I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Both are faulty but science changes it's faults and it's constantly improving whereas religion doen't correct itself, advance or evolve. It is what it is...no questions or new ways of living/believing are accepted. One learns and one stays stuck in the same thought.
I would disagree, Christianity has morped over the centuries. Not the book, but the intepretations. Here is a concept, the religion is not flawed but rather people are. That will go a long ways in understanding. If the intent of the Bible was God reaching down to man, then maybe you can understand the actual faultiness of the faith is because of mans inability to live up to the faith, not God's lack of ability to understand man.
Just a thought.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
I would disagree, Christianity has morped over the centuries. Not the book, but the intepretations. Here is a concept, the religion is not flawed but rather people are. That will go a long ways in understanding. If the intent of the Bible was God reaching down to man, then maybe you can understand the actual faultiness of the faith is because of mans inability to live up to the faith, not God's lack of ability to understand man.
Just a thought.
IMO, religion changes only because it exists within the boundaries of science.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I would disagree, Christianity has morped over the centuries. Not the book, but the intepretations. Here is a concept, the religion is not flawed but rather people are. That will go a long ways in understanding. If the intent of the Bible was God reaching down to man, then maybe you can understand the actual faultiness of the faith is because of mans inability to live up to the faith, not God's lack of ability to understand man.
Just a thought.
Whatever god wants or means is tainted as soon as it is received and filtered by man then reproduced. So no religion is ever going to be held up to any kind of tests or studies. There can be no logic applied, the idea of religion is a flawed idea. Man came up with god after all, there is no proof we can speak of witnessed by our senses, so god is a idea stemming from faulty humans based on faith and nothing else. How can you continually express how humans are so imperfect and flawed but at the same time have such faith in these words and rules they claim to have received from an invisable being they heard in their head? People that claim such things now are called insane and their group of followers are called cults.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
IMO, religion changes only because it exists within the boundaries of science.
When Catholics altered their views of the Jews it had little to do with science, but rather a better understanding of humanity through God's eyes (ie, the Bible).
Anytime a person or organized religion screws up, you can usually count on them not living up to the faith or misusing it for selfish and corrupted reasons, rather than correctly representing it. I am speaking of Christianity because that is what I am most familiar with, but you could probably say the same regarding fanatical Muslims of today.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
When Catholics altered their views of the Jews it had little to do with science, but rather a better understanding of humanity through God's eyes (ie, the Bible).
Anytime a person or organized religion screws up, you can usually count on them not living up to the faith or misusing it for selfish and corrupted reasons, rather than correctly representing it. I am speaking of Christianity because that is what I am most familiar with, but you could probably say the same regarding fanatical Muslims of today.
I don't know, I don't really care. The bible isn't literal, it's not fictional, it's incomprehensible and that makes it bullshit to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
When Catholics altered their views of the Jews it had little to do with science, but rather a better understanding of humanity through God's eyes (ie, the Bible).
Anytime a person or organized religion screws up, you can usually count on them not living up to the faith or misusing it for selfish and corrupted reasons, rather than correctly representing it. I am speaking of Christianity because that is what I am most familiar with, but you could probably say the same regarding fanatical Muslims of today.
I don't know, I don't really care. The bible isn't literal, it's not fictional, it's incomprehensible and that makes it bullshit to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Whatever god wants or means is tainted as soon as it is received and filtered by man then reproduced. So no religion is ever going to be held up to any kind of tests or studies. There can be no logic applied, the idea of religion is a flawed idea. Man came up with god after all, there is no proof we can speak of witnessed by our senses, so god is a idea stemming from faulty humans based on faith and nothing else. How can you continually express how humans are so imperfect and flawed but at the same time have such faith in these words and rules they claim to have received from an invisable being they heard in their head? People that claim such things now are called insane and their group of followers are called cults.
If you are convinced there is no god, then of course you think it is just man's religion and then you get the idea the religion was created to be misused.
My point is, your intepretation of religion has nowhere else to go but as you have concluded. Very LOGICAL I would say for you conclude this.
But, if you can entertain that there is a god, then the questions arise. Is the faith wrong or the people who practice it? And are all people wrong who practice it? You would have to LOGICALLY conclude that some people got it right and some got it wrong, but you couldn't say that it was the religion's fault for the failures of the people.
After you got through that, you would be left to a question of which religion is of God....but that is another thread I think
It is easier to just say 'no god' cause what follows if you say there is a god gets pretty involved.
