Religion

[Canceled]

Most sane people don't know if there is a god. Why the fuck is it any part of politics?

Most sane people don't know if we'll ever correct our spending problem, either.

Topic of the thread is Religion. Sorry!

I know I haven't exactly talked about Religion, but I am not religious. I am very spiritual, I probably spend several hours a day in spiritual meditation. I have a great deal of respect for Christianity in present-day form, I come from a Christian family. My experience with religion spans about every mainstream religious denominations, I sampled it all... but my ultimate finding is, religion is simply man's way of attempting to understand something they can't comprehend any other way. By putting a face on God... by giving him human attribute... HIM... as if God would have genetalia or a physical human body... because, that is what we can understand as humans and relate to. So man has developed these assorted systems of belief, ritual, moral behaviors, believed to be beneficial in pleasing God. I can't find a sound argument for ANY organized religious belief, as the "be-all-end-all" on the subject of God. I think the common understanding is, that something, some force or energy, is responsible for our existence and the existence of our planet, universe, and everything else.

PHYSICS!! .......We even developed a science of gathering and composing based on the reliability of how things work in our universe. There is a system of order in the physical realm, we invented physics to explain those predictable things. As we've advanced, we have discovered black holes and dark energy... places in our universe where our "laws of physics" simply no longer apply. Up is down... right is left... slow is fast... good is evil? ...We don't know! Our understanding of things is incomplete, yet some of us arrogantly conclude they have all the information and have made a determination on God. It defies reason, it defies logic, because the simple truth is, none of us KNOW or can PROVE the existence or non-existence of God.

[WinterBorn]

So what evidence can you produce to support your assertion that 'the supernatural' exists?

I have faith.

[The Dude]

I don't really give a shit what superpower people believe in.
Why is it part of the republican (mostly) way?

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't really give a shit what superpower people believe in.
Why is it part of the republican (mostly) way?

Two reasons mainly. The first is that they are scared of change and the second is that their convinced their particular religious belief has cornored the market on the truth.

[The Dude]

Two reasons mainly. The first is that they are scared of change and the second is that their convinced their particular religious belief has cornored the market on the truth.

Let me just point out for the Jesus freaks, I'm getting my angry on for having to pay 13 yrs of catholic school tuition.

[WinterBorn]

Let me just point out for the Jesus freaks, I'm getting my angry on for having to pay 13 yrs of catholic school tuition.

Then send your kids to public school. Paying for 13 years of catholic school is a choice you made.

[China Apologist]

Topic of the thread is Religion. Sorry!

I know I haven't exactly talked about Religion, but I am not religious. I am very spiritual, I probably spend several hours a day in spiritual meditation. I have a great deal of respect for Christianity in present-day form, I come from a Christian family. My experience with religion spans about every mainstream religious denominations, I sampled it all... but my ultimate finding is, religion is simply man's way of attempting to understand something they can't comprehend any other way.

Well that's convenient, isn't it. You've framed the belief in a way that makes it impossible to verify the truth of the matter without already believing that it is true. Why is this such a common line in religious apologetics? What other real thing in the universe depends on your initial belief in it to verify its existence?

By putting a face on God... by giving him human attribute... HIM... as if God would have genetalia or a physical human body... because, that is what we can understand as humans and relate to.

They're just heroes who were promoted to extreme deification by the human process of myth. This has happened many times in many different ways. If it pointed to the same being, you would expect them to be more similar to each other. As it is, the current reality fits much better with various cultures independently inventing deities than accessing some central source of knowledge. If record keeping were as sloppy today as it was 2000 years ago, idiots would be worshipping presidents 100 years after their term. As it is, we know they're not Gods because we have records of it. You can still see many historical figures in the process of being granted mythical qualities, though. It's just a flaw in human reasoning. If someone is thought of is great, people will begin saying untruly great things about them, and others won't question these people for fear of denying that persons unquestionable greatness. In a couple of decades, you have a hero with ridiculous attributes, give it a few centuries and you've got a God. If record keeping is slightly less primitive, you might have a prophet instead of a God (although prophets are sometimes promoted to Godhood as well, as we see in the case of Jesus).

So man has developed these assorted systems of belief, ritual, moral behaviors, believed to be beneficial in pleasing God.

