TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religion in our Culture
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by dr me there is no proof for god just like there is no proof of a devil. when you die it is the end, get over it.

the end huh, well there's no proof that death is an end either, or that birth was a beginning, other than the plain information we get from the period of time in which we are alive. The mysteries lie in before we're born and after we die. To assume anything is to be unscientific, we simply do not understand enough about the universe to know for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Verona^My the end huh, well there's no proof that death is an end either, or that birth was a beginning, other than the plain information we get from the period of time in which we are alive. The mysteries lie in before we're born and after we die. To assume anything is to be unscientific, we simply do not understand enough about the universe to know for sure.

fair enough, but why complicate things. okham's razor - the simplest explaination is the best

seems like trance and christianity don't go together well

I was going to question the points raised in mysticwaves post, but given that they'd already been addressed.....

[Christian mode]

quote:

Religion itself is not evil. It is the notion of accepting things on faith that is evil. When one accepts something on faith, he or she cannot truly be analyzing it in any rational manner - if they were, it would not be faith.

But can you honestly say that your entire life is lived in a "rational" manner? Is every action you commit made after a careful analysis of the situation as it stands, and of the situation as it will stand after the proposed action? Surely, if we were to live our lives in this overly analytical state of mind, we would struggle to commit ourselves to any action whatsoever?

Faith is merely the imperitive that implies trust between the decision maker and the decision itself. In other words, faith amounts to the confidence that one has in ones own judgement. If one had no faith, one could not draw any conclusions whatsoever from one's "rationalism".

quote:

Imagine someone invented a machine that would allow one to control the minds of others. Clearly this machine would have a multitude of extremely beneficial uses, such as ending conflicts, promoting charity, etc. Used prudently and benevolently, it could solve almost all the worlds problems. Yet, the potential for it being abused is so great, and such a terrifying prospect, that I think we can agree that humanity is better off without this machine. For this reason, I think humanity is better off without religion.

But given that the machine already exists, surely it would be more worthwhile to nurture the people's understanding of it, rather than to lead everyone in a single-minded charge towards destroying it? If this machine offers the benefits you say it does, surely all that need be done is to warn people of the detriment it can cause in any given society, and to promote it's benfits?

Wouldn't it be worth investing large amounts of time and money into ensuring firstly that the machine doesn't fall into the wrong hands, and secondly that it is promoted heavily to give us the best possible chance of "solving all the world's problems"?

quote:

I find it interesting that females were not part of the writing of the bible.. perhaps things may be percieved differently under the views of a female.....?

Females weren't a part of writing the Bible, merely because the societal norms of the day were that men were the literate ones - with jobs and an education - whereas women were relegated to mundane household lives. The fact that men only wrote the Bible is more an indicator of the sexism of the day rather than the fallibility of the Bible.

And even if a woman were able to channel the word of God onto paper, the patriarchal priests would ensure that the word did not travel far.

quote:

no doubt that Gods words are distorted, and interpreted incorrectly in some instances.. I mean, this point is proven with all the different types of Christianity. We have roman catholic, russian/greek/serb orthodox, protestant, 7th day adventist (or some shit)..

The word of God is permanent, unchanging and undeniably true.

If there is disagreement about its interpretation, then it is the fault of our tiny human minds rather than the ambiguity of our Lord's word.

quote:

What would you say that religion, in its current form, is the work of the devil???

The devil is capable only of telling lies.

If it can be ascertained that the Bible contains truth (and it does contain historical truth) then the devil could not have written it.

quote:

On the contrary, throughout history religion has always served the purpose of seperating people from people.

But it is neither religion nor God responsible for the division of man, it is man himself. Going back to Arbiters "machine" analogy, if the machine is used for evil purposes, do we blame the machine itself or the operator controlling it? People will always use the benevolent side of humanity for malevelant purposes, but that is no reason to discard benevolence.

quote:

In his search for the proof of God, Descartes actually seperated himself from the ideas and traditions of the church by trying to rationally prove that God exists based solely on logic. Infact, Descartes was one of the first figures in European history to do so. His "medidation discourses" started the rationalism movement, which has nothing to do with mysticism or Christian theology.

Descrates began his philosophical "meditations" under the desire to find that which is permanent, and that which is undeniably true and - in the end - this is exactly what he found. Through all his ontological skepticism, he arrived at God, as the undeniable being which permeates all existent beings. While he may have arrived at this conclusion via means different from those more common in his age, the fact that he arrived at the same conclusion given the radically different approach should give you some idea about how real God must be.

Also, the "rationalism" movement, as you put it, is undeniably tied up with the Christian tradition. Descartes most famous continental successors - Spinoza and Leibniz - both arrived at God via their rationalistic musings, and even Berkley - a Brittish empiricist (so quite the opposite of these contental rationalists) - arrived at God as the result of his solemn ontological doubt. Surely this must give you some idea about the saturating nature of Gods omnipresence?

quote:

entwined in many ways, see the Spanish Inquisition or the Catholic church's secret meetings to help Hitler arrange the extermination of the jews... religion in and of itself may not be evil, but organization religion is guilty of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity imaginable. This makes it a little harder to read scripture that inspired such acts.