I suggest everyone should explore the idea cause it is the same reflection that leads to other philisophical discussions about life and purpose and morality and love, and how to live in peace. All very good things to think about.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
In Hinduism, the cow is considered sacred and its protection is a recurrent theme in which she is symbolic of abundance, of the sanctity of all life and of the earth that gives much while asking nothing in return. Most Hindus respect the cow as a matriarchal figure for her gentle qualities and providing nurturing milk and its products for a largely vegetarian diet. Hindus do not worship the cow, yet it holds an honoured place in society and most will not eat beef in general.
Man, there you go, you can't please everyone. It would suck to be Hindu and see half the world eating cows all the time.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If you are convinced there is no god, then of course you think it is just man's religion and then you get the idea the religion was created to be misused.
My point is, your intepretation of religion has nowhere else to go but as you have concluded. Very LOGICAL I would say for you conclude this.
But, if you can entertain that there is a god, then the questions arise. Is the faith wrong or the people who practice it? And are all people wrong who practice it? You would have to LOGICALLY conclude that some people got it right and some got it wrong, but you couldn't say that it was the religion's fault for the failures of the people.
After you got through that, you would be left to a question of which religion is of God....but that is another thread I think
It is easier to just say 'no god' cause what follows if you say there is a god gets pretty involved.
I suggest everyone should explore the idea cause it is the same reflection that leads to other philisophical discussions about life and purpose and morality and love, and how to live in peace. All very good things to think about.
It is easier to say there are no reptilians living in the center of the earth bc what follows gets pretty involved....yeah, I just don't think so, complicated or not.
You can explore all those things you mentioned with or without religion.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The worship of the Sacred Bull throughout the ancient world is most familiar to the Western world in the episode of the idol of the Golden Calf made by Aaron and worshipped by the Hebrews in the wilderness of Sinai (Exodus). But far to the east, Shiva's holy steed (called vahana in Sanskrit) is Nandi, the Bull.
The list goes on and on, you can't do anything without stepping on someone's beliefs. So I guess we all just have to accept offense.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sacred texts of various religions: Ásatrú
The Poetic Edda, including especially the Hávamál
The Younger Edda
Bahá'í Faith
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
Kitáb-i-Íqán
and many other writings including ones from other faiths
Buddhism
The Tipitaka or Pali canon
and other Buddhist texts
Christianity
The Bible (also referred to as the Holy Writ), and
in Mormonism:
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrine and Covenants
in Spiritism:
The Spirits Book
The Book of Mediums
The Gospel According to Spiritism
Heaven and Hell
The Genesis According to Spiritism
Discordianism
The Principia Discordia, although this may not be true for every sect.
The Apocrypha Discordia, although this may not be true for every sect.
There are many other holy texts within Eristic cabals, as pretty much anyone can canonize things.
Etruscan religion
Pyrgi Tablets
Tabula Cortonensis
Liber Linteus
Cippus Perusinus
Falun Gong
The Zhuan Falun
Hinduism
The Bhagvad Gita is Lord Krishna's counsel to Arjuna on the battlefield of the Kurukshetra.Śruti
Vedas
Rig Veda
Sama Veda
Yajur Veda
Atharva Veda
Brahmanas
Aranyakas
Upanishads
Smriti
Itihāsas
Mahābhārata
Bhagavad Gītā
Ramayana
Puranas (List)
Tantras
Sutras (List)
Stotras
Ashtavakra Gita
Gherand Samhita
Gita Govinda
Hatha Yoga Pradipika
Islam
The Qur'an (the holy book of Islam)
Ahadith (sayings and doings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad)
These Holy Sciptures are considered other books sent by God to mankind, but were either lost or corrupted.
Suhuf-i-Ibrahim (The Scrolls of Abraham)
The Tawrat (The Torah of Moses)
The Zabur (The Psalms of David)
The Injil (The Gospel of Jesus)
Jainism
Tattvartha Sutra
Judaism
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
Torah
Nevi'im
Ketuvim
Mandaeanism
The Ginza Rba
Manichaeism
The Arzhang
New Age religions
Various New Age religions may regard any of the following texts as inspired:
Course in Miracles
Conversations with God
Oahspe
The Urantia Book
Rastafari movement
The Bible
the Holy Piby
the Kebra Negast
The speeches of Haile Selassie I
Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy
Samaritanism
The Samaritan Pentateuch
Satanism
The Satanic Bible
The Satanic Rituals
The Satanic Witch
The Devil's Notebook
Sikhism
The Guru Granth Sahib
The Dasam Granth Sahib
SubGenius
The Book of the SubGenius
Swedenborgianism
The Bible
The writings of Emanuel Swedenborg
Some also consider a number of posthumously published manuscripts of Swedenborg to also be sacred.