Because we've invented a being whom we've finally given all possible positive attributes in the process of mythification. Everyone's God is different to them, of course, because God, having all positive attributes, can't possibly have the negative attribute of disagreeing with their value system.

I can't find a sound argument for ANY organized religious belief, as the "be-all-end-all" on the subject of God. I think the common understanding is, that something, some force or energy, is responsible for our existence and the existence of our planet, universe, and everything else.

Energy = ability to do work
Force = any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape (can be reduced down to magnetism, gravitation, the electroweak force, and the strong nuclear force)

These can't be responsible for the creation of the universe as they are attributes of the universe itself. There is not yet an adequate theory for what caused the big bang. That does not imply that God exists. The appropriate response to lacking knowledge on a subject is not to just accept whatever the first random crazy person you meet says about the subject.

PHYSICS!! .......We even developed a science of gathering and composing based on the reliability of how things work in our universe. There is a system of order in the physical realm, we invented physics to explain those predictable things. As we've advanced, we have discovered black holes and dark energy... places in our universe where our "laws of physics" simply no longer apply.

The existence of black holes and dark energy merely expanded our knowledge of physics. If the laws of physics are "broken", the "laws of physics" are changed to account for it. Since physics is a field of study trying to find out what truly is, it's impossible for something that is to contradict true physics. By existing, it's part of physics. It may disagree with our interpretation of physics, but it does not disagree with physics. I know this is confusing to a religious person, such as yourself. Religion believes that it's found all the answers, so if anything contradictory comes up, they merely deny it's existence. Physics, on the other hand, knows that it doesn't know everything, and is in the process of trying to find out as much as it can. This sensible approach is bizarre and incomprehensible to a religious person, who feel they must assign an absolute truth value to everything, even if they have to do so with faulty or incomplete information. You've really given away the fact that you think in this manner with this line.

Up is down... right is left... slow is fast... good is evil?

It depends on your perspective.

...We don't know! Our understanding of things is incomplete, yet some of us arrogantly conclude they have all the information and have made a determination on God. It defies reason, it defies logic, because the simple truth is, none of us KNOW or can PROVE the existence or non-existence of God.

Our understanding is incomplete, yes. Science fills in the incomplete sections with "incomplete", religion fills it in with "God".

[Chapel The Evergreen]

Well that's convenient, isn't it. You've framed the belief in a way that makes it impossible to verify the truth of the matter without already believing that it is true. Why is this such a common line in religious apologetics? What other real thing in the universe depends on your initial belief in it to verify its existence?



They're just heroes who were promoted to extreme deification by the human process of myth. This has happened many times in many different ways. If it pointed to the same being, you would expect them to be more similar to each other. As it is, the current reality fits much better with various cultures independently inventing deities than accessing some central source of knowledge. If record keeping were as sloppy today as it was 2000 years ago, idiots would be worshipping presidents 100 years after their term. As it is, we know they're not Gods because we have records of it. You can still see many historical figures in the process of being granted mythical qualities, though. It's just a flaw in human reasoning. If someone is thought of is great, people will begin saying untruly great things about them, and others won't question these people for fear of denying that persons unquestionable greatness. In a couple of decades, you have a hero with ridiculous attributes, give it a few centuries and you've got a God. If record keeping is slightly less primitive, you might have a prophet instead of a God (although prophets are sometimes promoted to Godhood as well, as we see in the case of Jesus).



Because we've invented a being whom we've finally given all possible positive attributes in the process of mythification. Everyone's God is different to them, of course, because God, having all positive attributes, can't possibly have the negative attribute of disagreeing with their value system.



Energy = ability to do work
Force = any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape (can be reduced down to magnetism, gravitation, the electroweak force, and the strong nuclear force)

These can't be responsible for the creation of the universe as they are attributes of the universe itself. There is not yet an adequate theory for what caused the big bang. That does not imply that God exists. The appropriate response to lacking knowledge on a subject is not to just accept whatever the first random crazy person you meet says about the subject.



The existence of black holes and dark energy merely expanded our knowledge of physics. If the laws of physics are "broken", the "laws of physics" are changed to account for it. Since physics is a field of study trying to find out what truly is, it's impossible for something that is to contradict true physics. By existing, it's part of physics. It may disagree with our interpretation of physics, but it does not disagree with physics. I know this is confusing to a religious person, such as yourself. Religion believes that it's found all the answers, so if anything contradictory comes up, they merely deny it's existence. Physics, on the other hand, knows that it doesn't know everything, and is in the process of trying to find out as much as it can. This sensible approach is bizarre and incomprehensible to a religious person, who feel they must assign an absolute truth value to everything, even if they have to do so with faulty or incomplete information. You've really given away the fact that you think in this manner with this line.



