Religulous
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- neowe0
who let gramme out of his cage?
- I helped
:)mikotondria3 - me too a few...Miesfan
- hi five !!111!1!!1mikotondria3
- I helped
- gramme0
"You 'have faith' that there exist things that leave no mark or their existence on the world, yet are continuous in their potential to affect the real world.. This is somewhat of a word game - existence can and in everday usage is, defined as something having qualities or affecting such that can be perceived.."
I didn't say that God's existence, or the rest of the spiritual realm, leaves no mark on the world. By tangible, I'll go with the Oxford definition of "perceptible by touch" and add sight, sound, or smell to the equation. God cannot be touched, seen, heard, or smelt. The effects of his existence can be seen, but faith is required to believe such an idea. He did come to earth in human form (Fact: Jesus lived. Faith: He is who he claimed to be, i.e. the Son of God, deity incarnate.). He remains in spirit (i.e., the Holy Spirit, or third person of the Trinity), but Jesus the man is in heaven. (I realize there are several faith-based statements there, but bear with me).
Whether I wish to find evidence of God in this world or not is somewhat irrelevant: He reveals himself at his discretion.
My original statement, again, was not regarding whether God exists or not. Of course I believe that, as anyone whose been snooping around here longer than six months knows. My point, yet again, was that one can make faith-based statements about God's Existence, and maintain perfect harmony with logic. That was the only point I set out to make, but of course you lulled me into making others along the way. ;)
"I say, both that your citing of these effects reduces your 'faith' to a hypothesis, basing it upon this 'evidence', and also that this hypothesis is unproven, given that the true causes for all the evidence shown by religious people of their gods' existence and actions in the world are, one by one, shown to have a scientific, logical basis."
My faith has been forged by direct and secondary experience of the divine, and tested by logic. It can hardly be called a hypothesis, because it involves experiences, vividly real ones, which I can't prove to you using any sort of scientific construct. Not that logic is an ultimate filter, mind you; I've been saying all along that human logic is too limited to be trusted with major conclusions about Life, Happiness, and Everything.
It is true that many things once considered mystical have indeed been found to belong firmly in the physical. From my perspective this is a good thing; it pares away the unnecessary metaphysical chaff that people have assigned to various faiths over the millennia. But I have yet to see the fundamental "true causes" behind Christianity (or any other monotheistic religion) uncovered by science or logic. The things which have been "uncovered" have been myths like the Shroud of Turin, or the figure of Mary in central America that weeps blood, etc. What I think you may be referring to are religious superstitions which have been shown, via scientific investigation, to be farcical.
- oh
my
fucking
godneowe - There's a god for that?gramme
- are you new, neowe ? We always do this, at great length every few months... : P We like it.mikotondria3
- It's in his name. He's neo-plural. Post-singular.gramme
- i don't even know where to start with thisscarabin
- oh
- scarabin0
"There's definitely a danger that if we internalise our 'gods', we become far too self-absorbed and inward looking."
please explain as this seems completely baseless.
"Being able to conceptualise that there's something more powerful that exists externally is probably a really healthy thing. "
imagination is healthy, yes. projecting something you don't understand into an external being that you can talk to is called crazy.
- lukus_W0
Re. the book I posted above;
It ties a lot of religious writing together .. and shows the similarities between the individual journeys that a lot of mythical and religious figures supposed took.
Myths, legends and religious texts all seem to come from a common (shared) place - and basically, the author argues that there's a psychological necessity that's inherent in humankind to understand life through myth and story.
I don't think this necessarily means that because these stories are factually untrue, they're irrelevant. I think it shows that they're vitally important, because they provide a way to understand the human condition.
I think religion should have a place in society, but I don't think I could ever agree that religious dogma is a good thing.
There's definitely a danger that if we internalise our 'gods', we become far too self-absorbed and inward looking. Being able to conceptualise that there's something more powerful that exists externally is probably a really healthy thing.
