Religious stuff n' all. (split from Cheetos topic)

[Stygian]

...

Oh the crazy things that get put on Ebay.     I believe I've heard that someone put their soul up.  Forgot how much it went for...

Me, I'm a bit of an agnostic atheist (if such a thing can exist)...I've been brought up Christian, but I'm not the type to go on crusades against the evil and stuff like that.  Me and my family believe that also as long as nobody pushes religion on other people it's good to have a tolerance of others for their beliefs and their cultures.  I don't want to say I don't believe there's a god...just in case, you know.  But there's also reasonable doubt there.

Also, I think that depending on the region of the world you're in, there's a god or a plethera of them for that region...not just one...the Christian belief of creation is widely known but there are hundreds of other stories like that too.

Well, I adhere to the same agnostic beliefs as you. But I despise and counteract religion in every way I can, so long as I don't have to go out of my way to do it. Why? Because I see in organized religion a distillation of the failures of humanity, and its delusions... And, of course, a viable target to attack to make a point and state that you want to rid yourself of those failures.

[Boog]

Oh, is that all? Well, better than what most of the internet has to say about religion I guess.

[Eibborn]

CHRIST HIMSELF HAS RISEN IN CHEETOS FORM! THE SECOND COMING IS UPON US! REPENT! REPENT!
There is no way that the guy selling that actually thinks that there's anything holy about the cheeto. Honestly, it's pretty weak even as Christ-image hoaxes go.

Well, I adhere to the same agnostic beliefs as you. But I despise and counteract religion in every way I can, so long as I don't have to go out of my way to do it.

Which is the equivalent of what, yelling "FAG" at every gay couple you see on the street? I call that rude.

[Vidar]

<atheist rant on religion warning: ON>

One of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).

When I look up at the night sky, I see a huge number of stars / galaxies / whatever. Some pictures of the Hubble space telescope are filled with some 10.000 galaxies with trillions of stars around which a gazillion planets orbit, some of which may contain life, and even intelligent life.
If there is a being that can create all that, with a 15 billion years of history some x-thousand years ago, anything described in those holy books as "great deeds" and "miracles" would be mere insignificant trifles, and would require no effort at all for this superbeing.
If there is a creator of the universe, then he/she/it would be infinitely more powerful then any god described in any holy book anywhere, ever.

<rant end>

Also, the pope-hat chip lacks a cross.

[King Of Hearts]

That's not a very good beef.

Most Creation Myths already answer that, to create everything ex-nihilo.

[Vidar]

That's not a very good beef.

Most Creation Myths already answer that, to create everything ex-nihilo.

My point is: the universe is far too big to be made by some totalitarian "believe in me or burn in hell/hades/bad place" kind of being that messes about with holy books/scriptures/scrolls/smoke signals.
Also, it's not my only beef, but I'll not go into any of the others.

It's not the create part that bugs me. Creation is a seperate (though related) discussion.
Its just that a creator of something so incredibly vast/beautiful/terrifying/grand as the entire universe (156 billion lightyears wide) would be above messing with holy books /miracles/us.

[Alondro]

Ah, but you neglect the fact that the religious books are written by PEOPLE, who often interject their own points of view.  Most of the Old Testament, for example, is Jewish traditional history, especially the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.  Even Matthew, mark, Luke, and John which all talk about the exact same person in the exact same period of time have differing accounts of numerous events.  And some events in one book aren't in the others. 

As for an infinite being not having any interest in one world, that's a very limited point of view.  You limit this being's mind to one of our own, having only the tiny amount of processing to hold onto a few things at once.  Try to even begin to fathom what it means to be omniscient.  Also, imagine you've made all the worlds with your own hands.  How many humans, who are imperfect, care about even the smallest thing they've made.  How many artists toil over the tiniest details... then fly into a rage if someone leaves a coffee ring on their drawing.   

Trying to comprehend the mind of a god is like trying to be a blind fish that has lived in a cave all its life trying to comprehend an outside world of light and air.  It's like modeling all the suns in the galaxy on our own solar system, something that cosmology has learned it cannot do now that we can glimpse some actual extrasolar systems.

And the concepts of eternal punishment... well, that's a tricky area because Christianity has for too long relied on an interpretation of scripture that tried to meld the Greek belief in eternal torment with some symbolic parables and improperly translated texts, while ignoring contrary texts

[Stygian]

The very fact that the universe appears to be fundamentally quantized, and will therefor come to an end, I believe speaks for the nonexistence of god. Of course, the same principles state that energy cannot be undone, why a "new" universe will form... or the old one just dies in eternal expansion.

