40 replies to this topic

[serp777]

So how do religious people justify non human sentient species like neanderthals?  Are neanderthals allowed to go to heaven? What about the neanderthals that interbred with humans? Are their offspring considered redeemable in the eyes of religion?

 

How do Christians, for example, justify that there were millions of non human and human sentient individuals that existed before Jesus? Were they not worthy of being saved, but rather, some illiterate peasants from the stone age were worthy of being saved/forgiven? It is so illogical and presumptuous to say that humans are special at all in the universe, which reflects the extreme religious arrogance that is so prevalent. It is even more arrogant and disrespectful to the alleged deity to say that this deity would be concerned at all with some partially evolved apes. Even more arrogant is to say that the deity is concerned human sexuality, genital mutilation, or what we believe in. There have been so many religious con artists and so many who have tried to manipulate religion for financial gain or power that assuming any religious ancient book as fact is beyond sane.

 

Religion is essentially nonsense. There are so many holes and contradictions in religion that I am honestly surprised that so many people are religious. I'd have thought that humans would have jumped to the final tier the religious ladder of cruelty, as Nietzsche said, and sacrificed God.

 

 

[pamojja]

 

How can anyone reasonably believe in a particular religion?   ...Religion is essentially nonsense.

 

Your conclusion isn't considering the placebo effect which is - as medical science found - a very powerful effect. Maybe the more outlandish the proposition, the more faith needed, the more of an placebo effect?

 

However, not wanting to live without this powerful effect, I found a religion which I could identify with: I took refuge to the Buddha, the Sangha and the Dhamma. In Buddhism there is not one being who - through the beginning-lessness of countless re-becomings - hasn't been your parent, child, kin, friend or spouse in one of those former existences. And all your points don't really apply to this religion.

 

Moreover, to get over conceit - feeling oneself superior, equal or inferior on account of anything - is in the essence of the Buddha's teaching (though later sects would want it otherwise again..). By knowing of the utility of any religion in respect to the placebo effect there is no good reason to ridicule others on account of their, what might look unreasonable, believes. But, if their aspiration are wholesome, to even support them in what helps them to unlock the power of placebo to them.

Edited by pamojja, 25 May 2014 - 08:09 AM.

[serp777]

 

 

How can anyone reasonably believe in a particular religion?   ...Religion is essentially nonsense.

 

Your conclusion isn't considering the placebo effect which is - as medical science found - a very powerful effect. Maybe the more outlandish the proposition, the more faith needed, the more of an placebo effect?

 

However, not wanting to live without this powerful effect, I found a religion which I could identify with: I took refuge to the Buddha, the Sangha and the Dhamma. In Buddhism there is not one being who - through the beginning-lessness of countless re-becomings - hasn't been your parent, child, kin, friend or spouse in one of those former existences. And all your points don't really apply to this religion.

 

Moreover, to get over conceit - feeling oneself superior, equal or inferior on account of anything - is in the essence of the Buddha's teaching (though later sects would want it otherwise again..). By knowing of the utility of any religion in respect to the placebo effect there is no good reason to ridicule others on account of their, what might look unreasonable, believes. But, if their aspiration are wholesome, to even support them in what helps them to unlock the power of placebo to them.

 

 

I mean some of the points still apply to reincarnation. Who exactly participates in the cycle of death and rebirth and it what form? It seems very unlikely that buddhism could possibly answer this question. It also seems to me to make a lot of assumptions about consciousness--I.E. the fact that a consciousness, or soul if you will, is some static abstract entity that exists outside the physical world, but manifests itself through the body. I would argue that since a person is different after every instant, a new consciousness is created at each instant with all the memories and thoughts of the previous consciousness that existed the moment before. In this sense "you" would be composed of a timeline of consciousnesses. Of course that is pure speculation. But it is at least as likely as reincarnation to be true.
 

It just seems like more mumbo jumbo and superstition and I don't understand how anyone can buy into it.

 

You might refer to the placebo effect then, but what's the point of the placebo effect? Maybe you're referring to hope or something? Endless reincarnation sounds like eternal torture to me though. Not very hopeful. I mean it's like saying we should let kids believe in Santa Clause forever because of the placebo effect. Or maybe we should let children believe the world is flat since that might create a placebo effect. Believing in wrong things for the sake of placebo is problematic because where do you draw the line of allowing people to revel in ignorance? Education seems more important than placebo in conclusion.

[pamojja]

I mean some of the points still apply to reincarnation. Who exactly participates in the cycle of death and rebirth and it what form? It seems very unlikely that buddhism could possibly answer this question. It also seems to me to make a lot of assumptions about consciousness--I.E. the fact that a consciousness, or soul if you will, is some static abstract entity that exists outside the physical world, but manifests itself through the body. I would argue that since a person is different after every instant, a new consciousness is created at each instant with all the memories and thoughts of the previous consciousness that existed the moment before. In this sense "you" would be composed of a timeline of consciousnesses. Of course that is pure speculation. But it is at least as likely as reincarnation to be true.
 