Taoism
The Tao-te-ching
The I Ching
The Chuang Tzu
Thelema
The Holy Books of Thelema especially Liber Al vel Legis
Unification Church
Divine Principle
Wolli Hesul (Explanation of the Divine Principle)
Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle)
Zoroastrianism
The Katha (The Gathas of Zarathushtra)
Primary:
The Avesta collection of texts:
The Yasna, the primary liturgical collection, includes the Gathas.
The Visparad, a collection of supplements to the Yasna.
The Yashts, hymns in honor of the divinities.
The Vendidad, describes the various forms of evil spirits and ways to confound them.
shorter texts and prayers, the five Nyaishes ("worship, praise"), the Sirozeh and the Afringans (blessings).
Secondary:
The Dēnkard (middle Persian, 'Acts of Religion'),
The Bundahishn, (middle Persian, 'Original Creation')
The Mainog-i-Khirad (middle Persian, 'Spirit of Wisdom')
The Arda Viraf Namak (middle Persian, 'The Book of Arda Viraf')
The Zartushtnamah (modern Persian, 'Book of Zoroaster')
The Sad-dar (modern Persian, 'Hundred Doors', or 'Hundred Chapters')
The Rivayats (modern Persian, traditional treatises).
For general use by the laity:
The Zend (lit. commentaries), various commentaries on and translations of the Avesta.
The Khordeh Avesta, a collection of everyday prayers from the Avesta.
Boy that's a lot of sacred texts. I asked my friend about this and he said "In the bible it says there will be 1000 religions and only one will be right." I'm guess that's his. lol.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It is easier to say there are no reptilians living in the center of the earth bc what follows gets pretty involved....yeah, I just don't think so, complicated or not.
You can explore all those things you mentioned with or without religion.
There is no debate on reptillians - that is fact and yeah it is involved.
So, at least you know where you stand, but so do I.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
If one religion can be wrong, then they all can be wrong. They all can't be right.
Ancient fairy tales.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't recall saying anything about the Bible being right or any other religion wrong. I thought this was just a conversation about religion shouldn't be tossed out because it isn't logically, or something like that. I say religion is important and that science can be wrong as well, and religion has also changed over time. And primarily I said that we shouldn't just look at the PEOPLE who practice religion but look at the actual religion before we judge. That's all, Been fun and gotta go.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
I don't recall saying anything about the Bible being right or any other religion wrong. I thought this was just a conversation about religion shouldn't be tossed out because it isn't logically, or something like that. I say religion is important and that science can be wrong as well, and religion has also changed over time. And primarily I said that we shouldn't just look at the PEOPLE who practice religion but look at the actual religion before we judge. That's all, Been fun and gotta go.
No, no. There are major differences between religion and science. They aren't even comparable. I think this is where people go wrong.
The foundation of science is that it is correct. See, with science we start with evidence and postulate a theory around that evidence, then we test it repeatedly, endlessly and if it is ever proven wrong we go back and postulate another theory and do the same and it's always open for debate.
Religion is based on a theory with literally no substantial or empiracle evidence. All religion is, is a theory and not a scientific one. It is very closed for debate and there is never any new evidence.
Science is a study of reality, religion is a theory of unreality. In other words, science is the study of the natural and religion is the study of the supernatural, meaning not existing within this reality.
Two completely different things that don't go together and don't necissarily negate each other. I am using religion to negate religion. If we can say there are 1000 religions in the world, then we must assume they are not all right, they can't all be right, so that means 999 of those, at least, are wrong. Logically thinking, if we have 999 ancient fairy tales with millions of followers, why could we not have 1000 ancient fairy tales with billions of followers?
Do you understand what I am getting at? If santa claus doesn't exist, then we can look at the easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc.. as if they don't exist either. Mainly because we have no proof of their existance.
Logically speaking, no proof of something existance within the natural world implies it doesn't exist. It doesn't prove it doesn't exist scientifically, because the claimed god doesn't exist with the natural world. But it does strongly imply that no gods exist.
All the logical arguements for god are severly flawed in that they are based on theory and not evidence. If the bible is the only evidence then we must consider the other sacred texts as evidence of the other religions, and since there can be only one creator of all things, or one omnipotent being, then logically they are all false, because they all provide circumstantial evidence that conflicts with each other.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
All the logical arguements for god are severly flawed in that they are based on theory and not evidence. If the bible is the only evidence then we must consider the other sacred texts as evidence of the other religions, and since there can be only one creator of all things, or one omnipotent being, then logically they are all false, because they all provide circumstantial evidence that conflicts with each other.
When I think of a "logical argument," I think more along the lines of a philosophical argument. Is that what you refer to when you say "logical argument"?