In truth, I am more angry with "bubble universe" theorists than with religious ones. The religious you can disregard as either indoctrinated, insecure or plainly reasonless. But people who try and imagine ends and beginning of the universe or some para-dimensional existence, or believe that they can come up with a scientific thesis for reincarnation...

[superluser]

What baffles me is why do people keep hanging on to the image of Jesus as a stereotypical caucasian with long straight hair, moustache and beard.

Have these artists seen Jesus to make a definitive portrait of him? What makes that image more Jesus-ey than a picture of a Black man? or a Chinese? Heck, a Martian?

Well...He would have been a semitic Jew, which means that he would have worn a beard (without rounding his temples) with moustache.  There's certainly an outside chance that He was black (it's also true that He wouldn't have inherited any genes, but it's unlikely that God would have made His race something other than what was common in that area, probably ruling out Celtic or Martian).

One of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).

You need to read more religious books.  The Tao Te Ching doesn't have any miracles, and neither Buddhism nor Hinduism have books (the Bhagavad Gita is not the equivalent of the Bible), and I don't think that Buddhism even has miracles (or a creation myth).

Anyways, I'm still a Catholic, and still happy to be one.

[Vidar]

One of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).

You need to read more religious books.  The Tao Te Ching doesn't have any miracles, and neither Buddhism nor Hinduism have books (the Bhagavad Gita is not the equivalent of the Bible), and I don't think that Buddhism even has miracles (or a creation myth).

Those pesky exceptions just have to rain on my parade, don't they. 

Taoism and Buddhism are non-theistic religions (they have no gods), and are perhaps better categorised as phylosophies.
Also, wikipedia disagrees with you on the no books thing.
Buddhism has the Tipitaka, Hinduism has the Sh&#257;stras, and the Tao Te Ching is the sacred text of Taoism.

[superluser]

Taoism and Buddhism are non-theistic religions (they have no gods), and are perhaps better categorised as phylosophies.

I think some Taoists and Buddhists would agree with you.  I also think that many, many others would disagree with you.

At any rate, the point is that there are religions that don't have miracles or creation stories.  Or gods.  You specifically raised the issue of miracles in ``just about every religion,'' but that's really only the case in the Abrahamic ones.

Also, wikipedia disagrees with you on the no books thing.
Buddhism has the Tipitaka, Hinduism has the Sh&#257;stras, and the Tao Te Ching is the sacred text of Taoism.

I'm no expert on ancient sacred texts, but from what I can see, these books are not like we would view the Tanakh, the Bible, or the Koran.  The Shastras are varied and sundry; if you are in one sect, you will view your Shastra as canon, but not the others.  And the Tipitaka sounds a lot like a catechism or code of canon law.

(I remain a Catholic)

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

(I remain a Catholic)

.. if a surprisingly (sadly) broadly educated one.

Sadly, because it shouldn't be a surprise that we know about our fellow man...

[King Of Hearts]

That's not a very good beef.

Most Creation Myths already answer that, to create everything ex-nihilo.

My point is: the universe is far too big to be made by some totalitarian "believe in me or burn in hell/hades/bad place" kind of being that messes about with holy books/scriptures/scrolls/smoke signals.
Also, it's not my only beef, but I'll not go into any of the others.

It's not the create part that bugs me. Creation is a seperate (though related) discussion.
Its just that a creator of something so incredibly vast/beautiful/terrifying/grand as the entire universe (156 billion lightyears wide) would be above messing with holy books /miracles/us.

Thats the beauty of it.

Philospohicaly speaking the monotheistic Supreme Being is supposed to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent. For God so loved the world... yada yada.

Theres supposed to be nothing above its grasp. Its not that humans are so significant that this supreme being moves out of its way to show us miracles and such, but that this being is so mighty that it does it happens anyway.

[Eibborn]

<atheist rant on religion warning: ON>

Ah, there's the mistake, right there. Vidar, bud, the word 'religion' in a thread should not trigger this. It was off-topic1 and spawned... well, what basically any thread that mentions religion turns eventually turns into. It didn't have to happen here, though.

Now, why doesn't everyone just flip that switch back too 'Off' so we can get back to calling the cheeto-seller (or rather, the cheeto-buyer) a moron?


1 Please note I am absolutely the worst person to be saying this, as earlier on in this very same thread (here: http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php?topic=1746.msg71531#msg71531) I contested Stygian's values regarding religion, which was probably unnecessary although I won't say unprovoked.

