Religion and Philosophy

[Velothi]

Why do a lot of people believe that the majority of Catholics still believe in the "God created the world in seven days" theory. We don't. Well, a few still do, however, they are located in remote regions. It is so ignorant that some people believe they can use that in an argument against us, when it's completely false. I believe in the Big Bang as much as any Scientologist, but I propose a question to them. Something cannot come from nothing. And if they say that that means that God can't exist, then I say, but if god is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-seeing, then how can we humans even believe to know what a god is.

Well, the thing is, people conjoin Catholics with those whom either A; take the Bible as per Word of God (literally) or B; take the Bible literally.

Both factions that do this are, in my honest opinion, completely lacking in bible-history. Least we need to know that Athiests and Radical theologians actually started studying and breaking down the Bible.

In any case; that's why. Because some christains (I mostly say protestants) decide to take it literally or say god wrote it.

Though you can't really say "We humans can not understand god". Sure we can, our knowledge can really value and understand anything that we have come across. We have made words for such beings, but I'm not the type of guy to go "Lets take the idea of an all...".

Because, really, that argument is stupid to begin with. Simply one can merely defeat any religion when using textual criticism ( or lower criticism) into effect.

How does the bible passages differ from one another in 'original' form? (Babylonian text, Alexandrian or Western. Babylonian is the oldest and few in number, Alexandrian is relatively young and vast in number. Western is a 50/50) Such as with the Dead Sea Scrolls and those who try to say "Isaiah 7:14 is right because the JEWS must have got it wrong!" if they dare try to do that.

By that I refer to the original Hebrew passage of Isiah 7:14 had no mention of virgin. "14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Young woman is another word entirely. One can simply use the own book to defeat such things.

But to say "something can't be created from nothing" is not true. There were other particles and atoms, such as hydrogen and dark matter. Perhaps others but I can not remember them.

Yet that isn't really 'nothing'. Reactions can occur, thus leading to the 'spark' that lead up to the Big Bang.

Though lets say god (in a rather vague disposition mind you, not Yahweh or Allah or "God") did create the universe and all whom inhabit it at one time or another. We'll eventually find out, and this basically means every single religion based upon a monotheism or polytheism is wrong in any case.

So a god whom doesn't really take care of us, let his 'children' (or her, or it. Could be a hermaphrodite) kill each other for the name-sake of other gods not relating to him, and basically allows us humans to wither in war and plague.

That's just basic understanding, which means that the historical Jesus was rather not a messiah but more so a Wisdom Teacher and a Rebel. Add in a Prophet of Social Change.

Moses, most likely, is a myth to cover the Exodus story. Since Israel and Judah citizens came from Canaan, and if Egypt suffered that Exodus then they didn't show it in records or a majority of their population didn't die from lack of slaves to work in the fields.

Most jewish persons came from Canaan and not Egypt, we don't even need to get into the idea that a few million souls in the Sinari desert surviving for about 40 years. Not even modern day people could do this, much less those back then.

Time is an illusion created by man to make sense of the universe.

Anything before the Julian calendar had little sense as it is.

[Arch-Mage Matt]

Something cannot come from nothing.

Well, the same thing can be said about God actually...

[POMC S117]

Matt, the difference is that God is omnipotent and omnipresent. What I was meaning was that when humans eventually understand time, dimension and space, then we still won't be able to understand him. God is supposed to be insanely powerful, if you believe in him. Velothi made a good point, this argument is like trench warfare; both sides will not move. I'll still believe in God, and you'll still believe in what you want to.

The Universe is near-impossible to understand. Einstein made some breakthroughs, but we will most likely never discover it's secrets. That is the same as God. Velothi, I was saying that maybe the hydrogen and helium, quarks and gluons came from a pre-dating Universe that may have been destroyed in a big crunch. As the Big Crunch is a contraction, and the Big Bang is the opposite, all of the matter in the "Old Universe" pushed together, from all sides, making a super hot ball of gas, which then exploded with tremendous power. It expanded at 279 000 mps and in 300 seconds, it was a dense sea of quarks and other sub atomic particles. Eventually, they became hydrogen and helium, the most abundant elements in the Universe, but uncommon on Earth, and started to combine. Then, the hydrogen and helium combining, became so big that nuclear reactions began to happen in it's core. The core made a magnetic field which was so powerful that it started to attract other things. This was happening everywhere. When the small, dense stars came to the end of their life, the hydrogen and helium in the core fused together and made iron. Somehow, rocks were formed, probably from excess elements, and were attracted to the many stars. 11 billion years into the creation of the Universe, a medium sized star came into existence. It attracted rocks. Those rocks joined together, making planets. The first planet, nearest the sun, had it's atmosphere ripped off and pulverised due to the radiation being blasted at it and because of it's weak core. The second one kept it's atmosphere, which was primarily sulfur and CO2. The third one was being built. Once it was the size of what it is now, but without a crust, a rock, the size of Mars, crashed into it, tilting it to 23.5 degrees. The huge rock, which should have destroyed the Earth, heated it, making volcanoes sprout along the surface. Millions of volcanoes poured lava on the Earth, creating the crust. Although the Earth should have stayed that way, oxygen was stuck in rocks hidden in the Earth. Each time a volcano erupted, it fired out oxygen. The heat allowed Hydrogen and Oxygen to become H2O, which went up to the atmosphere where it was cooler. The vapour formed clouds and burst. Water cooled the Earth and cells formed. And you know the rest.