It just seems like more mumbo jumbo and superstition and I don't understand how anyone can buy into it.

 

Very valid objections. Buddhism gives very precise answer to them, however, to go beyond even the believe-effect is what is experiental-insight-meditation is for about. So that you reprogram your head into not believing that whatever is impermanent (in the final analysis everything seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, felt or thought) can give permanent satisfaction, or has any substantially to it. Not only as a working hypothesis, but recognized with every bid of perception.

 

I bought fully into it because that way my own childhood-determinants don't feel that dramatic anymore, one becomes more permeable and more able to emphasize with one's own issues. And then also with others. Though that means to go through some very nasty stuff, the permeability then also extent to lofty mental states all those mumbo jumbo religions talk about.

 

 

You might refer to the placebo effect then, but what's the point of the placebo effect? Maybe you're referring to hope or something? Endless reincarnation sounds like eternal torture to me though. Not very hopeful. I mean it's like saying we should let kids believe in Santa Clause forever because of the placebo effect. Or maybe we should let children believe the world is flat since that might create a placebo effect. Believing in wrong things for the sake of placebo is problematic because where do you draw the line of allowing people to revel in ignorance? Education seems more important than placebo in conclusion.

 

The point of the believe-effect is simply that you may accomplish what you aspire, therefore to be very careful in what you're aspiring. And only to support wholesome aspirations, diminish unwholesome aspirations.

 

You got it right, that's why some Buddhist indeed go beyond aspiring a heavenly existence - though not unwholesome itself, but just endlessly tiring - to no more re-becoming. Must sound incongruent to say on immortality forum, but there are more unthinkables to aspire than immortality.
 

Edited by pamojja, 25 May 2014 - 10:36 AM.

[addx]

serp I have this question actually covered in my all encompassing rational theory of evolution which actually makes evolution interchangeable with god on an abstract level and actually merges or transcends the dualism of science vs. religion while explaining many other phenomena including ageing.

theres a poll thread which started it, it evolved since then, but the roots are there

please read

http://www.longecity...n-in-evolution/

buddhism however is most aware of our faith(destiny, not religion) and they came to all the right conclusions with subjective thought only, not science, so they should not be laughed at but awed at, because it took use 2600 years to reach SOME of buddhas conclusions in our own scientific way and the rest is still waiting to be discovered. both subjective and objective thought can reach the same conclusion and transcend the dualism that way

Edited by addx, 25 May 2014 - 03:01 PM.

[serp777]

serp I have this question actually covered in my all encompassing rational theory of evolution which actually makes evolution interchangeable with god on an abstract level and actually merges or transcends the dualism of science vs. religion while explaining many other phenomena including ageing.

theres a poll thread which started it, it evolved since then, but the roots are there

please read

http://www.longecity...n-in-evolution/

buddhism however is most aware of our faith(destiny, not religion) and they came to all the right conclusions with subjective thought only, not science, so they should not be laughed at but awed at, because it took use 2600 years to reach SOME of buddhas conclusions in our own scientific way and the rest is still waiting to be discovered. both subjective and objective thought can reach the same conclusion and transcend the dualism that way

Ok well I did actually reply to your thread i think. Which God though? Zeus, or thor, or apollo, or the nordic myths, or Baal, or Scientology, or Allah, or regular Christian God, or Protestant God, or Anglican God, or God who cares about genital mutilation, or the great juju under the sea,etc? Your theory makes evolution interchangeable with leprechauns and Santa clause and the celestial tea pot as well. There is no science vs religion. The only game in town is science, and religion was simply a way for humans to create groups in early civilization more effectively (I.E. it was evolutionarily favorable for people to believe in religion in the face of contradictions and lies).

 

And I can explain aging without any God--species that were immortal were eventually inferior to other members of the species due to evolution and reproduction. The immortal organisms took up valuable resources and were particularly vulnerable to ever adapting viruses and bacteria. Therefore, species that had immortal members did not survive as well as species without immortal members, and so organisms evolved not to be immortal. The reason why we have sex actually is because it increases the distribution of new genes, making it less likely for one virus to be able to wipe out the species. Immortal members of species would decrease the average distribution of new genes. It's quite clear from evolution alone why aging occurs.

 

And I am not aware on any Buddhist scientific predictions. It doesn't really matter how long it took. But any kind of belief in destiny is just an assumption. In fact, the many world interpretation from quantum physics would suggest that all possible "destinies", if you will, do occur, along with an infinite number of parallel ones. So the concept of destiny is meaningless in that case. There is actually scientific evidence for this, although it is still inconclusive of course.

[pamojja]

But any kind of belief in destiny is just an assumption. In fact, the many world interpretation from quantum physics would suggest that all possible "destinies", if you will, do occur, along with an infinite number of parallel ones. So the concept of destiny is meaningless in that case. There is actually scientific evidence for this, although it is still inconclusive of course.