- jetSkii0
The simple goal of a God was to explain that which we do not understand and know yet.
- sikma0
there are only two things in life, fact and belief
and if there is a god wouldn't he want you too find out the facts, instead of believing?
- So God needs to fit your (or my) criteria?gramme
- "fact" is not a criteria. they exist without the need of human to interpretation.sikma
- You are still, however, assigning purpose to a god whose purposes might be beyond our full comprehension.gramme
- We can partially comprehend, which is fine. The clay doesn't ask the potter why it was made just so.gramme
- lukus_W0
This is an interesting book.
- mikotondria30
@gramme
It utterly depends on what you mean by tangible in your response.
You 'have faith' that there exist things that leave no mark or their existence on the world, yet are continuous in their potential to affect the real world.. This is somewhat of a word game - existence can and in everday usage is, defined as something having qualities or affecting such that can be perceived..
Your claim that your religious ideas or principles are true (ie, that there is an object, imperceptible and immeasurable called god that created the universe, hears your thoughts and sees your actions, and intervenes in the world at hir discretion) is a statement about Existence. If your god did not intervene in the world you would not know of him - just because we cannot perceive him now, you say, there IS evidence of his existence all around us, AND in the tales of his intercession in the physical world in the Bible..
I say, both that your citing of these effects reduces your 'faith' to a hypothesis, basing it upon this 'evidence', and also that this hypothesis is unproven, given that the true causes for all the evidence shown by religious people of their gods' existence and actions in the world are, one by one, shown to have a scientific, logical basis.
There's very little left that you can point to and claim that god did it, and therefore he exists and therefore you're going to heaven and we should all stop kissing other men/eating this/thinking that, and it's shrinking all the time.
- jetSkii0
The Jews created the Bible where they shall inherit the entire world. With no copyright protection at the time, everyone just sparked off their own modified version of it to suit their own needs. Thus Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim, etc.. were born. Creating a social network that you were apart of as long as you choose their religion. Everyone else could go fuck themselves and go to hell.
The worse set back in history, where truth in sciences was condemned as witchcraft.
- gramme0
"To affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating." —Ravi Zacharias
- nuggler0
Our time is cursed with a boundless faith in rational thought. This belief in the power of reason is okay for computers, sausages, kleenex, day-to-day facts and objects — but in the bigger picture, it isn't any better than the dogma of our ancestors. Only our arrogance makes us think that it is.
- <
We're still in the death-grip of modernism in that regard.gramme
- <
- Miesfan0
^
- lukus_W0
I was thinking about looking into Quakerism. It seems like a great faith - and something that I'd like to explore.
- gramme0
If you can get past the baroque, creepy music.
- vitamins0
I believe in the possiblity of a God, a spiritual world, and creation. I can also agree that science still have no definite answers, but I can't believe that Jesus was the son of God. I can learn from the lessons of the bible or other religions since it's human based, but more of like a fable.
- That's fine, but you're making a philosophical statement.gramme
- Question, do you believe that people who are good, but don't accept Jesus goes to hell?vitamins
- I think the Catholics believe in a purgatory, but Christians believe they go to hell?vitamins
- Or maybe it's because it was misinterpretted by manvitamins
- I really believe it's unfair for good people to go to hell if they don't accept Jesus, this is my reasoningvitamins
- The only way to receive God's good grace is through his son, not by any deed we can do.gramme
- Our "good" has nothing to do with it; rather, it has everything to do with what God has already done.gramme
- The sum of statements in the Bible regarding how salvation takes place cannot easily be misinterpreted.gramme
- The subject was too thoroughly canvased by Jesus, Paul, Peter, Moses, Abraham, David, et al.gramme
- There is only one way the original Greek statement "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but through me" can be interpreted.gramme
- but through me" can be interpreted.gramme
- And FYI: there is no mention of purgatory in the Bible.gramme
- But you're assuming that any of us can be good enough.gramme
- This really doesn't sound fair. Some people are more influenced depending on their environmentblogger