Once again, no part of the Bible justifies such acts!

It is in people's misapplication of an absolute word that is condemnable, not the word itself!

quote:

oh Descartes is classic, so somewhere along the line there must have been elves, dragons, the tooth fairy, Zeus, and all sorts of mythical creatures because we learned of these things by having experienced them. Ever hear of an imagination, you know, thinking up goofy shit. I guess the Greek gods must have been real to, cause you know, the Greeks experienced them first hand. LOL

Mythical creatures (unicorns, elves etc.) are still based on experience, even if they don't exist. It's not hard to conceive of unicorns (horses witha horn) or elves (short green people) because they are merely abstractions of things we encounter in every day life.

As for God, however, he is entirely different from these mythical non-beings. He is entirely different from anything we encounter in everyday life, so where could the inspiration have come from? We have never met any other omnipresent, omnipotent being, so where else could this idea have come from other than via the direct experience of God himself?

[/Christian Mode]

quote:

If it can be ascertained that the Bible contains truth (and it does contain historical truth) then the devil could not have written it.

The thing about devil lying is that it's lies are mixed with truth so that the result seems convincing, but is false. Therefore, the bible could be the work of the devil.

quote:

elves (short green people)

Elves are not green!

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade But can you honestly say that your entire life is lived in a "rational" manner? Is every action you commit made after a careful analysis of the situation as it stands, and of the situation as it will stand after the proposed action? Surely, if we were to live our lives in this overly analytical state of mind, we would struggle to commit ourselves to any action whatsoever? Faith is merely the imperitive that implies trust between the decision maker and the decision itself. In other words, faith amounts to the confidence that one has in ones own judgement. If one had no faith, one could not draw any conclusions whatsoever from one's "rationalism".

Ok, you bring up a good point, which is that we need information from which to derive conclusions rationally, so at some point this information had to come from some other source (faith). But it seems more reasonable to believe as few things based on faith as possible, especially those things that manifest themselves in everyday life in most obvious ways, than to arbitrarily accept on faith things that one only believes because one happened to be born into a family which held those same beliefs.

quote:

But given that the machine already exists, surely it would be more worthwhile to nurture the people's understanding of it, rather than to lead everyone in a single-minded charge towards destroying it? If this machine offers the benefits you say it does, surely all that need be done is to warn people of the detriment it can cause in any given society, and to promote it's benfits? Wouldn't it be worth investing large amounts of time and money into ensuring firstly that the machine doesn't fall into the wrong hands, and secondly that it is promoted heavily to give us the best possible chance of "solving all the world's problems"?

But this machine is imperfect. It has no physical form, so it's impossible to hide it away from those who would misuse it, and even when used with the best intentions, sometimes its signals appear to become corrupted in the minds of the receivers. This presents us with three options:

1. Leave the machine as it is.
I deem this unacceptable, because the machine in its current state is causing a lot of problems.

2. Try to correct the machine so that it works perfectly.
Not a bad idea in theory. I would support this if I trusted the people who would be doing the correcting. But I don't, because they have proven themselves untrustworthy far too many times.

3. Slowly destroy the machine.
Destroying it quickly is not a realistic option, as many people have developed a dependency on its signals. However, over the course of several generations, we might be able to rehabilitate our society. This would eliminate the threats posed by the previous options, at the cost of benefits which the previous options might (but probably wouldn't) provide. Sounds like a good deal to me.

quote:

As for God, however, he is entirely different from these mythical non-beings. He is entirely different from anything we encounter in everyday life, so where could the inspiration have come from? We have never met any other omnipresent, omnipotent being, so where else could this idea have come from other than via the direct experience of God himself? [/Christian Mode]

We can't conceive of God in the same way we can conceive of elves and unicorns, just as we don't conceive of an infinite number of apples the same way we conceive of a finite number of them. Since the idea of an infinite number of apples couldn't have come from an experience with an infinite number of apples, it must have come from somewhere else. It could have come from God... or perhaps from some hallucinogen. But more likely, it simply game from the human imagination - the same source as God.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It could have come from God... or perhaps from some hallucinogen.

Oh and isn't it a paradox that us humans can't really imagine infinity yet we invented/use this term to describe things (or actually..so we won't have to describe them)

quote:

But it is neither religion nor God responsible for the division of man, it is man himself.

This is the same as saying: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Obviously, it is the interplay between man and gun that causes death. The very identification with a certain religion causes this seperation among men; of which violence and conflict are then born.

quote:

Also, the "rationalism" movement, as you put it, is undeniably tied up with the Christian tradition.

I was just trying to point out that Descartes indirectly undermined the Christian church. Descartes method throughout his inquiry was to essentially doubt everything. Descartes' method was not based upon any Christian instruction or dogma. So, even though Descartes was a Christian, his "Meditation Discourses" allowed others to view the concept of God in a new light.

quote:

As for God, however, he is entirely different from these mythical non-beings. He is entirely different from anything we encounter in everyday life, so where could the inspiration have come from? We have never met any other omnipresent, omnipotent being, so where else could this idea have come from other than via the direct experience of God himself?

You cannot define or imagine a thing (in this case God) into existence.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.