 

The one destiny I experience is just to immediate for denial, and for not heading to a just as likely escape.

[shadowhawk]

The question may also be asked of any belief.  Pluralism is also a belief.  How can it be right?  The assumption is that all roads are equally right or wrong.  We have already discussed this as far as religion is concerned at some legnth.  http://www.longecity...-26#entry657878
 

[serp777]

The question may also be asked of any belief.  Pluralism is also a belief.  How can it be right?  The assumption is that all roads are equally right or wrong.  We have already discussed this as far as religion is concerned at some legnth.  http://www.longecity...-26#entry657878
 

 

Well you can believe in science reasonably because you're working on a computer which is based on science. The internet you're using is also based on science and logic. Belief in something that makes predictions and produces tangible results is certainly reasonable. So no, the assumption that computers work is not wrong. The assumption that I can post to threads on longecity is not wrong. The assumption or belief that a human throwing a baseball will follow newton's kinematic equations is not wrong. The assumption that gravity exists is not wrong.

 

So it can be right because it works.

 

And the assumption that all roads are equally right or wrong is just a baseless assumption in itself that has absolutely no evidence. To argue that all assumptions are equally right and wrong is basically saying that our universe is unintelligible. And yet we still exist and follow the laws of physics.

Edited by serp777, 26 May 2014 - 01:49 AM.

[serp777]

 

But any kind of belief in destiny is just an assumption. In fact, the many world interpretation from quantum physics would suggest that all possible "destinies", if you will, do occur, along with an infinite number of parallel ones. So the concept of destiny is meaningless in that case. There is actually scientific evidence for this, although it is still inconclusive of course.

 

The one destiny I experience is just to immediate for denial, and for not heading to a just as likely escape.

 

 

Just because you experience things doesn't mean destiny is real.

[shadowhawk]

Science is a process not a thing or position.  Science is not a computer.  Science existed long before computers.  Because something works is not science either.  Science exists when things don’t work.  Science has its assumptions and limitations.  Evidence does have something to do with the road you take to get somewhere.

[serp777]

I never said science is a computer, obviously. You can have a belief in the predictive power of science, which is what i was referring to. When things work based on that science it verifies that belief as reasonable.  You're also assuming science has limitations. Perhaps it does not have limits and has an analogous version of the incompleteness thm.

 

"Science exists when things don?t work."

 

so what?

Furthermore, to reiterate the point

 

The assumption that all roads are equally right or wrong is just a baseless assumption in itself that has absolutely no evidence.

[pamojja]

 

 

But any kind of belief in destiny is just an assumption. In fact, the many world interpretation from quantum physics would suggest that all possible "destinies", if you will, do occur, along with an infinite number of parallel ones. So the concept of destiny is meaningless in that case. There is actually scientific evidence for this, although it is still inconclusive of course.

 

The one destiny I experience is just to immediate for denial, and for not heading to a just as likely escape.

 

Just because you experience things doesn't mean destiny is real.

 

Just because one thinks experience isn't real doesn't mean one could not allow it to change. As for example in lucid dreams. But maybe I think to practical, as a social worker?
 

Edited by pamojja, 26 May 2014 - 08:09 AM.

[addx]

serp I have this question actually covered in my all encompassing rational theory of evolution which actually makes evolution interchangeable with god on an abstract level and actually merges or transcends the dualism of science vs. religion while explaining many other phenomena including ageing.

theres a poll thread which started it, it evolved since then, but the roots are there

please read

http://www.longecity...n-in-evolution/

buddhism however is most aware of our faith(destiny, not religion) and they came to all the right conclusions with subjective thought only, not science, so they should not be laughed at but awed at, because it took use 2600 years to reach SOME of buddhas conclusions in our own scientific way and the rest is still waiting to be discovered. both subjective and objective thought can reach the same conclusion and transcend the dualism that way

Ok well I did actually reply to your thread i think. Which God though? Zeus, or thor, or apollo, or the nordic myths, or Baal, or Scientology, or Allah, or regular Christian God, or Protestant God, or Anglican God, or God who cares about genital mutilation, or the great juju under the sea,etc? Your theory makes evolution interchangeable with leprechauns and Santa clause and the celestial tea pot as well. There is no science vs religion. The only game in town is science, and religion was simply a way for humans to create groups in early civilization more effectively (I.E. it was evolutionarily favorable for people to believe in religion in the face of contradictions and lies).

Well you're missing my point and also displaying too much emotion towards your miss.

Any God is the answer.

My theory explains how evolution formed our nervous systems and how the complexity of the inbuilt evolutionary "incentive" (what we miss to make an AI "go") gives rise to psychologic phenomena that induces religion. In that sense all religions pretty much have a common theme of being a guide/rule book to how one should live his life and most religions focus on "being good", "working for the community", being nice to each other, they also often enforce a hierarchy which is in fact externalization of inbuilt social status etc. I explain how the evolution of the nervous system supports the induction of religion as a psychological phenomenon that is repeatedly displayed throughtout the entire course of humanity.

