-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Religion Thread
- Thread starter U5230
- Start date
- Status
Looking forward to the shitstorm this will cause in Oklahoma... :lol
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/513242-godless-billboard-goes-up-in-okc-in-time-for-state-fair
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/513242-godless-billboard-goes-up-in-okc-in-time-for-state-fair
:lolKingGondo said:Looking forward to the shitstorm this will cause in Oklahoma... :lol
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/513242-godless-billboard-goes-up-in-okc-in-time-for-state-fair
Funny and not so insulting.
I think that placing more importance on the ancillary beliefs in the Christian belief-system (as opposed to the core beliefs surrounding Jesus, and so on) is pretty nonsensical. It's like defining a car as a Ford Model T, and everything else thereafter as a "modern-designed automobile".
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
gerg said:
Such as?
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
gerg said:
Can you give me a few examples?
How come with the 3 big monotheistic religions, God was so active in human lives ~2,500-1,500 years ago, but now he doesn't intervene at all?
Pretty much any modern day human being who has decided to live a rational life based on facts will say this is because there is no God.
That's what I've decided.
If it is in fact because God is just "testing" us, then good fucking job God, you gave me a rational brain and thus tricked me into not believing in you! Bravo!
Pretty much any modern day human being who has decided to live a rational life based on facts will say this is because there is no God.
That's what I've decided.
If it is in fact because God is just "testing" us, then good fucking job God, you gave me a rational brain and thus tricked me into not believing in you! Bravo!
The article above seems to redefine people against what the people themselves define themselves as.
I never understood why some people find it hard to consider religiousness as something on continuum. We're not robots, or pieces of software which must follow laws of logic.
The other big thing is the pyramid looking down scenario of Christianity defining the trends of everything below. Muslims and Hindus for instance, the ones that do not pray regularly, might when asked if they wanted to pray regularly, answer positively.
Perhaps, it's like exercise, it doesn't matter if you want to do it or not, a lot of people are just lazy. A lazy person doesn't neccesarily mean a person lacking belief or following another set of belief.
The conjecture is argubly faulty and the argument thus is *somewhat* fallacious.
*I know I'm going against the grain of how I normally argue; trying to keep it as simple as possible, but I think, the above is simple enough to follow.
I never understood why some people find it hard to consider religiousness as something on continuum. We're not robots, or pieces of software which must follow laws of logic.
The other big thing is the pyramid looking down scenario of Christianity defining the trends of everything below. Muslims and Hindus for instance, the ones that do not pray regularly, might when asked if they wanted to pray regularly, answer positively.
Perhaps, it's like exercise, it doesn't matter if you want to do it or not, a lot of people are just lazy. A lazy person doesn't neccesarily mean a person lacking belief or following another set of belief.
The conjecture is argubly faulty and the argument thus is *somewhat* fallacious.
*I know I'm going against the grain of how I normally argue; trying to keep it as simple as possible, but I think, the above is simple enough to follow.
Futureman said:
Well, the Muslims, have always believed that Muhammed was the last prophet, delivered with the final message. The Christians think Jesus is the savior, the messiah and the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. So...
Do you mean in other ways? apart from direct contact from the God in those 3 big monotheistic religions.
For Christians, which the article links it to, it was never a requirement for salvation.Himuro said:
It wasn't even a requirement for Jews since not everyone engaged in stoning people. Most individuals never picked up a rock. It was punishment for wrongdoing rather than a requirement for salvation.
soul creator
Member
I think this is the first time I ever even heard the word "Egonovist". Though I'm disappointed that it doesn't mean worship of:
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Ashes1396 said:
I've always wondered why Jesus is given somewhat of a special role in Islam even though the Quran makes a point of it to dismiss his divine status according to Christianity; it argues that he was, although blessed as a messiah, no different than man. And yet just like Revelations, Muslims believe in the Second Coming of Christ; he will come to slay the Beast and sit at the "kingdom of God" to rule over the world in peace. What am I missing here?
I haven't read much of the thread, but I wanted to drop this book in it.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0609807986/?tag=neogaf0e-20
It comes up with some provacative ideas about how gnostic christianity was the original christianity and that the new testament and Jesus were allegories for spirtual death and rebirth and were never meant to be taken literally.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0609807986/?tag=neogaf0e-20
It comes up with some provacative ideas about how gnostic christianity was the original christianity and that the new testament and Jesus were allegories for spirtual death and rebirth and were never meant to be taken literally.
