quote:

Originally posted by djmetatron and this point brings about a greater point that i would like to emphasize: religion and God theories result from human fear while scientific theory results from observation and 'best guess' attempts. the scientific theories such as evolution and 'the big bang', while not being bullet-proof, are obtained from a more objective approach. whereas religion and god is actually a biased approach because of human genetics.

He was the one who staked his claim, I was just asking him to explain his thoughts more clearly. If you are going to come out and say something, expect to have your "theory" nitpicked.

and right now the biggest miscommunication is centering around that idea that religion is a human construction. Of course it is. Why would you even say that.

If you are making the statement that humans made up religion therefore God does not exist...that doesnt make sense and that was MY point. If you were just stating a fact, ok. but to go on and really try to drive home the fact that religion, as a practice, is human made...I must really be missing something if that is an important enough statement to be standalone.

and I am not arguing either the Big Bang or Evolution being false. I happen to trust the science behind them.

quote:

Originally posted by RapidFire Its even questionable if Jesus existed.

A bold claim hehe

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax A bold claim hehe

I said questionable. not that he didnt

quote:

Originally posted by RapidFire to believe that religion has more credibility than scientific fact is ludicrous.

They have very little cross-over. I dont understand why people keep using them as negations.

its like a spot being on a wall and then you shine a flashlight on it. The spots still there. Its still a spot. the lights still light.Neither has been altered. They are just two different things, with two different properties that dont interact.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax He was the one who staked his claim, I was just asking him to explain his thoughts more clearly. If you are going to come out and say something, expect to have your "theory" nitpicked. and right now the biggest miscommunication is centering around that idea that religion is a human construction. Of course it is. Why would you even say that. If you are making the statement that humans made up religion therefore God does not exist...that doesnt make sense and that was MY point. If you were just stating a fact, ok. but to go on and really try to drive home the fact that religion, as a practice, is human made...I must really be missing something if that is an important enough statement to be standalone. and I am not arguing either the Big Bang or Evolution being false. I happen to trust the science behind them.

ok let me try to make it a little more clear for you. it's not simply that humans created religion; it's why they created it. they created religion as a survival mechanism to combat our awareness of death. as the first species on the planet to have the capability to comprehend our own death we became extremely fearful. we invented god, the soul and the eternal afterlife to combat this fear because of our natural survival instinct. this instinct for religion is inherited the same way certain animals inherit special instincts for their environment.

science, of course, was created simply from curiosity and observation of the universe.

which reasoning do you think is more objective? which avenue of thinking holds more weight?

i'm really not invested in either side of the argument. as i have said i don't really believe in anything. i'm an agnostic. but looking at where the two sides are coming from i tend to give more credit to the scientists.

quote:

Originally posted by lex400sc a primordial stew forming ribonucleic acid with the application of heat has been emulated in labs already. it's not impossible to create organic matter out of no organic matter... especially when you have something as inconcievably vast and innumerable as the UNIVERSE an experiment...

Happen to know the scientist or experiemnt's name? I wouldn't mind doing some research on it.

It's funny how christians are putting so much time and effort into this when they should be focusing on what the bible actually entails, which is helping the poor and oppressed in the present. A lot of christians become to tangled in superstitions and forget what christianity really means. Simply put: helping th poor and demolishing power, never taking more than is needed, and sharing what you have. In truth, a real christian society is closer to communism than anything else. I mean, take fasting for expample. The point of fasting is not just to give up eating to show what a good christian you are. The point of fasting is so you can take the money you were going to spend on food or food you were going to eat for that time and distribute it to the poor who don't have it. The bible is full of stuff like this, but people take it too literally and make foolish dogmas from it.

But then, christianity is demolished by shit like this, and if a person was a real christian, he or she wouldn't give a shit about this becuase it isn't being productive to what really matters. It's falty becuase no one is bennifiting from this. But to critizise christianity as a whole based on a few dumbasses who preoccupy their time with this shit makes you no better than those dumbasses.