[Stygian]

...what? Because I'm a hater I'm suddenly petty? Listen... If it were all for the community, and the belief, and the faithfulness, I too would consider being religious. Unfortunately it isn't. Religious communities often attract the morally "challenged", the insecure, the manipulative and the greedy. I have seen firsthand examples of people making asses of themselved for the sake of religious or political belief. I know. And I can tell you right now that I will not to be likened to some idiotic gaybasher who likes the sound of his own voice. They do meaningless things, and state meaningless opinions.

I disdain religion for how it often attempts to make us lesser by reducing our need of individual strength and security, how it often attempts to make us lesser by taking away our knowledge or reason by replacing them with dogmas and doctrines, and how it often attempts to make us lesser by making us see things with views formed by others or perspectives that do not hold, when we should look upon the world freely and without prejudice or presumptions.

I do as I do and believe as I believe for reasons I have found on my own through careful observation and contemplation. And I act as thoughtfully and consciously, I hope, for my own reasons. And if you believe them to be wrong, fine. But I won't let you disregard me as a ranting pig.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Religion + Internet = Flame

(No, I'm not saying peeps are flaming here.)

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Shall we find a match, then, Haz? :-)

[Vidar]

Religion + Internet = Flame

True.

Although there were no real flames going on here, merely a slightly warmed up exchange of viewpoints.
I don't think there were ever any real flamewars on this board anyway. That's what I like about this place. 

[Alondro]

Stygian, atheism has produced exactly the same thing.  The founder of the largest atheist movement in the US in the 1970's was killed by members of her own family for money. 

The problem isn't religion or the lack thereof.  The problem is that people are naturally selfish, cruel animals with the minds to contemplate and rationalize all the wicked things they do, and come up with even more clever ideas to do more wicked things. 

No matter what the belief system or factual basis of lifestyle, humans will find some way to ruin it. 

Thus, the answer is obvious:  Destroy All Humans.   

[xHaZxMaTx]

Sounds good to me.    Where should we start?

[bill]

Somewhere far away from me. 

[xHaZxMaTx]

We'll get there eventually.  You have no chance to survive make your time.  Ha ha ha ha!

[Stygian]

Stygian, atheism has produced exactly the same thing.  The founder of the largest atheist movement in the US in the 1970's was killed by members of her own family for money. 

The problem isn't religion or the lack thereof.  The problem is that people are naturally selfish, cruel animals with the minds to contemplate and rationalize all the wicked things they do, and come up with even more clever ideas to do more wicked things. 

No matter what the belief system or factual basis of lifestyle, humans will find some way to ruin it. 

Thus, the answer is obvious:  Destroy All Humans.   

Noooo... Charline, what have I told you about butting in and taking Charles' place at the keyboard where you're not supposed to?

The examples you've provided prove only that creating organizations based around some sort of faith or belief (in the atheist case, the faith that religion should be purpousefully destroyed, instead of being withered and corroded and eventually forgotten, as is proper) rather than a rational, calculable and objective agenda, usually results in shit. However much I would have to agree with you that destroying humanity is a lovely thought in some ways, it is just not a viable option if you desire progress. The best course of action I believe is instead to adhere to my own philosophy and method of approach.

Which of course means infecting, corroding and slowly and painfully corrupting and changing all of society from within, and then taking over...

[Alondro]

But why not destroy everything?  In the absence of any possibility of immortality and a sustained universe, we must assume that everything will eventually become a frigid void.  In that case, all life is futile, almost a joke if the universe were capable of playing one (which would indicate the absurd notion that the universe itself had consciousness... but then, that would be 'god', wouldn't it?)   

Let us take it to its logical conclusion.  If science as it stands today is the sole truth, then all laws are pointless and cannot be justified at all.  Humans are merely animals trying desperately to give meaning to themselves when they have none.  It is impossible to go beyond the speed of light, thus interstellar travel is for all practical purposes impossible.  When we die, it's the end of us forever, thus living at all is rather a useless endeavor since everything we do and everything we are is meaningless and futile.  Vanity of vanities... all is vanity.  In that case, we should simply eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all WILL die!  Obey only your impulses, kill those you wish to kill, destroy, maim, obliterate whatever you feel like, because in the world of science only, it doesn't matter.  You and everyone else, the planet too, will eventually cease to exist and all deeds will be forgotten and lost to time.

And since all is futile, we might as well blow ourselves up now and be done with it! 

Any other opinion is delusional in a universe that has no purpose.  Only the strong need survive for as long as they feel like it.  The rest shall be exterminated to give more resources to those who have the willpower to take it.  Mercy and compassion are useless. 