Himuro said:More here:
http://www.revrob.com/society-topme...-in-the-us-may-be-egonovism-not-christianity-
Including this scale:
When author wrote egonovism, I think he really meant deism :lol
I was ready to agree with this article, because there's not doubt a lot of people who profess to be Christians are nothing of the sort.
But why did he ask questions about Jewish law to determine if someone was a Christian or not?
The Apostles didn't stone people. Guess they're not Christians.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Ashes1396 said:@Meus: Clarify please. Sounds like an interesting point.
@soul:
I realised it some of the three Abrahamic religions were compared in terms of differences. They're referred to as "cousin faiths", each a revision of the previous - although there are differences, the similarities are there for everyone to see that each was directly inspired/based on the previous. Long before Islam, it's said the Arabs referred to Jews and Christians as "people of scripture/the book" and when Islam was introduced, they felt that they were now part of that. And just like one of the main distinctions between Judaism and Christianity was drawn on the basis of who Jesus Christ really was, so it was the same with Islam. But in line with this theme of adaptation, it shared Christianity's views on Christ on every single point other than his divinity and circumstances of death; including the contentious matter in Judeo-Christian history of his virgin birth and his role. And if you ever see the verses on him in the Quran, it's like "....oh, and by the way, we need to talk about Jesus. Now, I know you've heard all kinds of things about him..but let's get this one thing straight.." (divinity of Christ). It manages to retain his messiah role whilst reintroducing him as a man, sort of a compromise to include both Jewish and Christian views and yet after all this, in its prophesy of the end of the world (almost identical to Revelations), Christ is the one to slay the beast and rule the kingdom of Earth. It validates the Christian image of Christ in that he fulfils a particular role at the most key moment of man's existence. But I've never understood why Christ if he had no special status in Islam.
I see your position now. It's a mixed message if you approach it from the Christian heritage line. My understanding is similiar to yours, in that anything related to a god-partner role, is distanced: the polythiests, the christians who made jesus devine, and any other story or discussion that talks of a partner to Allah. It's the most wrong thing you can do conceptually, Shirk.
I don't think we mean 'messiah' in the same way though. Christian messiah and the muslima 'messiah' are different. I'm not sure what or how exactly, I'm sure somebody else will come along and explain it better.
What you seem to be asking is placing a ranking of prophets. Where you imply that Jesus doesn't seem to be held in high esteem, where I'm sure you will find that he is, just like all the other prophets. The sources I'm sure don't belittle him, in the way you put it, even if it was just rhetoric on your part.
Your rationalisation of Jesus in Islam, appears from where I'm standing, to be from you. What am I missing here?
I don't think we mean 'messiah' in the same way though. Christian messiah and the muslima 'messiah' are different. I'm not sure what or how exactly, I'm sure somebody else will come along and explain it better.
What you seem to be asking is placing a ranking of prophets. Where you imply that Jesus doesn't seem to be held in high esteem, where I'm sure you will find that he is, just like all the other prophets. The sources I'm sure don't belittle him, in the way you put it, even if it was just rhetoric on your part.
Your rationalisation of Jesus in Islam, appears from where I'm standing, to be from you. What am I missing here?
Well the bible seems to be full of contradictions of course so that's hardly surprising.JGS said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
If more religious leaders said stuff like this, I would have no issues with religion
My true religion, my simple faith is in love and compassion. There is no need for complicated philosophy, doctrine, or dogma. Our own heart, our own mind, is the temple. The doctrine is compassion. Love for others and respect for their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are - these are ultimately all we need.
- Dalai Lama
My true religion, my simple faith is in love and compassion. There is no need for complicated philosophy, doctrine, or dogma. Our own heart, our own mind, is the temple. The doctrine is compassion. Love for others and respect for their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are - these are ultimately all we need.
- Dalai Lama
archnemesis
Member
At a minimum, two important miracles are required to be formally declared a saint and the Catholic Church recognize over ten thousand saints. That's at least twenty thousand events with supernatural causes.Futureman said:
the_concierge
Member
archnemesis said:
All we can say for sure about that is that is that the twenty thousand events were said to be supernatural by the Catholic Church.
the_concierge
Member
Shanadeus said:
Yes, I guess redefining a miraculous event to include normal, everyday things would result in more saints. Kind of takes the 'miracle' out of 'miraculous' though doesn't it?