In short, the emotions that give rise to religion are in fact there to give rise to future life. Religion says: be nice, marry, have children, improve the community. Evolution pretty much "commands the same" (via the way the nervous system is formed) and rewards it or punishes for not doing it (again via the nervous system). Depression is in a way also "punishment"(it is in fact an incentive but feels like punishment) for being too uncapable to redeem the investment that evolution placed by giving you control of a body. So you see how it is interchangeable with god as most gods also seem to put us here to test us. Evolutionary/natural selection is quite similar to "heavenly selection" or "reincarnation selection". Evolution selection is provided by natural selection and the species itself - the others determine whethere you "go to heaven"(reproduce). Females pick or males compete. The mechanisms of picking or competing are directed by evolution. So you see how I transcend both ideas. Current scientific explanation of evolution hardly tackles these monumentaly important aspects of life - sociality and how it works. The bridge from psychiatry to evolution of the nervous system and consciousness is completely unexplained, leaving ageing, transfer of knowledge, formation of social groups, altruism. When I read that selfish gene crap I was apalled at what science thought of evolution at this time.

Anyway, religion is always inducted as rationalization of emotion. It's just that it's not that rational, but it is a rationalization nevertheless as in externalization of internal emotion cause.

Before civilization, there is a drought, people feel they're not in control of the weather, they induce religion, sacrifice virgins to bring rain. That's how religion is formed, a purely psychological construct stemming from the inbuilt drive to control what is important for the species survival and the shizotypal solution that is religion. It doesn't really work, but the idea that it works provides enough distraction(placebo) to forget the painful emotion of being out of control.


 

And I can explain aging without any God--species that were immortal were eventually inferior to other members of the species due to evolution and reproduction. The immortal organisms took up valuable resources and were particularly vulnerable to ever adapting viruses and bacteria. Therefore, species that had immortal members did not survive as well as species without immortal members, and so organisms evolved not to be immortal. The reason why we have sex actually is because it increases the distribution of new genes, making it less likely for one virus to be able to wipe out the species. Immortal members of species would decrease the average distribution of new genes. It's quite clear from evolution alone why aging occurs.

And that is part of the reasoning in my thread, but there are even better points about why ageing is required.
 

And I am not aware on any Buddhist scientific predictions. It doesn't really matter how long it took. But any kind of belief in destiny is just an assumption. In fact, the many world interpretation from quantum physics would suggest that all possible "destinies", if you will, do occur, along with an infinite number of parallel ones. So the concept of destiny is meaningless in that case. There is actually scientific evidence for this, although it is still inconclusive of course.

Buddha correctly explains the exact drives that make us go, the evolutionary drive explained above. He managed to review his entire subjective(emotional -> evolutionary incetive like) line of thought and deducted how it works. Buddhistic logic thought has predated aristotel and is in fact still more advanced.

Science has quite an issue in this territory so it rather tries to LIE about it. Selfish-gene is a book of lies for example. The complete misunderstanding of life and the authors devotion to proving atheism caused the auther to be confused by altruism, sociality, social selection, groups, mammals, everything. He then tries to explain it all by his theory of gene selection offering nothing but illogical argumentation and a promise that it really is so, but you need to have a special microscope and super knowledge, best to just beleive him.

So, you should reduce your emotion in the "faith" that is science as it is not perfect.


As for destiny and time and space and quantum phenomena I have my thoughts on that as well. And they reveal science again as a religion as science has "invented" time but never proven it and basically all scientific conclusions require time to work. I've made a discourse of this at another topic:

http://www.longecity...organism/page-3

Don't trust scientists about everything. They're most emotionally blind people and wouldn't know if their emotions have them running in circles. As dawkins seems to have devoted his life to proving atheism and his hate towards subjective thought and religion caused him to deny social selection, to misinterpret altruism, to misexplain evolution.

Edited by addx, 26 May 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[shadowhawk]

“Any God,” is the one, all roads lead to the same place, answer.  Or perhaps all roads lead nowhere.  How do we know these exclusive claims to knowledge?  Well, unlike almost any other subject there is one true answer, there is no answer beside this one.  Any answer is the right one.  That this seems self contradictory is all right because of special knowledge no one else has.  To know this, you have to have been there.  Any God will do.  And how do I know this claim to exclusive knowledge?  Well you have to have special insight.

[addx]

Well unlike your special insight, I actually explained how evolution is in fact our god and how other gods are made to its image, so to speak.

[shadowhawk]

Well unlike your special insight, I actually explained how evolution is in fact our god and how other gods are made to its image, so to speak.

Really?  How did you find that out, most of humanity would like to know. 