If so, a logical argument is not "severly flawed" because lack of evidence. Take for example Anselm's ontological argument. It is not based on theory, and evidence has nothing to do with it, but it is still a valid argument that has stood up well to scrutiny (although there are some objections to it, but they have nothing to do with "evidence").
Now a creationist's argument against evolution would be flawed due to lack of evidence, because I see it as a totally different type of argument than a logical argument.
As far as the second point you made, it does not follow that since all the evidence provided by the religions (whatever that may be) conflict with each other, they ALL must be wrong. Two things can condradict, but that certainly does not make them both wrong; one can still be right.
When I think of a "logical argument," I think more along the lines of a philosophical argument. Is that what you refer to when you say "logical argument"?
If so, a logical argument is not "severly flawed" because lack of evidence. Take for example Anselm's ontological argument. It is not based on theory, and evidence has nothing to do with it, but it is still a valid argument that has stood up well to scrutiny (although there are some objections to it, but they have nothing to do with "evidence").
Now a creationist's argument against evolution would be flawed due to lack of evidence, because I see it as a totally different type of argument than a logical argument.
As far as the second point you made, it does not follow that since all the evidence provided by the religions (whatever that may be) conflict with each other, they ALL must be wrong. Two things can condradict, but that certainly does not make them both wrong; one can still be right.
I'm not saying that ALL are absolutely wrong. I tried to make this clear.
Logically speaking if 999/1000 are wrong and are based on the same kind of circumstantial evidence and philosophy, then they may all be wrong.
It's my personal opinion that if 999/1000 can be proven to be wrong then they all are logically wrong.
The same way the Evolution Theory is 99.999~% proven fact, we can logically assume that it is fact. The only reason it isn't 100% fact is because it's scientific theory and can never be 100% in that frame of thought.
Religion in it's frame of thought can never be proven to be 100% false, but it can be proven to be 99.999~% illogical. Which I think I've tried to do quite reasonably.
So, faith requires you to believe in that 0.000000000001% likelyhood that your particular god does exist. While evolution requires you to believe that 99.999~% likelyhood that it is correct.
Does that more sense?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
...
Well, right off the bat, I think we need to qualify 'GOOD' as a relative term, not an absolute. A good soldier is one who effectively kills in order to preserve members who wear the same uniform. Killing is not defined as good or evil in this situation.
As for a moral imperative as solid evidence... it may be in your realm, but not in the rest of us. Truth, in this case, is also relative... not absolute. Just because you believe it to be true, does not mean it exists. Many young children truely believe in Santa Claus... that is their relative truth. But, it is not the absolute truth. I see religion in the same light. Stories told to us becomes our truths. We have no means to prove or disprove and all we are left with is our faith.
And as for seeing God as the only truth... I can't see electricity, but I know it exists. Same goes for air... even though we cannot see them, we know they exist. God is not so simple. I think we have created Him to answer those questions that have no answers and to comfort us from the absolute truth that we all experience our own birth, life and death... alone. I think Man's religions started off well meaning, but being of Man's creation, religion is made up of Man's flaw... fear, greed, hate.
I think the world might be better off if we never created religion in the first place. Does anyone believe that God is so petty as to create something whose meaning is the worrship of Him... the creator? Yet... that is what religion teaches us. The term, 'God Fearing' is made up by religion... God loves us... why do we FEAR Him? I don't. Maybe if we just teach our kids to love people and to see us as curators of our common planet... that our time here is relatively short and we should not waste our time on hate and fear... then, maybe God would show Himself to us and we wouldn't have to try to use twisted logic to prove He exists.
Now you are, like many others, bending your own words. You asked about people who do not believe in God, yet do good things. I offered my own response, which i know many people will not agree with, and thats totally cool. Now you come back with "good is relative". You basically suggest, if i'm following you, that there are is absolutely nothing that is universally accepted as wrong. There is absolutely nothing that is universally accepted as right. Your soldier example doesn't work. Most people would acknowledge that killing, in the street, for no particular reason, and a soldier at war performing his job in a war situation, are entirely different things. Not to be compared. Furthermore, those who do not acknowledge this difference, will tell you that the soldier is, in fact wrong. Those who tell you the soldier is justified, do not see what he is doing as actually killing. Do you see my point? You would compare outright murder with, what many (not necessarily myself) would simply consider a soldier doing an un fortunate, yet necessary job. You use that comparison to make an implied claim that murder is not universally accepted, by sane individuals, as wrong! It doesn't work. You would also imply that certain things like physical donations to the poor and starving, volunteering in adult literacy programs, helping old, crippled, women across the street, being a hugger at the special olympics, etc... , would not be universally accepted as good?! There is absolutely, under no circumstance, any such thing as good, bad, right, or wrong. Only perspective! Others here would argue that Good, bad, right, and wrong, may exist, but only happen due to evolutionary accident! We happily smile at handicapped children only to ensure our survival as a species, and only out of instinctual evolutionary coercion! You compare a small child's magical, childhood belief in Santa Claus to an intelligent, rational, experienced adult's belief in some certain universal rights and wrongs! This thread has gotten scary. Absolutely terrifying! If what you, and others, suggest, is true, i have absolutely no hope for our species. Absolutely none.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
We happily smile at handicapped children only to ensure our survival as a species, and only out of instinctual evolutionary coercion!