I know nothing of the saints issue, but miracles require some form of supernatural ability (Otherwise it's just a possible occurrence) but that could be defined as praying to God and getting the answer. However, prophecy would be a part of miracles and some argue prophecy is being fulfilled even now.Shanadeus said:
I had to track down the verse but 1 Corinthians 13:8 mentions that miracles that we associate with the Bible would be done away with. They were pretty much on their way out when Jesus died. Jesus performed miracles for one primary reason - to prove he was the Messiah since there were copycats out there (Some thought John the baptist was for example) plus the religious leaders doubting it.
Christians during that time performed miracles for a few primary reasons, but namely to spread Christianity throughout the lands. Miracles were needed as the Bible in it's entiriety was not complete nor were the prophecies/teachings regarding salvation, so miracles provided that extra oomph.
Nope. He's wrong. Christians aren't required to stone adulterers and I can wear cotton, polyester, silk, or whatever fabric I choose. I can even eat shellfish.Nocebo said:
What do you call someone who doesn't care about religion?
As in, someone who doesn't belong to any particular religion but also doesn't antagonize people who do believe in religion (i.e. atheists)?
Someone who is neither against nor in support of any religion.
As in, someone who doesn't belong to any particular religion but also doesn't antagonize people who do believe in religion (i.e. atheists)?
Someone who is neither against nor in support of any religion.
soul creator
Member
esquire said:
the word "atheist" doesn't describe whether one "antagonizes" a religion or not. If you have a belief in a god, you're a theist. If you don't have a belief in any gods, you're an atheist.
Being an atheist or a theist doesn't mean anything else beyond the answer to that one question of having beliefs in the existence of gods. Sure, if one wants, they can take it further (joining a specific religion with rituals and moral codes to follow, or becoming more politically active to limit the role of religion in politics/etc.), and people often do, obviously. But the actual words theism and atheism don't depend on any of that stuff.
Chaplain
Member
Some interesting question and answer videos that I thought would interest those that are searching for the truth:
A Muslim Student Challenges Ravi Zacharias
How Can a Good GOD Allow Evil
Original Sin in the Christian faith
The Law of Non-Contradiction
Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve
A Muslim Student Challenges Ravi Zacharias
How Can a Good GOD Allow Evil
Original Sin in the Christian faith
The Law of Non-Contradiction
Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve
a view on the world by a smart person (me)
so, basically, Philosophical modern view is a confrontation of Science and God.
Science: we know all, or theorize about all, except for the beginning of the Universe.
Belief (not exclusively religion): God created everything.
there are a number of beliefs that join those two, for example, as i would call it - a "scientific creationism"
God created universe, and gave it the laws which govern it.
so, based on what we know, we should start with science, in order to get to a Philosophical conclusion (cause there is no scientific conclusion to be made about God)
1. we exist.
2. we are defined by time/space continuum, that defines us.
3. Universe probably has a starting point (Big Bang theory), so - there must be a kind of existence that surpasses time and space. based on the scientific "cause and effect"
4. every attempt of science to define universe's beginning or existence falls out of science reasoning, cause there are two options, both being metaphysical:
a. Universe was always there (metaphysical)
b. Universe was created out of nothing (nothing defined from human vantage point) - metaphysical.
using this kind of reasoning - one must realize that there is a God.
Scientific proof of god:
Dr. William Lane Craig, used a mathematical calculations, to prove that universe as we know it couldnt exist in any other way, and allowing the life to emerge somewhere:
1. 3d space - even with the fact that matter is a result of spacetime configuration - there is no valid scientific explanation why the space is in 3d - cause all the matter, that was there from the start - wouldnt do anything in different spacetime layout.
if the big bang theory is correct - than the ammount of matter, and the 3d configuration of space were so fine tunned, that it surpasses any kind of doubt.
2. values of fundamental interactions:
- increasing the Strong force for 1% would turn all carbon into oxygen
- increasing Strong force for 2% would result in turning all quarks into protons (nucleons), so no atom would ever exist.
- decreasing Strong force for 5% would disable nucleo synthesis, and make all matter in universe - Hydrogen.