Well, that's what I think started life. I'm not going to talk about God right now. You just let me believe what I want without questioning me, and I'll do the same.

[JVElEven]

I can't come to terms with the belief that there's something/one wtaching over us and defining what happens to us after death. It's our own choices that shape the world, and the only one that can judge us for our choices are other humans.

That said, I also believe partly in destiny, and I'm a hypocrit in the way that I believe blindly in science even though that's almost as much guessing as religion.

[POMC S117]

Well, I won't question you.

And I believe I've misquoted. It turns out that it's supposed to be: "Man doesn't know a millionth of one per cent of everything there is to know about anything." By Thomas Edison, the man who DIDN'T invent the lightbulb.

[dkjestrup]

I'm athiest. Reason? There is as much evidence for a god, let alone a religion, as there is for the easter bunny, santa, unicorns and the teapot that orbits the sun. There is no place for religion anymore. It used to be needed for understanding the world, whereas now we don't need it: we have science. And for things that science cannot understand, rather than defaulting to a "god of the gaps" type argument, we should simply be honest: we don't know. And we cannot know everything.

As far as politics are concerned, religion is just another way of dividing people, like culture and race do already. There is a lot of conflict caused by religion.

I find it impossible to believe that, when looked at rationally, anyone could support a religion. People usually believe because they were indoctrinated from birth, or because they are scared of death, or because they WANT the belief to be the truth.

Obviously, we cannot prove everything to be absolute in science. And we cannot know everything. But that's no reason to perpetuate ignorance.

[ZombieMonkeyNZ]

...the teapot that orbits the sun...

Workin' on that.

[nyk45]

Obviously, we cannot prove everything to be absolute in science. And we cannot know everything. But that's no reason to perpetuate ignorance.

Religion = ignorance. Phew, good thing that's a fact, otherwise your entire argument could fall to pieces.

[Mindrifter]

I'm probably going to get into some dumb argument, but when has science been able to explain a soul. As much as Stephen Hawking might say it, philosophy is not dead. We need it as much as we need water. Without basic moralities and ethics there would be no argument on our connection to primates. I've heard that scientists have proved that souls don't exist because they've measured the energy output of humans, and all the energy is matched up with no extra left for a spirit. Well, who says souls are made of energy? Who says everything in the universe is made of energy? Some brilliant researched scientist? Well, he may have some impressive degree, but I must say that even he (or she) is being quite full of himself; surely he can't know everything. There's a lot to be said on this subject, but I can just say that there doesn't have to be proof of something for it to exist.

[POMC S117]

Well, I agree with you. We can't tell anything. What we call facts are basically well educated guesses. There seems to be a notion going around that the human race basically understands how the Universe works. Not us, obviously. But the "scientists" or the "experts" perhaps. However, that is a complete and utter fallacy.

[Mac of Four Winds]

Yeah a man named Jesus did exist some time ago. But did he walk on water and heal the blind, cure the sick? That's not in the Roman records. Not that they would put it there anyway. A great teacher, yes. Son of God or God, don't know.

[Mindrifter]

Of course, I meant no offense to scientists... Just to the people who are close minded enough to say that religion is ignorance. Oh, and something I read from C.S. Lewis: "That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell." When he says this he is implying the fact that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. So if he isn't the son of God then he must be crazy.

[Mac of Four Winds]

I don't think religion is ignorance. For a time it was the only way we could explain things. It does provide morality to some people. But as many have said its outdated. I have a question, if God is all knowing and all powerful, why create Satan?

[dkjestrup]

When I said it's no reason to perpetuate ignorance, what I meant was that just because we cannot understand something, doesn't mean we should use god as an answer, when all it is really is a placeholder. The real world example would be people who claim "intelligent design" is the reason for the diversity on this planet, rather than evolution. It's ridiculous that they would still claim evolution to be false now, but back when there was less evidence for it, people would use that as the answer, despite having no evidence for it, simply because saying "we don't know yet" or "we have insufficient evidence" wasn't a satisfactory answer for them. When really, it should be.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I don't want to make this personal.

Personally though, I think that the ancient greek/egyptian gods etc make FAR more sense than the current christian etc gods. The reason being: they were used to explain the universe, and they had no other explanation. Now we don't need a god to explain the universe, so it seems the only purpose of religion is for people that find something romantic in the idea of eternal bliss after life.

[Mindrifter]

I don't think religion is ignorance. For a time it was the only way we could explain things. It does provide morality to some people. But as many have said its outdated. I have a question, if God is all knowing and all powerful, why create Satan?