Smiling at handicapped children is something entirely different than arguing why someone helps those in need survive instead of only worrying about one's own survival. The smile isn't helping the child survive, caring for the child would be helping it survive.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The smile isn't helping the child survive, caring for the child would be helping it survive.
Even though by doing so we would actually be hurting the species chances of survival by allowing the weak links to survive. Hmm.
I guess you're right though. Love probably has absolutely nothing to do with it. Love doesn't truly exist.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Even though by doing so we would actually be hurting the species chances of survival by allowing the weak links to survive. Hmm.
I guess you're right though. Love probably has absolutely nothing to do with it. Love doesn't truly exist.
I believe Love exists as a chemical reaction, based on many empiracle facts. But nothing supernatural.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Even though by doing so we would actually be hurting the species chances of survival by allowing the weak links to survive. Hmm.
I guess you're right though. Love probably has absolutely nothing to do with it. Love doesn't truly exist.
Love doesn't prove god. What about hate? Why would god create hate?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Love doesn't prove god. What about hate? Why would god create hate?
i'll not claim that love does prove God. i've never claimed that i COULD prove God. Thats not the claim i'm making here. It wasn't my point for making the post. i must say, however, i'm a bit confused. Are you conceding that love is real? That people do good because of it? Because, that would seem to contradict your earlier arguments.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i'll not claim that love does prove God. i've never claimed that i COULD prove God. Thats not the claim i'm making here. It wasn't my point for making the post. i must say, however, i'm a bit confused. Are you conceding that love is real? That people do good because of it? Because, that would seem to contradict your earlier arguments.
No, it wouldn't. Love is the byproduct of my earlier arguments. Nature can produce wonderful things, indeed.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, no. There are major differences between religion and science. They aren't even comparable. I think this is where people go wrong.
The foundation of science is that it is correct. See, with science we start with evidence and postulate a theory around that evidence, then we test it repeatedly, endlessly and if it is ever proven wrong we go back and postulate another theory and do the same and it's always open for debate.
Religion is based on a theory with literally no substantial or empiracle evidence. All religion is, is a theory and not a scientific one. It is very closed for debate and there is never any new evidence.
Science is a study of reality, religion is a theory of unreality. In other words, science is the study of the natural and religion is the study of the supernatural, meaning not existing within this reality.
Two completely different things that don't go together and don't necissarily negate each other. I am using religion to negate religion. If we can say there are 1000 religions in the world, then we must assume they are not all right, they can't all be right, so that means 999 of those, at least, are wrong. Logically thinking, if we have 999 ancient fairy tales with millions of followers, why could we not have 1000 ancient fairy tales with billions of followers?
Do you understand what I am getting at? If santa claus doesn't exist, then we can look at the easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc.. as if they don't exist either. Mainly because we have no proof of their existance.
Logically speaking, no proof of something existance within the natural world implies it doesn't exist. It doesn't prove it doesn't exist scientifically, because the claimed god doesn't exist with the natural world. But it does strongly imply that no gods exist.
All the logical arguements for god are severly flawed in that they are based on theory and not evidence. If the bible is the only evidence then we must consider the other sacred texts as evidence of the other religions, and since there can be only one creator of all things, or one omnipotent being, then logically they are all false, because they all provide circumstantial evidence that conflicts with each other.
If you only rely on science then there are lots of truths that you can't prove. You can't prove George Washington was the first President with science. That is historical information. You can't prove Plato existed with science. You can't prove that it is wrong to kill another human being with science.
I understand your reliance on science, but science is a moving train too. And it is not always right for sure. Today's science will be proven in some areas to be faulty 20 to 100 years from now. Sometimes other truths need to be searched out as well.
I dare to say there are many truths that will never be proven by science, that is why I also rely on thought outside of the lab.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
You can't prove George Washington was the first President with science. That is historical information. You can't prove Plato existed with science.
I'd say both of these cases you cite could be proven with science. There is abundant evidence to show that George Washington was the first President. Plato may be harder to pin down.
Comments
lol, can you spell juvenile, childish, inane?