- adding 10% or subtracting 10% from Strong force would result in no element having atomic mass bigger than 4.
- decreasing gravity for 6% would turn all stars into red giants, increasing for 9% would turn all stars into white dwarfs - rendering carbon life impossible.
- increasing gravity for 2% would not allow big bang to develop, and subtract at the same moment it occurred.
- the most important one: decreasing or increasing electromagnetical force for 0.0000000000000000001% would burn out all the stars before first billion years of universe.
3. Entropy of the big bang - according to every known theory of the big bang development - universe couldnt form the way it did. Science is missing a "constant" that explains how all matter from the start did not went "black hole" something happened that left no trace - something that kept matter apart in the beginning.
Black holes do not allow for chemistry - black hole does not recognize periodic table, there are only nucleons smudged together. the versatility of the universe, and life that follows - are defined by the chemistry.
4. life - i am a philosophical enemy of the "anthropic principle" that states - "life is not so special as tought to be, because the conditions that led to life couldnt be analyzed as different - cause those would not lead to life as we know it.
there IS NO "other" type of life that could emerge in universe, different from our own. im gonna skip the eplanation on that one, cause it is a huge writing, believe me on that one.
so, there is God. one could argue with me all day, but these are the facts that atheists like to ridicule, not because of the contrary position, but because of ignorance.
why did i write all of this ? you might ask .. so, we come to the last philosophical question that i bother myself with in this topic - religion.
being certain that god exists - that leads to a logical conclusion that no religion is right. partially.
God, being all smart, creating this weird universe, quantum fields, gravity and stuff - surely did not want only a maximum of 20% randomly born people to believe in the right stuff.
When Howard Storm (former Atheist, and an OOBE surviver) asked the angels, which one is the right religion, they replied - "the one that would bring you closest to God".
so, basically, Philosophical modern view is a confrontation of Science and God.
Science: we know all, or theorize about all, except for the beginning of the Universe.
Belief (not exclusively religion): God created everything.
there are a number of beliefs that join those two, for example, as i would call it - a "scientific creationism"
God created universe, and gave it the laws which govern it.
so, based on what we know, we should start with science, in order to get to a Philosophical conclusion (cause there is no scientific conclusion to be made about God)
1. we exist.
2. we are defined by time/space continuum, that defines us.
3. Universe probably has a starting point (Big Bang theory), so - there must be a kind of existence that surpasses time and space. based on the scientific "cause and effect"
4. every attempt of science to define universe's beginning or existence falls out of science reasoning, cause there are two options, both being metaphysical:
a. Universe was always there (metaphysical)
b. Universe was created out of nothing (nothing defined from human vantage point) - metaphysical.
using this kind of reasoning - one must realize that there is a God.
Scientific proof of god:
Dr. William Lane Craig, used a mathematical calculations, to prove that universe as we know it couldnt exist in any other way, and allowing the life to emerge somewhere:
1. 3d space - even with the fact that matter is a result of spacetime configuration - there is no valid scientific explanation why the space is in 3d - cause all the matter, that was there from the start - wouldnt do anything in different spacetime layout.
if the big bang theory is correct - than the ammount of matter, and the 3d configuration of space were so fine tunned, that it surpasses any kind of doubt.
2. values of fundamental interactions:
- increasing the Strong force for 1% would turn all carbon into oxygen
- increasing Strong force for 2% would result in turning all quarks into protons (nucleons), so no atom would ever exist.
- decreasing Strong force for 5% would disable nucleo synthesis, and make all matter in universe - Hydrogen.
- adding 10% or subtracting 10% from Strong force would result in no element having atomic mass bigger than 4.
- decreasing gravity for 6% would turn all stars into red giants, increasing for 9% would turn all stars into white dwarfs - rendering carbon life impossible.
- increasing gravity for 2% would not allow big bang to develop, and subtract at the same moment it occurred.
- the most important one: decreasing or increasing electromagnetical force for 0.0000000000000000001% would burn out all the stars before first billion years of universe.
3. Entropy of the big bang - according to every known theory of the big bang development - universe couldnt form the way it did. Science is missing a "constant" that explains how all matter from the start did not went "black hole" something happened that left no trace - something that kept matter apart in the beginning.