This discussion will be useless as long as the true questions won't have been posed.
It deals with here with all the epistemological problems, which thus returns to the question of "true" knowledge.
The Karl Popper's work (and not 'pooper') is rather excellent btw.
As pointed out jonsun in the first pages, 600 years ago people believed that the Earth was flat. Believed! The capacity of the science is to be unfalsifiable!
For instance: theism may not be falsifiable, if the existence of God is asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is an unobservable transcendental being then one cannot disprove his existence by observation. It remains quite consistent for a theist to agree that the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and even that the proposition "god exists" is not scientific, but perhaps is a matter of faith alone. Theists may also claim to have presentable evidence that verifies the existence of God. This is, of course, a matter of interest for anyone who places stock in witnesses who claim to have seen God or ideas like natural theology--the argument from design and other a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. However, arguments relating to alleged actions and eye-witness accounts, rather than the existence, of God may be falsifiable.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

quote:

Originally posted by djmetatron ok let me try to make it a little more clear for you. it's not simply that humans created religion; it's why they created it. they created religion as a survival mechanism to combat our awareness of death. as the first species on the planet to have the capability to comprehend our own death we became extremely fearful. we invented god, the soul and the eternal afterlife to combat this fear because of our natural survival instinct. this instinct for religion is inherited the same way certain animals inherit special instincts for their environment. science, of course, was created simply from curiosity and observation of the universe.

And I understand that...but motive for action doesnt really change the primary argument. If you are saying man created religion BECAUSE HE FEARS DEATH! therefore God cannot exist it doesnt change what I was asking before.

If you are saying which produces solid conclusions, then you have to realize that science wasn't created. "Science" is a method of observation that lets us reach conclusions about nature. Most religions claim nothing of that sort. "religion" although I shudder to use that word, tends to claim knowledge about the supernatual - that beyond the realm of science.

Again, I dont think you need to pick a side on which to trust, because they dont cancel one another out.

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint It's funny how christians are putting so much time and effort into this when they should be focusing on what the bible actually entails,

Aye, as I said earlier Paul wasn't talking to the Romans about science.

quote:

A lot of christians become to tangled in superstitions and forget what christianity really means. Simply put: helping th poor and demolishing power, never taking more than is needed, and sharing what you have.

First of all I would say it has 3 main points: Love God with all your mind, heart, and soul. Love your neighbor as you would love yourself. Read the scriptures for guidance. Its simple. Its the Gospel of Grace and Love and if that sounds like its a pansy thing to do, go call the person you hate the most and Forgive them. You wont do it because its hard. All the excuses of how much of a jerk they are, you dont want to look weak...yeah thats why its hard.

Also, when a person is in the throes of doubt and debate over whether or not their philosophy is correct they dont do it anymore. Its like when youre thinking about quitting your job. You dont start working harder, you slack off till you decide.

These discussions deal with a lot of issues and misconceptions that people have in regard to belief structures. Also, I dont think anyone is here to convert the heathens, its just interesting to talk about it, and hopefully some people here are educated enough to dialogue and learn some things from each other.

quote:

In truth, a real christian society is closer to communism than anything else. I mean, take fasting for expample. The point of fasting is not just to give up eating to show what a good christian you are. The point of fasting is so you can take the money you were going to spend on food or food you were going to eat for that time and distribute it to the poor who don't have it.

So why do poor people fast?

'Why do we and the Pharisees often fast for a certain time, but your followers don't?' Jesus answered, 'The friends of the bridegroom are not sad while he is with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.'" (Matthew 9:14-15).

Fasting is for focused communion with the Father. its kind of a complicated subject as for the reasoning behind that, but unless you can pull up some Bible quotes where they are supposed to take fasting leftovers to poor people; Im going to stake that one out as incorrect.

quote:

The bible is full of stuff like this, but people take it too literally and make foolish dogmas from it. But then, christianity is demolished by shit like this, and if a person was a real christian, he or she wouldn't give a shit about this becuase it isn't being productive to what really matters.

When you hear false info from the Rabid Christian camp about how "Genesis said the species are immutable, therefore if evolution is true, God is wrong. God is always Right. Therefore if evolution is true, God does not exist" you take that in because youre young and ignorant and naive. Then you realize immutable means that a frog wont turn into a horse eventually.

People have a lot of faulty premises and thats why they get into this whole mess. So it is very valid and necessary for people to have these discussions to clear up bad premises. As any philosophy teacher can tell you, you cant prove conclusions wrong, just premises.

quote:

It's falty becuase no one is bennifiting from this. But to critizise christianity as a whole based on a few dumbasses who preoccupy their time with this shit makes you no better than those dumbasses.

Ending up any kind of argument by calling the people you're talking to "dumbasses" wouldnt really be conducive to any swaying power you wished to weild.

quote:

Originally posted by d-miurge This discussion will be useless as long as the true questions won't have been posed.

The rest of your post doesnt contain any question marks. What are these true questions?

quote:

It deals with here with all the epistemological problems, which thus returns to the question of "true" knowledge.