In a world with no life beyond death of any kind, the purely logical, scientific universe, the Nazis, the Stalinists, and every other group that kills the weak for the gain of the elite is perfectly justified, because only the will to do so has any merit.  There is no longer right or wrong, no good or evil, no reason to follow laws at all.  Society exists only as long as the people all decide to follow it, and anyone in that society may decide to defy or destroy that society aand anyone in it at any time they wish and have the power to do so. 

Any other moralistic thought or justification is useless.  It becomes a self-perpetuated illusory sense of meaning that would be just as false as any belief in the divine in a finite universe in which life ends permanently.  The only statement of justification that can be considered logically valid in any form once the ultimate end is added into the equation becomes, "Because I can." 

I have quite thoroughly thought of the consequences of such a universe.  And I find it utterly hopeless.  Therefore, I shall continue to cling to this hope of a God and a new earth in time that will be perfect and I will have a whole universe's worth of worlds to see and all the time I need to explore it.  As C. S. Lewis so clevery said through the character Puddleglum in "The Silver Chair":  "Supposing we have only dreamed up, or made up, all those things... Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones.  Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world.  Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one... I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it.  I'm going to live as a Narnian even if there isn't any Narnia.  Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small price to pay if the world's as dull a place as you say."

I've spent my life studying science.  I know more about genetics, evolution, and astronomy than 99% of the human race.  But I'll continue to live as best I can manage the Christian life of honesty and truth, loving God and respecting my fellow man.  The alternative, in my opinion, is simply not worth living.  And I can't see that I've lost very much in denying the pathetic carnal pleasures that most people indulge themselves in and still never acheive happiness, instead dying in misery from drugs, murder, or disease for those brief moments of dopaminergically-induced ecstacy.

And that about sums up my 25 years of analysis on the subject of the meaning of life.   

[Stygian]

Your summary is indeed an excellent one, dear Charles. Yet you are presuming two things that it is critical that one does not in order to see the world from my perspective. Firstly; If the universe is indeed pointless, as all evidence indicates, then that must mean that all the worlds and its glory exist here for the sole purpouse of existing. The universe is, so that it may be lived. That in itself is a purpouse, and it is one that very much suits the spontaneous and irrational occurrencies and actions of life.
   Secondly you presume that because of this pointlessness of existence, one must immediately fill the gap with whatever answer is best of what is at hand. There is no such need. In fact, just like there is no need for life, there is no need for the regard for life, or for life to regard things either. There is simply existence, and how we interpret it and what we make of it, which are all the same concept, one. And that is why it is perfectly logical to try and find a purpouse or a path, because that is the purpouse and path in itself. That is truly why we strive and work in society; it is not to shuffle matter and energy because we feel like it, but because we fill our existence with it. We remain sane and alive because of it, and even if the universe will come to an end, if we continue to strive this will all mean we will see the very maximum of possibilities that it offers, that we will squeeze every last drop of experience out of our transient lives. Who knows; we might be able to cheat death someday too. We've seen it's possible. Henrietta Lacks died in 1951, yet cells from her body, cells that should have died soon after separation from her, still live on in a laboratory environment, despite what we know to be true of replication and protein deterioration.
   Simply because the universe may prove to be pointless it does not become logical to curl up into a fetal position and ignore the rest of the world. That's very much overacting things. As long as we have our minds, and our knowledge to drive us on towards the goal of power and immortality, we shall continue to have a purpouse, and life.

[Reese Tora]

<atheist rant on religion warning: ON>

One of my beefs with religion in general is the following: just about every religion has some type of holy book, in which various "great deeds" and "miracles" are describe that have been done by one or more deity(s).

When I look up at the night sky, I see a huge number of stars / galaxies / whatever. Some pictures of the Hubble space telescope are filled with some 10.000 galaxies with trillions of stars around which a gazillion planets orbit, some of which may contain life, and even intelligent life.
If there is a being that can create all that, with a 15 billion years of history some x-thousand years ago, anything described in those holy books as "great deeds" and "miracles" would be mere insignificant trifles, and would require no effort at all for this superbeing.
If there is a creator of the universe, then he/she/it would be infinitely more powerful then any god described in any holy book anywhere, ever.

<rant end>

Also, the pope-hat chip lacks a cross.

supposing, just for a moment, that you are a primitave human being with no understanding of anything beyond the small corner of the world you call home.  Which would you find more impressive; some guy coming along, pointing to the sky, and saying "I made that," or some guy coming along and curing your leprosy?