Black holes do not allow for chemistry - black hole does not recognize periodic table, there are only nucleons smudged together. the versatility of the universe, and life that follows - are defined by the chemistry.
4. life - i am a philosophical enemy of the "anthropic principle" that states - "life is not so special as tought to be, because the conditions that led to life couldnt be analyzed as different - cause those would not lead to life as we know it.
there IS NO "other" type of life that could emerge in universe, different from our own. im gonna skip the eplanation on that one, cause it is a huge writing, believe me on that one.
so, there is God. one could argue with me all day, but these are the facts that atheists like to ridicule, not because of the contrary position, but because of ignorance.
why did i write all of this ? you might ask .. so, we come to the last philosophical question that i bother myself with in this topic - religion.
being certain that god exists - that leads to a logical conclusion that no religion is right. partially.
God, being all smart, creating this weird universe, quantum fields, gravity and stuff - surely did not want only a maximum of 20% randomly born people to believe in the right stuff.
When Howard Storm (former Atheist, and an OOBE surviver) asked the angels, which one is the right religion, they replied - "the one that would bring you closest to God".
Igoritza said:
...I'm just going to stop you right there.
Science does not claim to have all the answers. Hell, science doesn't claim to have all the questions.
[This is the big flaw. There's more wrong with your post, obviously, like of COURSE the universe as we know it couldn't exist any other way...if it were any other way it wouldn't be the universe as we know it! Also William Lane Craig is...not really a good source of data, put it that way.]
jdogmoney said:
Science acts like it. specially atheists that are popular like Stephen Hawking. the dude just said that "gravity" is the reason why nothing created everything ..
you dont have to be a Physics doctor to know that it's a pure bullshit.
Science doesnt even have an explanation of gravity - what causes it (higgs) and what mediates it (gravitons) and he speaks like he knows it, mixing Philosophy and theoretical Physics ...
William Lane Craig is not a clown, he is a renowed scientist
for example - Kip Thorne, who is much bigger player in the science today, than hawking, aknowledges the "cosmological constant", and the fact of universe's fine tunning.
gerg said:
you got it all wrong - anthropic principle is opposed to a "cosmological constant".
cosmological constant states that all the constants in the world:
1. fundamental interactions
2. pauli's principle of exclusion (yeah , that's a mind mind boggling stuff right there)
3. size of matter
4. space/time configuration
and so on
are fine tuned, in order for everything to exist.
anthropic principle states that there is no "fine tuning", because the only conditions that we know of - ours, led to life as we know it. so there is no arguing about the other type of conditions.
when cosmological constant came apparent in scientific community, even Hawking stated that he cannot believe "how much everything is tuned for existence of carbon based life". later on, in 1991, he stated something about how science is to meet God at certain point, and later on - he tried so hard to prove that there is no God actually.
fun fact - Standard model is a flawed theory - pursued only because some invested their whole life chasing it. oh yes - and gazillion of dollars. Unified field theory, now, most definitely lies in some other theory, for example - Anthony Garret Lisi's - "exceptionally simple theory of everything"
Igoritza said:
Irrespective of getting my terms mixed, the argument that the universe is fine-tuned makes the fundamental leap of logic from something being unlikely to something being impossible. Your second argument, while perhaps based on accurate and correct scientific data, is complete bunk.
Igoritza said:
Science doesn't argue against the existence of God - belief in God is compatible with all empirical knowledge about the world.
The specific argument from fine-tuning fails because it makes the inductive leap from something being unlikely to something being impossible. That something is very, very unlikely does not make it impossible.
In general, most arguments towards God fail on the grounds of Occam's razor.
Igoritza said:
First, science doesn't really argue with god - generally speaking science completely ignores the existence of god - as the criteria of most god's place it outside the scientific sphere.
Secondly, it's a lame argument - the argument is essentially "if there was even a slight change in anything, we wouldn't exist, and the universe as we know it wouldn't exist" - which yeah, is probably true - but it doesn't speak of intention. If there was a slight change, maybe in some parallel universe, maybe we'd have silicon based life forms saying the same thing "if there was a slight change, we wouldn't exist, Odg did it!".
We only place ourselves in a situation of ideal universal existence because we want to exist. The universe on whole probably doesn't care (as it feels nothing) it only exists in whatever fashion it does. That's it. We lucked out.
- Status