I would disagree, Christianity has morped over the centuries. Not the book, but the intepretations. Here is a concept, the religion is not flawed but rather people are. That will go a long ways in understanding. If the intent of the Bible was God reaching down to man, then maybe you can understand the actual faultiness of the faith is because of mans inability to live up to the faith, not God's lack of ability to understand man.
Just a thought.
IMO, religion changes only because it exists within the boundaries of science.
Whatever god wants or means is tainted as soon as it is received and filtered by man then reproduced. So no religion is ever going to be held up to any kind of tests or studies. There can be no logic applied, the idea of religion is a flawed idea. Man came up with god after all, there is no proof we can speak of witnessed by our senses, so god is a idea stemming from faulty humans based on faith and nothing else. How can you continually express how humans are so imperfect and flawed but at the same time have such faith in these words and rules they claim to have received from an invisable being they heard in their head? People that claim such things now are called insane and their group of followers are called cults.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
When Catholics altered their views of the Jews it had little to do with science, but rather a better understanding of humanity through God's eyes (ie, the Bible).
Anytime a person or organized religion screws up, you can usually count on them not living up to the faith or misusing it for selfish and corrupted reasons, rather than correctly representing it. I am speaking of Christianity because that is what I am most familiar with, but you could probably say the same regarding fanatical Muslims of today.
I don't know, I don't really care. The bible isn't literal, it's not fictional, it's incomprehensible and that makes it bullshit to me.
I don't know, I don't really care. The bible isn't literal, it's not fictional, it's incomprehensible and that makes it bullshit to me.
If you are convinced there is no god, then of course you think it is just man's religion and then you get the idea the religion was created to be misused.
My point is, your intepretation of religion has nowhere else to go but as you have concluded. Very LOGICAL I would say for you conclude this.
But, if you can entertain that there is a god, then the questions arise. Is the faith wrong or the people who practice it? And are all people wrong who practice it? You would have to LOGICALLY conclude that some people got it right and some got it wrong, but you couldn't say that it was the religion's fault for the failures of the people.
After you got through that, you would be left to a question of which religion is of God....but that is another thread I think
It is easier to just say 'no god' cause what follows if you say there is a god gets pretty involved.
I suggest everyone should explore the idea cause it is the same reflection that leads to other philisophical discussions about life and purpose and morality and love, and how to live in peace. All very good things to think about.
Man, there you go, you can't please everyone. It would suck to be Hindu and see half the world eating cows all the time.
It is easier to say there are no reptilians living in the center of the earth bc what follows gets pretty involved....yeah, I just don't think so, complicated or not.
You can explore all those things you mentioned with or without religion.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The list goes on and on, you can't do anything without stepping on someone's beliefs. So I guess we all just have to accept offense.
Let's take a look at some sacred texts.
Sacred texts of various religions:
Ásatrú
The Poetic Edda, including especially the Hávamál
The Younger Edda
Bahá'í Faith
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
Kitáb-i-Íqán
and many other writings including ones from other faiths
Buddhism
The Tipitaka or Pali canon
and other Buddhist texts
Christianity
The Bible (also referred to as the Holy Writ), and
in Mormonism:
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrine and Covenants
in Spiritism:
The Spirits Book
The Book of Mediums
The Gospel According to Spiritism
Heaven and Hell
The Genesis According to Spiritism
Discordianism
The Principia Discordia, although this may not be true for every sect.
The Apocrypha Discordia, although this may not be true for every sect.
There are many other holy texts within Eristic cabals, as pretty much anyone can canonize things.
Etruscan religion
Pyrgi Tablets
Tabula Cortonensis
Liber Linteus
Cippus Perusinus
Falun Gong
The Zhuan Falun
Hinduism
The Bhagvad Gita is Lord Krishna's counsel to Arjuna on the battlefield of the Kurukshetra.Śruti
Vedas
Rig Veda
Sama Veda
Yajur Veda
Atharva Veda
Brahmanas
Aranyakas
Upanishads
Smriti
Itihāsas
Mahābhārata
Bhagavad Gītā
Ramayana
Puranas (List)
Tantras
Sutras (List)
Stotras
Ashtavakra Gita
Gherand Samhita
Gita Govinda
Hatha Yoga Pradipika
Islam
The Qur'an (the holy book of Islam)
Ahadith (sayings and doings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad)
These Holy Sciptures are considered other books sent by God to mankind, but were either lost or corrupted.