That question has been brought up multiple times in my lifetime. I'm answering it because I know the answer (I think) but I can't say that I'm an all-out christian, there are just somethings about it that I don't like. But God created Satan as an angel who's name was Lucifer. Then Lucifer became jealous or proud or something like that and he rebelled and wanted to take heaven. But God sent him down to rule over hell. Something like that.

[dkjestrup]

I'm probably going to get into some dumb argument, but when has science been able to explain a soul. As much as Stephen Hawking might say it, philosophy is not dead. We need it as much as we need water. Without basic moralities and ethics there would be no argument on our connection to primates. I've heard that scientists have proved that souls don't exist because they've measured the energy output of humans, and all the energy is matched up with no extra left for a spirit. Well, who says souls are made of energy? Who says everything in the universe is made of energy? Some brilliant researched scientist? Well, he may have some impressive degree, but I must say that even he (or she) is being quite full of himself; surely he can't know everything. There's a lot to be said on this subject, but I can just say that there doesn't have to be proof of something for it to exist.

Why do we need to have a soul? To imply that we have a soul doesn't make much sense, as we have literally no evidence to suggest such thing as a soul exists. The burden of proof would be to prove that it exists. Why would science need to be able to explain something that as far as we can tell, doesn't exist?

[POMC S117]

The Greeks and Egyptians had better gods?

They gave everything it's own God.

Minddrifter, you Ninja'd me.

[dkjestrup]

The Greeks and Egyptians had better gods?

They gave everything it's own God.

Minddrifter, you Ninja'd me.

I can see where they were coming from. Lightning hardly looks natural, and claiming that something unknowable creates it isn't that big of a stretch. Now that we have models of how static electricity works, we don't need a god to explain it.

Today's religions don't do a very good job explaining things, because we have science. I can imagine an Orwellian style book on the catholic church being an organization created originally to create money, although I hope I don't offend anyone here.

[Mac of Four Winds]

I don't think religion is ignorance. For a time it was the only way we could explain things. It does provide morality to some people. But as many have said its outdated. I have a question, if God is all knowing and all powerful, why create Satan?

That question has been brought up multiple times in my lifetime. I'm answering it because I know the answer (I think) but I can't say that I'm an all-out christian, there are just somethings about it that I don't like. But God created Satan as an angel who's name was Lucifer. Then Lucifer became jealous or proud or something like that and he rebelled and wanted to take heaven. But God sent him down to rule over hell. Something like that.

I understand all of that. But if God is all knowing. He knew what Satan would do. All the suffering and death that followed. We could have stayed perfect. In an earlier post I said this was one reason I lost my faith. What do people who have a faith deal with this?

[Mindrifter]

Why do we need to have a soul? To imply that we have a soul doesn't make much sense, as we have literally no evidence to suggest such thing as a soul exists. The burden of proof would be to prove that it exists. Why would science need to be able to explain something that as far as we can tell, doesn't exist?

I'm sorry? To tell you the truth, I can't find much sense if we don't have a soul. If we don't have a soul then how can we love, how can we put someone before ourself. If we didn't have a soul and we were just living to continue our species or our genes, then why would anyone ever sacrifice their needs for somebody else's?

[POMC S117]

Well, if God saw that Hitler would do what he done, then he could have killed him. But he didn't. Why? I think that it's because he gave us - through evolution - the ability to have thoughts and opinions and that he doesn't want to take them away, so he left it to us to deal with him. Also, if he knows everything, then he knows that Satan'll be destroyed, eventually.

[POMC S117]

Erm... What is a soul?

And Minddrifter, they are emotions, as Scozzar said.

[Mindrifter]

Like I said, I didn't want to get into some dumb argument. I can't see the point of living if we didn't have a soul. In the end, according to science, it's all just going to change back into energy and become another universe. But I do think that we have souls, therefore I live to love. I wish I could find a way to get people to see this, but I'm not very well educated in that sort of thing.

[POMC S117]

Well, I won't agree with you, nor will I disagree with you.

I'm Catholic, by the way.

[dkjestrup]

Why do we need to have a soul? To imply that we have a soul doesn't make much sense, as we have literally no evidence to suggest such thing as a soul exists. The burden of proof would be to prove that it exists. Why would science need to be able to explain something that as far as we can tell, doesn't exist?

I'm sorry? To tell you the truth, I can't find much sense if we don't have a soul. If we don't have a soul then how can we love, how can we put someone before ourself. If we didn't have a soul and we were just living to continue our species or our genes, then why would anyone ever sacrifice their needs for somebody else's?

Have we got any evidence that a soul exists? No. Does making an assumption that a soul exists allow us to explain things that were unexplainable without the assumption? No. So why must one exist? It is quite depressing really, that our consciousnesses are simply a product of electrical signals within our brains, but until proven otherwise, that's the truth.

As for the point of living? I firmly believe that there is only one point of living: to have fun, but not at the expense of others. Also, to reproduce, as then you give another generation the chance to partake in the fluke of life. There are an infinite number of possible people that could've existed, but we are one of the lucky, miniscule number that do, so we should make the most of it.