[addx]

Well if you read anything but yourself you notice that Ive written pages and pages on this forum. A post stemming from my theory was the first post I ever wrote on your threads and you just commented it was logical, coherent and had no logical flaws and that youll think about it but in fact you ignored it and continued you goedels theory aproach.. go find it(im on my cellphone) in the atheist thread, everything i said here was there in my first post, and you declared it flawless and now suddenly youre completely clueless about it

[addx]

Here it is, it suits this topic as well
 

There is evidence for atheism only if you accept that ageing is a basic form of altruism neccessary for sexual selection of eukaryotes. It evolved into advanced forms of altruism as selection mechanisms evolved.

The "gene pool" is the first evolved meta-entity to "source" altruism. Eukaryotes sacrifice their asexual reproduction for access to the gene pool. Gene pool only lets mature fit individuals access it. And eventually starts rejecting those that can reproduce asexually. After all in the gene pool have lost asexual reproduction(in favour building the multicellular body rathat than breed) they have subscribed and become hostages of the gene pool or "obligatory sociality".

The "knowledge pool"(mammals) is the second evolved meta-entity to "source" altruism. Spread of knowledge(behaviour) again requires sociality and is not spread by genes.

Subscription to and sacrifice for these two entities is what gives meaning to life of subhuman animals.

Humans evolved individuality which enables us to take knowledge from multiple knowledge pools and give it back. We are infact also motivated to do this and our motivation depends on our perception of such knowledge being useful(which infact means, reproductible, teachable, others want to know it). Useful knowledge will either motivate to teach it or use it. Either behavior will cause spread. Humans have unwittingly become pawns in evolution of knowledge.

As have multicellular bodies been pawns in evolution of form.

Subhumans have no perception of usefullness of knowledge(which is infact possession - a validated way to control something is posesion of it. The way to control is knowledge. Having such knowledge - of posesssion makes your ego big) except in the moment - they just behave and learn vicariously. Usefuless of knowledge is infact always judged against others. There is no useful knowledge on a deserted island giving rise to typical insanity(stemming meaninglessness from lack of perception of any reward).


Both evolutions (of genes and knowledge) require sacrifice to evolve. Genes need to be tested. Knowledge needs to be tested(applied and proven to work). This embedded sacrifice is the platform for observable altruism in species, even humans.

It gave rise to religion which actually recognized this process to be what it is. Be nice, share, breed, have kids, raise them well. That's it. All you need to do. And that is how mother nature programmed us to feel well and this will make most people die well and happy. Religion was built on this, they stole it from mother nature and said God did it. The nice feelings are from God.

But it's not that easy, evolution will make some of us feel pressured for more(especially in dense populations). If we survive, we evolved the knowledge pool(could also be called "posession pool" or "control method pool"), if not, we did our best. Someone else will try again. Such driven people end up wasting a lot of resources on a "dream". They may or may not make it. Some are more some less delusional, but without such people we would mostly stagnate. Religion has the idea that such people should be shot down and destroyed.

If you do not accept this line of thought you have to accept theism. The only 3rd option is Dawknins meaninglessness, but meaninglessness would result in emotionlessness and it doesnt, does it? So we can blind ourselves and say, emotions are just some obsolete thing from lower life forms, we dont need them, but infact you'd hardly be talking here if you didnt have them. The biggest problem with building an AI is in fact creating instrinsic incetive to actually do anything. Why would it talk to a person, what does it have to gain? If you just force it then it's not really an AI is it? People exhachange knowledge that they think is useful (most of you probably spent some time ignoring people talking about stuff you dont think is important). What would be useful for an AI? It can not "sense" usefulness.

Usefulness is sensed as chance of increasing control level. When applied and successful control level is increased. What is controlled? When you work it out to the end -> always people. The final end point of any control attempt is controlling people. Noone would invent anything if they didnt have anyone to show it to who would appreciate it. It can even be yourself(bettering yourself, your control of a car for example), but in the end, how you "invented yourself" is again something that you show to others and attract envy and awe as validation.

So, either we're all here playing for a gene-pool and knowledge-pools or we're playing for God. But we are players, pawns and that's it, disposable.

Same point made.


And your response
 

Very interesting. On topic and reasoned. No logical fallacies. I don't have time right now to respond.

You never found time. Too many videos of crazy people that noone watches need posting, there's no time for attending your own discussion. So you see why I'm quite certain that you have an agenda and no appreciation for discussion or logic or simply other people as intelligent beings.

Edited by addx, 26 May 2014 - 09:00 PM.

[Duchykins]

This is easy. Creationists say the other hominids are "fully human". Then they wipe their hands as if job well done.

[shadowhawk]

ShadowHawk:  Very interesting. On topic and reasoned. No logical fallacies. I don't have time right now to respond.

addx:  You never found time. Too many videos of crazy people that noone watches need posting, there's no time for attending your own discussion. So you see why I'm quite certain that you have an agenda and no appreciation for discussion or logic or simply other people as intelligent beings.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Another thread, (Atheism) long ago and no longer true.  I did respond.  More ad hominem.