Suhuf-i-Ibrahim (The Scrolls of Abraham)
The Tawrat (The Torah of Moses)
The Zabur (The Psalms of David)
The Injil (The Gospel of Jesus)
Jainism
Tattvartha Sutra
Judaism
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
Torah
Nevi'im
Ketuvim
Mandaeanism
The Ginza Rba
Manichaeism
The Arzhang
New Age religions
Various New Age religions may regard any of the following texts as inspired:
Course in Miracles
Conversations with God
Oahspe
The Urantia Book
Rastafari movement
The Bible
the Holy Piby
the Kebra Negast
The speeches of Haile Selassie I
Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy
Samaritanism
The Samaritan Pentateuch
Satanism
The Satanic Bible
The Satanic Rituals
The Satanic Witch
The Devil's Notebook
Sikhism
The Guru Granth Sahib
The Dasam Granth Sahib
SubGenius
The Book of the SubGenius
Swedenborgianism
The Bible
The writings of Emanuel Swedenborg
Some also consider a number of posthumously published manuscripts of Swedenborg to also be sacred.
Taoism
The Tao-te-ching
The I Ching
The Chuang Tzu
Thelema
The Holy Books of Thelema especially Liber Al vel Legis
Unification Church
Divine Principle
Wolli Hesul (Explanation of the Divine Principle)
Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle)
Zoroastrianism
The Katha (The Gathas of Zarathushtra)
Primary:
The Avesta collection of texts:
The Yasna, the primary liturgical collection, includes the Gathas.
The Visparad, a collection of supplements to the Yasna.
The Yashts, hymns in honor of the divinities.
The Vendidad, describes the various forms of evil spirits and ways to confound them.
shorter texts and prayers, the five Nyaishes ("worship, praise"), the Sirozeh and the Afringans (blessings).
Secondary:
The Dēnkard (middle Persian, 'Acts of Religion'),
The Bundahishn, (middle Persian, 'Original Creation')
The Mainog-i-Khirad (middle Persian, 'Spirit of Wisdom')
The Arda Viraf Namak (middle Persian, 'The Book of Arda Viraf')
The Zartushtnamah (modern Persian, 'Book of Zoroaster')
The Sad-dar (modern Persian, 'Hundred Doors', or 'Hundred Chapters')
The Rivayats (modern Persian, traditional treatises).
For general use by the laity:
The Zend (lit. commentaries), various commentaries on and translations of the Avesta.
The Khordeh Avesta, a collection of everyday prayers from the Avesta.
Boy that's a lot of sacred texts. I asked my friend about this and he said "In the bible it says there will be 1000 religions and only one will be right." I'm guess that's his. lol.
There is no debate on reptillians - that is fact
So, at least you know where you stand, but so do I.
Ancient fairy tales.
I don't recall saying anything about the Bible being right or any other religion wrong. I thought this was just a conversation about religion shouldn't be tossed out because it isn't logically, or something like that. I say religion is important and that science can be wrong as well, and religion has also changed over time. And primarily I said that we shouldn't just look at the PEOPLE who practice religion but look at the actual religion before we judge. That's all, Been fun and gotta go.
Which is cool. I'm always up for a discussion, though. Different perspectives keep it interesting and these talks can go on for hours.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, no. There are major differences between religion and science. They aren't even comparable. I think this is where people go wrong.
The foundation of science is that it is correct. See, with science we start with evidence and postulate a theory around that evidence, then we test it repeatedly, endlessly and if it is ever proven wrong we go back and postulate another theory and do the same and it's always open for debate.
Religion is based on a theory with literally no substantial or empiracle evidence. All religion is, is a theory and not a scientific one. It is very closed for debate and there is never any new evidence.
Science is a study of reality, religion is a theory of unreality. In other words, science is the study of the natural and religion is the study of the supernatural, meaning not existing within this reality.
Two completely different things that don't go together and don't necissarily negate each other. I am using religion to negate religion. If we can say there are 1000 religions in the world, then we must assume they are not all right, they can't all be right, so that means 999 of those, at least, are wrong. Logically thinking, if we have 999 ancient fairy tales with millions of followers, why could we not have 1000 ancient fairy tales with billions of followers?
Do you understand what I am getting at? If santa claus doesn't exist, then we can look at the easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc.. as if they don't exist either. Mainly because we have no proof of their existance.
Logically speaking, no proof of something existance within the natural world implies it doesn't exist. It doesn't prove it doesn't exist scientifically, because the claimed god doesn't exist with the natural world. But it does strongly imply that no gods exist.
All the logical arguements for god are severly flawed in that they are based on theory and not evidence. If the bible is the only evidence then we must consider the other sacred texts as evidence of the other religions, and since there can be only one creator of all things, or one omnipotent being, then logically they are all false, because they all provide circumstantial evidence that conflicts with each other.
When I think of a "logical argument," I think more along the lines of a philosophical argument. Is that what you refer to when you say "logical argument"?