Epistemics are important, no doubt, but to focus on them removes you from the sphere of relevancy.

quote:

The Karl Popper's work (and not 'pooper') is rather excellent btw. As pointed out jonsun in the first pages, 600 years ago people believed that the Earth was flat. Believed! The capacity of the science is to be unfalsifiable!

That doesn't make sense. Science, as I mentioned, is a method -not an entity. It has no inherant properties, it has no form or capacity. It is a set of guidelines to proper observation techniques. "science" isnt falsifiable or unfalsifiable. The point people make about falsafiability is that you cant deal with God because you cant disprove it. You need to be able to prove something wrong to have it be a viable candidate for scientific observation.

quote:

For instance: theism may not be falsifiable, if the existence of God is asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is an unobservable transcendental being then one cannot disprove his existence by observation. It remains quite consistent for a theist to agree that the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and even that the proposition "god exists" is not scientific, but perhaps is a matter of faith alone. Theists may also claim to have presentable evidence that verifies the existence of God. This is, of course, a matter of interest for anyone who places stock in witnesses who claim to have seen God or ideas like natural theology--the argument from design and other a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. However, arguments relating to alleged actions and eye-witness accounts, rather than the existence, of God may be falsifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

that kind of fits in with what I said earlier as well. Eye witness claims and phenomenon are surely observable. But to be enough to make any assertions of "Ok well...science has said that this person did not, in fact, see God slap their wife. That was them, and they were drunk. ThereforeGoddoesntexist" ...

You need much larger bodies of evidence to come anywhere CLOSE to making a Grand Unifying Theory about one such as God. Evolution theory has finally been just SOLID in the last couple of years. 10 years ago there were still a lot of questions and before that even more.

It takes lifetimes to get the kind of evidence you would be suggesting that would one day facilitate the scientific claim of God.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax So why do poor people fast? 'Why do we and the Pharisees often fast for a certain time, but your followers don't?' Jesus answered, 'The friends of the bridegroom are not sad while he is with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and then they will fast.'" (Matthew 9:14-15). Fasting is for focused communion with the Father. its kind of a complicated subject as for the reasoning behind that, but unless you can pull up some Bible quotes where they are supposed to take fasting leftovers to poor people; Im going to stake that one out as incorrect.

"The people ask, "Why should we fast if the Lord never notices? Why should we go without food if he pays no attention?"
The Lord says to them, "The truth is that at the same time you fast, you pursue your own interests and oppress your workers. Your fasting makes you violent, and you quarrel and fight. Do you think this kind of fasting will make me listen to your prayers? When you fast, you make yourselves suffer; you bow your heads low like a blade of grass and spread out sackcloth and ashes to lie on. Is this what you call fasting? Do you think I will be pleased with that?
"The kind of fasting I want is this: Remove the chains of oppression and the yoke of injustice, and let the oppressed go free. Share your food with the hungry and open your homes to the homeless poor. Give clothes to those who have nothing to wear, and do not refuse to help your own relatives." (Issaiah 58:3-7)

"If your put an end to oppression, to every gesture of contempt, ad to every evil word; if you give food to the hungry and satisfy those who are in need, then the darkness around you will turn to the brightness of noon."(Issaiah 58:9-11)


Like I said before, the purpose of fasting is to distribute what you would be consuming and give it to the poor, not a focused communion with the father. I don't know where you got that idea, but it definitely isn’t the purpose of fasting. You wanted quotes, I gave you one of the most blatent one there is. And I have plenty more of them that would prove my point. Show me once where God doesn't side with the poor and the oppressed in the Bible. You wouldn’t find one. Not one where the purpose is to break oppression as its end goal.

The Bible is full of patterns which consist of rituals like this, rituals which are not for God, but for his people. God doesn't want aimless rituals for him, these rituals have a purpose. This pattern arises throughout the Bible, that's why it's so thick is because people kept fucking up. God doesn’t like hierarchy and oppression, and yet people tried to make kings and oppress the poor. Look at sriptures like Leviticus 25 and 26 for example. Jubillee, restoratin of property to everybody, loans to the poor, and so on. The Bible is blatently against oppression of the poor and for economic and social equality within all of God's people, regardless of what you learned in Sunday school. Now when people become caught up in the crap like what this thread is about, don't you think this is counterproductive to what God really wants.

You should take a look and Liberation Theology. It refers not to a religion, not to a dogma, but to the Bible itself and derives from it what should be done.

Last edited by OurManFlint on Apr-29-2006 at 22:37