinion of the higher power) "read" our thoughts, or concern himself with our beliefs?
Is he able to, if he wished, change the world we live in?
EDIT:
and I like the communism analogy.
However I don't think that even in theory religion is a good thing. I think that being good is, well, good (strangely enough), but that is a very minuscule part of most religions and I for one don't believe that we need to follow some stone tablets to do good.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 02:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
MVas:
Mathematics actually is a natural science. Though it's rather abstract, it counts as natural.
To quote the Wikipedia (I know it's not reliable, but it's the most accessable encyclopedia):
Quote:
Today, mathematics is used throughout the world in many fields, including natural science, engineering, medicine, and the social sciences such as economics.
If mathematics is used in natural science, that means it's not a natural science, since it is obvious that mathematics is used in itself, and redundant to say that it is used in natural science if it itself is a natural science.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2007 03:10 PM |
|
|
Yes. Mathematics is not a natural science, you could say it's the language of natural sciences (especially physics) and most people who study mathematics also use their knowledge in other fields (physics, chemistry, other natural sciences, statitistics, economics, computer science etc.). Therefore mathematics is strongly associated with the natural sciences, but mathematics in itself has nothing to do with the real world.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 24, 2007 12:02 AM |
|
|
@ the mathematics issue
Ok, I always counted it as a natural science. Without it, no natural science would exist But alright, it isn't a natural science. Of all the sciences, it is most related to natural ones though.
But never mind. That's irrelevant for the discussion.
Quote:
Baklava, does God (in your opinion of the higher power) "read" our thoughts, or concern himself with our beliefs?
Is he able to, if he wished, change the world we live in?
Well Mytical has a cute point about that. If it worked the way humans think it's most likely, it would probably be like that.
However, since God is completely different from us, I'd refrain from making analogies that imply us trying to see it from God's angle. I don't even think God has a personality like that. I don't think that it cares, or wishes anything, the way we do (by that, I don't mean that God doesn't care, I mean that its thoughts function on a different level). Its soul equals its mind and body. Its thoughts are reality. We are its thoughts and they're made from us. We are as much a part of God, as God is a part of us.
Our thoughts aren't controlled the way you ask, and we aren't punished for not understanding God (cause we can't). All of us, the soul of every living being, the all-present energy throughout the universe... that's what God is. Pretty abstract.
Hard to understand, even harder to explain. It's enough to say, we are free (unless we enslave each other). Don't worry, there isn't some sort of divine KGB that watches over your thoughts and sends you to hell if you think differently. On the matter of thoughts control, you should probably be more afraid of mortals then God. It just... seems rather screwed up on our level of thinking.
Of course, all of this is a theory. I don't necessarily believe in it, I just bring it up as one of the possibilities. I like thinking about all the options. It's fun, enlightening and keeps the gray cells in good condition
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 24, 2007 01:12 PM |
|
|
@Baklava:
Quote:
Well Mytical has a cute point about that. If it worked the way humans think it's most likely, it would probably be like that.
However, since God is completely different from us, I'd refrain from making analogies that imply us trying to see it from God's angle. I don't even think God has a personality like that. I don't think that it cares, or wishes anything, the way we do (by that, I don't mean that God doesn't care, I mean that its thoughts function on a different level). Its soul equals its mind and body. Its thoughts are reality. We are its thoughts and they're made from us. We are as much a part of God, as God is a part of us.
Our thoughts aren't controlled the way you ask, and we aren't punished for not understanding God (cause we can't). All of us, the soul of every living being, the all-present energy throughout the universe... that's what God is. Pretty abstract.
Hard to understand, even harder to explain. It's enough to say, we are free (unless we enslave each other). Don't worry, there isn't some sort of divine KGB that watches over your thoughts and sends you to hell if you think differently. On the matter of thoughts control, you should probably be more afraid of mortals then God. It just... seems rather screwed up on our level of thinking.
Of course, all of this is a theory. I don't necessarily believe in it, I just bring it up as one of the possibilities. I like thinking about all the options. It's fun, enlightening and keeps the gray cells in good condition
I understand the concept of god I was just curious of your opinion, as you obviously don't believe "the way humans think"
So if it were, for instance, God (in your opinion)'s will to say, suddenly, make all cigarettes disappear from the planet (for example, why is not important) or anything else.