If so, a logical argument is not "severly flawed" because lack of evidence. Take for example Anselm's ontological argument. It is not based on theory, and evidence has nothing to do with it, but it is still a valid argument that has stood up well to scrutiny (although there are some objections to it, but they have nothing to do with "evidence").
Now a creationist's argument against evolution would be flawed due to lack of evidence, because I see it as a totally different type of argument than a logical argument.
As far as the second point you made, it does not follow that since all the evidence provided by the religions (whatever that may be) conflict with each other, they ALL must be wrong. Two things can condradict, but that certainly does not make them both wrong; one can still be right.
i was originallllllly kidding around
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
I'm not saying that ALL are absolutely wrong. I tried to make this clear.
Logically speaking if 999/1000 are wrong and are based on the same kind of circumstantial evidence and philosophy, then they may all be wrong.
It's my personal opinion that if 999/1000 can be proven to be wrong then they all are logically wrong.
The same way the Evolution Theory is 99.999~% proven fact, we can logically assume that it is fact. The only reason it isn't 100% fact is because it's scientific theory and can never be 100% in that frame of thought.
Religion in it's frame of thought can never be proven to be 100% false, but it can be proven to be 99.999~% illogical. Which I think I've tried to do quite reasonably.
So, faith requires you to believe in that 0.000000000001% likelyhood that your particular god does exist. While evolution requires you to believe that 99.999~% likelyhood that it is correct.
Does that more sense?
Now you are, like many others, bending your own words. You asked about people who do not believe in God, yet do good things. I offered my own response, which i know many people will not agree with, and thats totally cool. Now you come back with "good is relative". You basically suggest, if i'm following you, that there are is absolutely nothing that is universally accepted as wrong. There is absolutely nothing that is universally accepted as right. Your soldier example doesn't work. Most people would acknowledge that killing, in the street, for no particular reason, and a soldier at war performing his job in a war situation, are entirely different things. Not to be compared. Furthermore, those who do not acknowledge this difference, will tell you that the soldier is, in fact wrong. Those who tell you the soldier is justified, do not see what he is doing as actually killing. Do you see my point? You would compare outright murder with, what many (not necessarily myself) would simply consider a soldier doing an un fortunate, yet necessary job. You use that comparison to make an implied claim that murder is not universally accepted, by sane individuals, as wrong! It doesn't work. You would also imply that certain things like physical donations to the poor and starving, volunteering in adult literacy programs, helping old, crippled, women across the street, being a hugger at the special olympics, etc... , would not be universally accepted as good?! There is absolutely, under no circumstance, any such thing as good, bad, right, or wrong. Only perspective! Others here would argue that Good, bad, right, and wrong, may exist, but only happen due to evolutionary accident! We happily smile at handicapped children only to ensure our survival as a species, and only out of instinctual evolutionary coercion! You compare a small child's magical, childhood belief in Santa Claus to an intelligent, rational, experienced adult's belief in some certain universal rights and wrongs! This thread has gotten scary. Absolutely terrifying! If what you, and others, suggest, is true, i have absolutely no hope for our species. Absolutely none.
Smiling at handicapped children is something entirely different than arguing why someone helps those in need survive instead of only worrying about one's own survival. The smile isn't helping the child survive, caring for the child would be helping it survive.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Even though by doing so we would actually be hurting the species chances of survival by allowing the weak links to survive. Hmm.
I guess you're right though. Love probably has absolutely nothing to do with it. Love doesn't truly exist.
I believe Love exists as a chemical reaction, based on many empiracle facts. But nothing supernatural.
Love doesn't prove god. What about hate? Why would god create hate?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i'll not claim that love does prove God. i've never claimed that i COULD prove God. Thats not the claim i'm making here. It wasn't my point for making the post. i must say, however, i'm a bit confused. Are you conceding that love is real? That people do good because of it? Because, that would seem to contradict your earlier arguments.
psalm 97:10
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
No, it wouldn't. Love is the byproduct of my earlier arguments. Nature can produce wonderful things, indeed.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If you only rely on science then there are lots of truths that you can't prove. You can't prove George Washington was the first President with science. That is historical information. You can't prove Plato existed with science. You can't prove that it is wrong to kill another human being with science.
I understand your reliance on science, but science is a moving train too. And it is not always right for sure. Today's science will be proven in some areas to be faulty 20 to 100 years from now. Sometimes other truths need to be searched out as well.
I dare to say there are many truths that will never be proven by science, that is why I also rely on thought outside of the lab.
I'd say both of these cases you cite could be proven with science. There is abundant evidence to show that George Washington was the first President. Plato may be harder to pin down.