It depends on your perspective.



Our understanding is incomplete, yes. Science fills in the incomplete sections with "incomplete", religion fills it in with "God".

You'd make a fine Lovecraftian.

[Canceled]

Our understanding is incomplete, yes. Science fills in the incomplete sections with "incomplete", religion fills it in with "God".

Actually, science doesn't fill in anything, YOU fill in 'complete', based on your limited knowledge and understanding. You have made a definitive determination on what is true and what isn't, and you refuse to examine possibility further. That isn't science, it is the antithesis of science, actually. Science is supposed to NOT fill in the blanks, but continue to ask questions... you've stopped asking questions because you believe you know the answers. Yet, you admit, you DON'T know the answers. Odd.

[Canceled]

There is not yet an adequate theory for what caused the big bang. That does not imply that God exists.

If you can't theorize rationally, what caused the universe to be created, how can you conclude it wasn't by the hand of God? Yes, if it can't be rationally explained and there is no theory of physics to apply... it certainly DOES imply the work of some superior force or intelligence. You can dismiss that possibility, but again, you are contradicting science to do so. Science says we must keep asking questions, and we can't discount ANY possibility on the basis of our emotions. That's what you are doing here, dismissing the possibility because you don't want to believe in the possibility that God may exist.

[Canceled]

The existence of black holes and dark energy merely expanded our knowledge of physics. If the laws of physics are "broken", the "laws of physics" are changed to account for it. Since physics is a field of study trying to find out what truly is, it's impossible for something that is to contradict true physics. By existing, it's part of physics. It may disagree with our interpretation of physics, but it does not disagree with physics.

Nonsense. We have a set of laws and principles we define as the "laws of physics" and these hard and fast rules apply to everything, with the exception of things we've recently discovered, like black holes and dark energy. Those things seem to defy our understanding of and rules of physics. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, according to our understanding of physics... yet, this happens in black holes... does it 'nullify' this law of physics? Do the laws of physics change outside of the black hole? Or... is this simply a phenomenon we can't explain with our limited understanding of physics? Could it be possible that our physics are not applicable to everything in our universe? It would appear this is the case, and if our laws of physics don't apply in some cases, why would they apply in others? In other words, just because I can't give you physical proof there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[China Apologist]

Nonsense. We have a set of laws and principles we define as the "laws of physics" and these hard and fast rules apply to everything, with the exception of things we've recently discovered, like black holes and dark energy. Those things seem to defy our understanding of and rules of physics. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, according to our understanding of physics... yet, this happens in black holes... does it 'nullify' this law of physics? Do the laws of physics change outside of the black hole? Or... is this simply a phenomenon we can't explain with our limited understanding of physics? Could it be possible that our physics are not applicable to everything in our universe? It would appear this is the case, and if our laws of physics don't apply in some cases, why would they apply in others? In other words, just because I can't give you physical proof there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Things do not travel faster than the speed of light in black holes. Light cannot escape from them, but that's not the same thing. From the perspective of the person travelling at the speed of light, they are moving at infinite speed (their speed only seems limited from the perspective of an observer). It's not possible to travel at more than infinite speed. It's fully possible, however, that Einstein's theory of relativity is an incomplete understanding of the universe, just like Newton's theory of gravitation was erroneous in some ways and had to be updated by Einstein's general theory of relativity. If this were ever proven to be the case, that new theory would improve our knowledge of physics. Physics advances when the current understanding of physics is disproven, and when what we thought were the laws of physics are proven to be broken by some phenomena. It doesn't sit and a corner and whine about how this can't be so.

I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. If God existed, he'd be part of physics. If certain laws apply in some instances and not in others, those are two instances in which two different sets of knowledge are needed to understand the true physical universe. You can be wrong about physics, you can't violate it.