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 May 2014 - 11:08 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Not mine but, evolution is in fact our god

[addx]

ShadowHawk:  Very interesting. On topic and reasoned. No logical fallacies. I don't have time right now to respond.

addx:  You never found time. Too many videos of crazy people that noone watches need posting, there's no time for attending your own discussion. So you see why I'm quite certain that you have an agenda and no appreciation for discussion or logic or simply other people as intelligent beings.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Another thread, (Atheism) long ago and no longer true.  I did respond.  More ad hominem.

No you didn't. Quote it.

You only started dialogue once I started talking about your "faith is incomplete evidence" stuff and never commented that first post.

And I now repeat the same point and you tell me
 

"Really? How did you find that out, most of humanity would like to know. "

While in fact already been told the same point, acknowledged it as interesting, and then ignored it.

It seems that you then now imply that a reasonable human would desire to know more and you also acknowledged to have understood my post as interesting in this exact context, but have NOT desired to know more about it. So, it seems that you have unwittingly, but correctly declared yourself to be an unreasonable human.

Edited by addx, 26 May 2014 - 11:22 PM.

[serp777]

 

Well unlike your special insight, I actually explained how evolution is in fact our god and how other gods are made to its image, so to speak.

Really?  How did you find that out, most of humanity would like to know. 

 

 

It's just as reasonable as Christianity. Both have no conclusive evidence, and both are speculations.

 

I'd like to know about the special knowledge you have that determines that Christianity is somehow more correct than all of the other thousands of religions out there.

[shifter]

The way I see it.

 

Everyone is different, we are incredibly complex. In the same way some people like cars and others music, like one colour over another, our sexuality, politics, etc. Same goes some people might have a space in their brain that determines whether ot not they are fulfilled by faith. Some people seem to need/desire it, they are comforted by it and are inspired (good/bad) things by it.

 

Now if all one has is good intentions and wants to do good and that these people are inspired by the belief of a God, provided that does not impact negatively on society or the people, then just respect their choice and move on. You dont have to listen, believe or make a choice. Just move on.

 

I saw in a documentary that by the year 2050, over 90% of people in New Zealand (and perhaps other predominately Christian societies) will no longer identify with any religion. My friend (who does not identify with any religion and thinks anyone who does is sort of stupid) celebrated this. But I said to him 'Are you sure that's a good thing??'

 

Here is what I see.

When the whole of the Christian world (including all the Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants etc) no longer care/idenitify with religion of any kind, there will be one religion left in the world that will still have billions of hardline, dedicated followers, who have been from birth indoctrinated as their religion as the ultimate truth and that religion is Islam.

 

Would it be a good thing if Islam was the only religion left on the planet?? Is Christianity so bad you would relish its abscense.

 

Whether you like it or not, whether you belive in religion or not, our 'civilised' era in the western world is built fundimently on Christian values. NOT the OLD testamount. But the NEW testamount.

 

When Jesus came, everything pretty much changed. Things such as

 

People should not judge one another

Love your neighbour and your enemies

It's OK to eat pork!! (as nothing God made is unclean - nothing unclean can enter the mouth, only what comes out eg hatred)

 

I see a lot of people who claim to be Christian but at the same time, they are hateful and judgemental. eg people who abuse/murder abortion doctors or spew vile hatred about gay people. That is not what Jesus would do or say and Christianity is all about emulating the way Jesus would live. Whether you believe in the stories or not, ask yourself if people lived like Jesus would it be a bad place??? Now ask yourself about the Islam prophet Mohammed. Because that's the alternative.

 

Now if all that is gone, there is a vacuum that will be much easier for the likes of Islam to take over. I'm not saying Islam is wrong or right, but imagine a world where it's nothing but and ask yourself is that a good thing and would you want to have Christian values back? It's much easier to convert someone from nothing then someone who already has a belief.

 

You might not like the reality but Islam wont go away by 2050 or beyond in the foreseeable future.

 

So no one should celebrate the demise of Christianity as a victory. Because then in time the other major religion will find its way into your political system and schooling. Humanity will always have to deal with religion. Accept it and get over it. However I for one am sick of all these left wing people and politicans who thinks its perfectly ok to bash and make fun of the predominate religion of this country (Christianity) and totally 'give in' to other religions (such as Islam) because we shouldn't 'offend' our new migrants with our religiousness (but it's ok to offend 'ourselves?')

 

I'm not out to bash Islam, the people who follow it are perfectly entitled to do so and in this country provided it does not clash with our way of life and freedoms etc it's no problem. However I fully support our Christian values and support all our 'good' Christian followers (the non hateful, non judgemental kind) the others should re-read their own bible (if they ever read it in the first place).

 

 

I'd like to know about the special knowledge you have that determines that Christianity is somehow more correct than all of the other thousands of religions out there.