Could he?
Also just on a side note, I don't get why people have these vastly differing ideas of god. You say yourself it is just theory and we cannot understand him... yet you and Mytical and Shadey and everyone all have different ideas about what's going on. In your opinions. What I don't get is how you formulated these opinions. What do you base it on, what makes you think God is like this as opposed to that? From my point of view, the personal beliefs are based on what seems to be a good idea, depending on that person's personality.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 24, 2007 09:17 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 21:24, 24 Oct 2007.
|
Quote:
So if it were, for instance, God (in your opinion)'s will to say, suddenly, make all cigarettes disappear from the planet (for example, why is not important) or anything else.
Could he?
I don't know, man. For chrissakes, I am just a human
Ok, if you insist... I repeat, the following is a theory, I neither have the right nor the wish to claim that it is certainly true.
This isn't God's playground, and we aren't his toys. This is his mind.
It is hard to remove a thought from a mind. Just like we cannot create or destroy energy of which we are all made of, I don't think God likes to (though he probably could) destroy his thoughts. He lets them evolve, he changes them, he thinks, but making them disappear is different.
To answer your fascinatingly pointless question, God probably could make all the cigarettes disappear in that form. People can stop producing them and burn those that remain or something. However their energetic material wouldn't disappear, it would just dissolve and change form (for example, wood doesn't disappear after it's burned - it's physical material is more or less turned to ashes and energetic goes in the fire, where it spreads around as heat etc). So he would destroy their form, not their very substance, if he deemed it necessary.
This theory of course is largely unfinished. I don't want to dwell too far in it because, as I always repeat, I can't, but I'm trying to catch the basics. It stands there as a possibility. I'm not making a cult or anything
I sometimes referred to God as "he" in the lack of any better term... It's just unfitting to call him "it". That doesn't mean that God is male, of course, and I by no means mean to insult the female population of HoMM players
Quote:
Also just on a side note, I don't get why people have these vastly differing ideas of god. You say yourself it is just theory and we cannot understand him... yet you and Mytical and Shadey and everyone all have different ideas about what's going on. In your opinions. What I don't get is how you formulated these opinions. What do you base it on, what makes you think God is like this as opposed to that? From my point of view, the personal beliefs are based on what seems to be a good idea, depending on that person's personality.
Well it is also a philosophy of sorts. Like I said before, human attempts at realizing at least a bit of the actual point in space. My attitudes are included in that too. As mankind advanced, upgraded visions of the higher powers appeared (from paganism to monotheism, the idea of one all-present energy, from warlike gods with human characteristics to the inscrutable being which we still cannot understand...). Who knows, as mankind moves further in time, provided it survives, it might get closer to what really is going on.
Until then, we should accept our role of a stage in evolution. We have no choice. Unless of course we abandon the idea of God completely, which is the easy way out, and hence embraced by more and more people across the world.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 25, 2007 02:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now we're talking.
There are some good points in that post, and I even agree with most of it.
However, to make everything clear, let me draw a line between religion and the higher power, which I'll refer to as God.
1) God
If a higher power exists, it is quite obvious that we aren't supposed to understand it. If it wanted us to fully comprehend it, we wouldn't have worshiped bird-headed people and other deities for thousands of years. Perhaps everything has a point, perhaps not, but we cannot know that, since it is pretty hard to reveal to us. Maybe we're just an insignificant part of the universe, maybe we are the key to an inscrutable purpose. You can freely have an opinion on it, I don't think you'll be sent to hell if you don't believe in it or something (cause, well, we'd all end up in hell that way). But insisting that only your opinion is valid and logical is pointless, since if God of any sort exists it is certainly rather inexplicable by human sense. At least in this stadium of evolution.
Excelent post Baklava I couldn't agree with you more. It's always interesting to see an agnostic mix into a religious discussion, especially between atheists and "believers" (Could not think of a better term, as there are theists a deists ect.), as there is much to point out to both of them
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