And you are attempting to assign a positive truth value to the question of God by saying that it can't be disproven (it has, in fact, been cleverly crafted to be an undisprovable myth). This isn't correct. When you don't know if something is true or not, you say you do not know. You do not say that it certainly exists and scream at people who are skeptical of your claims. You also don't say "we don't know!" over and over again at people who choose to say that we don't know instead of "it's true!" and act, for all practical purposes, as if it were true beyond a reasonable doubt. There are an infinite number of possible phenomena in the world that you can come up with and construct arguments for in a way that denies all attempts to inquire as to whether or not they are true. The only reasonable way to respond to this is to treat them as if they don't exist until you know that they do. It's not practical to believe in everything (it's not even really possible, as many of the claims directly contradict one another). And it's not honest to, as the religious so often do, select a certain few undisprovable claims and promote them when there's no reason to believe in any one over the other.

Let's imagine that there are two universes. One in which God doesn't exist, and one in which your unspecified spiritual entity that you claim to be all Gods ever exists. How would I tell if I were in one universe or the other? You yourself have said that there's no way to disprove or prove it. So, according to your own arguments, there's not anything I can do to tell which universe I'm in. Perhaps your unspecified spiritual entity explains a few things that can't be explained right now. So what? I can come up with all of the explanations I want for anything at all. That doesn't accomplish anything. Mere explanations, unaccompanied by evidence in their favor, are worthless.

And let's go further and compare the universe in which your unspecified spiritual entity exists to all of the other possible universes with similar entities. How could I tell your universe from the Shiah's Allah, or the Catholic Yahweh, or the Jewish Yahweh, or Thor, or the Great

[Chapel The Evergreen]

Things do not travel faster than the speed of light in black holes. Light cannot escape from them, but that's not the same thing. From the perspective of the person travelling at the speed of light, they are moving at infinite speed (their speed only seems limited from the perspective of an observer). It's not possible to travel at more than infinite speed. It's fully possible, however, that Einstein's theory of relativity is an incomplete understanding of the universe, just like Newton's theory of gravitation was erroneous in some ways and had to be updated by Einstein's general theory of relativity. If this were ever proven to be the case, that new theory would improve our knowledge of physics. Physics advances when the current understanding of physics is disproven, and when what we thought were the laws of physics are proven to be broken by some phenomena. It doesn't sit and a corner and whine about how this can't be so.

I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. If God existed, he'd be part of physics. If certain laws apply in some instances and not in others, those are two instances in which two different sets of knowledge are needed to understand the true physical universe. You can be wrong about physics, you can't violate it.

And you are attempting to assign a positive truth value to the question of God by saying that it can't be disproven (it has, in fact, been cleverly crafted to be an undisprovable myth). This isn't correct. When you don't know if something is true or not, you say you do not know. You do not say that it certainly exists and scream at people who are skeptical of your claims. You also don't say "we don't know!" over and over again at people who choose to say that we don't know instead of "it's true!" and act, for all practical purposes, as if it were true beyond a reasonable doubt. There are an infinite number of possible phenomena in the world that you can come up with and construct arguments for in a way that denies all attempts to inquire as to whether or not they are true. The only reasonable way to respond to this is to treat them as if they don't exist until you know that they do. It's not practical to believe in everything (it's not even really possible, as many of the claims directly contradict one another). And it's not honest to, as the religious so often do, select a certain few undisprovable claims and promote them when there's no reason to believe in any one over the other.

Let's imagine that there are two universes. One in which God doesn't exist, and one in which your unspecified spiritual entity that you claim to be all Gods ever exists. How would I tell if I were in one universe or the other? You yourself have said that there's no way to disprove or prove it. So, according to your own arguments, there's not anything I can do to tell which universe I'm in. Perhaps your unspecified spiritual entity explains a few things that can't be explained right now. So what? I can come up with all of the explanations I want for anything at all. That doesn't accomplish anything. Mere explanations, unaccompanied by evidence in their favor, are worthless.

And let's go further and compare the universe in which your unspecified spiritual entity exists to all of the other possible universes with similar entities. How could I tell your universe from the Shiah's Allah, or the Catholic Yahweh, or the Jewish Yahweh, or Thor, or the Great C'THULHU

Figured that's what you wanted to finish with.

[China Apologist]

For some reason the bottom third of my post got cut off. The site is lagging and might have screwed my post up I did try to edit it while it was lagging and might have screwed it up myself, can a mod check this?

[Chapel The Evergreen]

Leave it as I have finished.

Though according to the Mythos, C'Thulhu isn't even a god.