 

Is there thousands? Most religions are the same thing but different politics and way of thinking about it. Even Islam and Christinity belive in the same 'Allah' and all the prophets like  Abramham, Noah, Moses and Jesus. There are fundamental differences within it especially with Jesus as Christians belived he died for us and Islam says he 'tricked' everyone and wasn't killed, but the 'God' is still the same creator. Catholics and Anglicans etc are just different political offshoots of essentially Christianity.

 

If you took Christianity and Islam you would cover over half of the worlds population and they have the same God at the helm. Then add Hindu for another billion odd? people and discount Atheists or Agnostics and how many religions are we left with with the remaining people? The old Egyptian, Roman, Greek and Scandinavian (Pagan) Gods have just become 'stories' (does anyone actually consider them as a religion or the truth these days?) I wouldn't think there are thousands unless each other religion has only a few thousand followers which hardly gives it the same kind of status as the likes of Christianity or Islam. I would say there are only a handful of religions out there currently recognised to the human race

[serp777]

The way I see it.

 

Everyone is different, we are incredibly complex. In the same way some people like cars and others music, like one colour over another, our sexuality, politics, etc. Same goes some people might have a space in their brain that determines whether ot not they are fulfilled by faith. Some people seem to need/desire it, they are comforted by it and are inspired (good/bad) things by it.

 

Now if all one has is good intentions and wants to do good and that these people are inspired by the belief of a God, provided that does not impact negatively on society or the people, then just respect their choice and move on. You dont have to listen, believe or make a choice. Just move on.

 

I saw in a documentary that by the year 2050, over 90% of people in New Zealand (and perhaps other predominately Christian societies) will no longer identify with any religion. My friend (who does not identify with any religion and thinks anyone who does is sort of stupid) celebrated this. But I said to him 'Are you sure that's a good thing??'

 

Here is what I see.

When the whole of the Christian world (including all the Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants etc) no longer care/idenitify with religion of any kind, there will be one religion left in the world that will still have billions of hardline, dedicated followers, who have been from birth indoctrinated as their religion as the ultimate truth and that religion is Islam.

 

Would it be a good thing if Islam was the only religion left on the planet?? Is Christianity so bad you would relish its abscense.

 

Whether you like it or not, whether you belive in religion or not, our 'civilised' era in the western world is built fundimently on Christian values. NOT the OLD testamount. But the NEW testamount.

 

When Jesus came, everything pretty much changed. Things such as

 

People should not judge one another

Love your neighbour and your enemies

It's OK to eat pork!! (as nothing God made is unclean - nothing unclean can enter the mouth, only what comes out eg hatred)

 

I see a lot of people who claim to be Christian but at the same time, they are hateful and judgemental. eg people who abuse/murder abortion doctors or spew vile hatred about gay people. That is not what Jesus would do or say and Christianity is all about emulating the way Jesus would live. Whether you believe in the stories or not, ask yourself if people lived like Jesus would it be a bad place??? Now ask yourself about the Islam prophet Mohammed. Because that's the alternative.

 

Now if all that is gone, there is a vacuum that will be much easier for the likes of Islam to take over. I'm not saying Islam is wrong or right, but imagine a world where it's nothing but and ask yourself is that a good thing and would you want to have Christian values back? It's much easier to convert someone from nothing then someone who already has a belief.

 

You might not like the reality but Islam wont go away by 2050 or beyond in the foreseeable future.

 

So no one should celebrate the demise of Christianity as a victory. Because then in time the other major religion will find its way into your political system and schooling. Humanity will always have to deal with religion. Accept it and get over it. However I for one am sick of all these left wing people and politicans who thinks its perfectly ok to bash and make fun of the predominate religion of this country (Christianity) and totally 'give in' to other religions (such as Islam) because we shouldn't 'offend' our new migrants with our religiousness (but it's ok to offend 'ourselves?')

 

I'm not out to bash Islam, the people who follow it are perfectly entitled to do so and in this country provided it does not clash with our way of life and freedoms etc it's no problem. However I fully support our Christian values and support all our 'good' Christian followers (the non hateful, non judgemental kind) the others should re-read their own bible (if they ever read it in the first place).

 

 

 

 

I'd like to know about the special knowledge you have that determines that Christianity is somehow more correct than all of the other thousands of religions out there.

 

Is there thousands? Most religions are the same thing but different politics and way of thinking about it. Even Islam and Christinity belive in the same 'Allah' and all the prophets like  Abramham, Noah, Moses and Jesus. There are fundamental differences within it especially with Jesus as Christians belived he died for us and Islam says he 'tricked' everyone and wasn't killed, but the 'God' is still the same creator. Catholics and Anglicans etc are just different political offshoots of essentially Christianity.