I dare say that only recently (in the last few hundred years) have humans, beyond a few special people, come to the point where they can appreciate something so far from their own daily lives.

Now, myself, I don't care for religeon in any form.  I'm mostly agnosticm.  I see atheism as silly because it requires you to devote energy to believing that something does not exist.

<mini-rant warning>

I find myself believing in god, but not in any organized worship of god, as the people long before the present day go along perfectly well without such things, believing waht they wanted to, and I doubt any loving god would condem them for that... and any god not loving enough for that is not the kind of god I would want to worship.

[superluser]

When we die, it's the end of us forever, thus living at all is rather a useless endeavor since everything we do and everything we are is meaningless and futile.  Vanity of vanities... all is vanity.  In that case, we should simply eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all WILL die!

I've never seen this position (which is pretty much my position) expressed so eloquently.  (You get definite props for quoting Qoheleth)

It's important to note that there's a difference between ethics and morality.    Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong, from the perspective of a few first principles, while morality is the code of what is good and bad, from the perspective of Eternal Truth (whatever you believe that Truth to be).

You can be an atheist and have ethics, but you can't be an atheist and have morality.  Now, an ethical society is still possible in a godless universe, and there are reasons for remaining in society, or a social contract, but it does come down to a sort of behavioral stock exchange.  If enough people opt out of society, the whole thing crashes, since it's all based on the Tinkerbell effect.

There are a lot of reasons why it's unlikely that people would stop believing in society, even to the extent that it's much less likely that society fails than the stock market or fiat currency, but we can see it happen every once in a while.  Somalia would probably be the equivalent of the 1929 crash.

I'd rather believe in God than Tinkerbell.

Switching gears a bit, the concept of life existing for the sake of existing is a rather illogical argument, since it begs the question.  And since it begs the question, it makes me wonder if we can credibly assume that life even exists.  Descartes (``I think, therefore, I am'') may simply have been observing an emergent phenomenon, that that which appears to be life may in fact only appear to be life.

The fact that a bunch of atoms from what is described as a `hand' are striking a keyboard does not imply that I am alive, or that the continuity of consciousness is a real phenomenon.  Rather, consciousness may be a residue that is playing in the universe and is being broadcast as a random consequence of the universe's existence.

On the other hand, if I exist because God put me here, then it's entirely logical that I exist.

Edit: This is what happens when you stay up late reading II Maccabees in an effort to make a Hanukkah story suitable for kids. (I may be a Catholic, but I have read the Bible)

[Stygian]

The fact that a bunch of atoms from what is described as a `hand' are striking a keyboard does not imply that I am alive, or that the continuity of consciousness is a real phenomenon.  Rather, consciousness may be a residue that is playing in the universe and is being broadcast as a random consequence of the universe's existence.

Now you're walking the path. What Descartes started to argue was but the tip of a logical argument that states that "life" as a concept cannot be. There is no soul. There is no magic. There is only the consciousness that forms from the complexity of the materials and energy in transit... This is what religious people seem to refuse to believe; that there is nothing beyond it all. That we are all just another variation of a finite possible number of variations and constellations of mass and energy, and that the fact that we are such is what makes our existence certain, that allows for existence itself to be certain. And that this in itself is so much greater, so much more perfect than any magic or heaven or hell could ever be.

[Cogidubnus]

Now you're walking the path. What Descartes started to argue was but the tip of a logical argument that states that "life" as a concept cannot be. There is no soul. There is no magic. There is only the consciousness that forms from the complexity of the materials and energy in transit... This is what religious people seem to refuse to believe; that there is nothing beyond it all. That we are all just another variation of a finite possible number of variations and constellations of mass and energy, and that the fact that we are such is what makes our existence certain, that allows for existence itself to be certain. And that this in itself is so much greater, so much more perfect than any magic or heaven or hell could ever be.

And, if indeed sir, you are willing to bite all the bullets that come with a nihilistic philosophy, you are entitled to it. I wish you the best - Nietzsche, if I am correct, killed himself at 40. I do not mean to be rude sir! - my point is, that such philosophy, almost without exception, cannot be actively lived.

I will also note that, what most of the people here are complaining about, are the results of bad theology - "Burn sinner burn", is not a acceptable, nor an effective, message to those who do not believe. Rather, by showing through our lives the love that Christ has shown us, a far better path is shown.
  I, of course, cannot speak for other religions.

(EDIT: Upon taking the time to actually read through this thread, I would like to give Alondro a hand.)

[Netami]

Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.