 

If you took Christianity and Islam you would cover over half of the worlds population and they have the same God at the helm. Then add Hindu for another billion odd? people and discount Atheists or Agnostics and how many religions are we left with with the remaining people? The old Egyptian, Roman, Greek and Scandinavian (Pagan) Gods have just become 'stories' (does anyone actually consider them as a religion or the truth these days?) I wouldn't think there are thousands unless each other religion has only a few thousand followers which hardly gives it the same kind of status as the likes of Christianity or Islam. I would say there are only a handful of religions out there currently recognised to the human race

Ok, much of your post seems to talk about a different topic. The topic isn't if the world would be better off without religion, rather it's how anyone could believe in any particular religion in the face of so many contradictions, such as the fact that thousands of other religions exist. Determining whether the world would be better or worse without religion is an impossible calculation. Too many variables to make any reasonable guesstimate. 

 

"Is there thousands? Most religions are the same thing but different politics and way of thinking about it. "

Surely polytheism, the flying spaghetti monster, Scientology, Mormonism, Greek mythology, the Nordic myths, the God Pharoah from Egypt, the church of the celestial teapot, Buddhism, etc, are all fundamentally different. In fact, you could theoretically make an infinite number of religions by just combining random elements of science fiction (Elron Hubbard demonstrated this remarkably well). 

 

"Most religions are the same thing but different politics and way of thinking about it. "

Yes, most of it is superstitious nonsense with different ways of thinking about it and utilizing various forms of fiction. 

 

In fact, religious people are some of the biggest atheists out there: by claiming a certain religion is correct, they are saying they know that other religions are wrong since many religions are mutually inconsistent (it's why we have different religions in the first place). At least agnostics simply say they do not know what they cannot know. It's like saying: I know the red marble will be picked out of a jar of thousands of different colored marbles . Agnostics would say they do not know which marble will be picked, or even if one will be picked at all.

 

"The old Egyptian, Roman, Greek and Scandinavian (Pagan) Gods have just become 'stories'"

The argument from popularity does not mean that these "stories" are any less real than the "stories" from the abrahamic faith. Just because more people believe in something doesn't make it correct, and just because the majority of the world has rejected these as fables and myths doesn't give any more credibility to any of the other faiths.

 

"I would say there are only a handful of religions out there currently recognised to the human race"

And that doesn't prove anything about the validity of said religions. 

Edited by serp777, 17 June 2014 - 04:48 AM.

[shifter]

Before I knocked myself off topic a bit on the first paragraph, I think this question 'how can anyone reasonable believe in a particular religion' is a bit strange.

 

We know in North Korea the population is brainwashed and people their grow up actually believing their leader is almost God like. With enough time and conditioning, the brains logic barriers can be broken.

 

But also, I also think in the same way different people prefer different things like music (even identical twins brought up in the same environment have different tastes - I know as I am one of them), different TV shows, different colours, different hobbies etc. Some people are gay. You could ask 'how can one reasonably believe in being homosexual'. Afterall, it goes against the whole biological drive to reproduce. But they are and they are very happy with it. It would be worth a study (if not already done) looking at the brains of people who are atheist compared with people who are devout theists. Perhaps worship and belief for some people acts in a similar way as a drug?

 

There may be parts of the human brain in some people intrigued by faith, an unknown, a God. For some people, it gives comfort and fills a void. It really may be down to something like that. How can they reasonably believe? It could be part of their DNA to want to find something to believe in. The human race has moved beyond only responding instinctivly to stimulus. We have the freedom to imagine, and to choose. Some people are just wired differently. 2 people born in the same house, going to the same schools, never being apart but can have 2 totally different personalities.

[shadowhawk]

"If you took Christianity and Islam you would cover over half of the worlds population and they have the same God at the helm. Then add Hindu for another billion odd? people and discount Atheists or Agnostics and how many religions are we left with with the remaining people? The old Egyptian, Roman, Greek and Scandinavian (Pagan) Gods have just become 'stories' (does anyone actually consider them as a religion or the truth these days?) I wouldn't think there are thousands unless each other religion has only a few thousand followers which hardly gives it the same kind of status as the likes of Christianity or Islam. I would say there are only a handful of religions out there currently recognised to the human race. "

Shifter, great points.  Jews need not be left out and Buddhists but you have the big ones.  Numbers do not make right but they are certainly a consideration when thinking about theism.  We are only talking about a half dozen or so, in the running.  Why would a reasonable person look into the cosmos and wonder why?  It is a human and reasonable thing to do and so does most of the world.  Whether we have a God Gene or not has not been shown but we do have awareness and that may be the source of our consciousness of another.  As with most subjects, even if one view is true, there are always several positions. 

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 June 2014 - 08:06 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[ben951]

It's not completely clear if buddishm is a religion or not.

 

http://www.buddhanet.../nutshell03.htm

 

Also most people that are religious don't belive completly in their religion story, for instance many accept the scientific evidence of the big bang.

 

Many people are not religious and belive that some kind of higher entitie created everything accepting that they don't understand why or how he did it.

 

Can we consider someone who belive in the omega point theory a relious person ?

Edited by ben951, 20 June 2014 - 09:01 AM.