Religion

Talk about current events, entertainment, technology or anything not related to soccer
Post Reply
NewBornProdigy
Admin
Posts: 2695
Joined: 23 May 2008, 19:51

Post

It may seem scientifically illogical, but at least I'm supporting it. 2brown347 seems to have no reasons for believing what he does. If you're just going to trash talk, then shut up
Well its more a fact that we are debating a very stupid topic :D
Any what were you asking me before we approached skin colours?
On some sites it does
Soccerpulse here I come

Nat_H
Veteran Member
Posts: 1559
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 18:03

Post

2brown347 wrote:
Nat_H wrote:It may seem scientifically illogical, but at least I'm supporting it. 2brown347 seems to have no reasons for believing what he does. If you're just going to trash talk, then shut up :?
I believe it because its supported by a little thing called facts.
Where did you learn these facts?
NBP wrote: Well its more a fact that we are debating a very stupid topic
Any what were you asking me before we approached skin colours?
No kidding and I have no clue lol

Hugh
Veteran Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 20:26
Location: Vancouver

Post

Both the Scientific and Biblical model are 100% logical and justifiable.

However, since the Scientific explanation has a large enough body of evidence that the ratio of scientific sources to biblical sources is literally 100% in favour of science if you round after 2 decimal places of accuracy, the only rational course of action is to default to the scientific point of view and hope the christians are right because their after life is much nicer.

INTER1908
Veteran Member
Posts: 917
Joined: 06 Oct 2008, 04:37

Post

I can't believe you guys are talking about intelligent models and the theory of evolution.. Do any of you guys even have college degrees? Let alone degrees in Anthropology.

Just saying, I find it hard to take you guys serious about these things when it is pretty safe to say you all are just googling all your information.
Image
Made by 2Brown.

Nat_H
Veteran Member
Posts: 1559
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 18:03

Post

Yo Hugh if you are out there answer me! I have a challenge for you

Hugh
Veteran Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 20:26
Location: Vancouver

Post

Bring it, I got a week before classes start, nothing to do and a really fast internet connection.

Rome_Leader
The Italian Mod
Posts: 3028
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 22:03

Post

Hugh wrote:Bring it, I got a week before classes start, nothing to do and a really fast internet connection.
Bolded should be contradiction. ;\

Nat_H
Veteran Member
Posts: 1559
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 18:03

Post

Awesome. So here's the deal, I've been thinking what with me being a firm believer in Biblical authority and all. It's a book right? It's got pages and a front and back cover. It's pretty old. Some parts are extremely ancient. It covers alot of stuff: History, philosophy, poetry, religion, faith, and prophecy. I think it's pretty amazing and so far, it's never let me down. By this, I mean it's never been proven wrong, its always relevant, its always engaging, and its not really like any other book.

So Hugh, I'm assuming that you think the Bible is just a book written by men under no divine influence right??

So, find an equal. I'm not asking you to "prove the Bible wrong." I just want you to show me that my fascination is just a psychological trick. The Bible's nothing special; in fact, any book will do---if you find the right one. Find a book to read, study, meditate on, and "indoctrinate" yourself with. I'll be interested in the results.

You could really choose anything. I think there are two "better" options:
1. A book about something you already believe, such as a science textbook or a book on atheistic philosophy
2. A book with historical or religious premises, different from, but in a way similar to the Bible. E.g. the Koran, Book of Mormon, or the Illiad.

I picked you, Hugh, because I think you'd be interested in this and crazy enough to try it. It's not really an easy thing, even if it works. So if you don't want to try it that's OK. There are really no rules so you can do whatever you want, really. I'm just presenting my idea for your consideration. :)

NewBornProdigy
Admin
Posts: 2695
Joined: 23 May 2008, 19:51

Post

I'm kinda making myself part of this... But the Tripataka owns the bible in all aspect, mainly because

-You can't argue against it (its an opinion not a faith)
-It doesn't try explain the un-explainable or unknown
-It is engaging and its contents don't tell you how to live life, but infact teaches you how to know yourself how to live life

Also anything to do with tibetan philosiphy simply boasts so much more knowledge than the bible, on top of that they claim that there wrote by perfectly normal humans

Hugh
Veteran Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 20:26
Location: Vancouver

Post

EDIT: Long Post warning, but please read it all, I tried to distill my thoughts in bite sized chunks


That's an interesting idea...

However, I must point out that:

1) the bible is self-sustaining because (bluntly) it preaches faith without recompense, by which I mean the bible will typically say things along the lines of: Only those who are truly faithful are faithful in the absence of evidence.

Which is ideal from an indoctrinator's point of view because it means that even if what they're saying never comes to pass, the believer will continue to believe because they think that the fact that nothing comes to pass simply means that nothing has happened yet as opposed to nothing will happen.

2) Another ideal quality of the bible is it promises hope for the afterlife, this being the carrot in front of the donkey so to speak, and since no one has the means to determine conclusively what happens to people after they die no one is able to prove them wrong, which makes their position un-assailable in at least one dimension.

3) However, the bible fails when it attempts to incorporate fact into its story, as already proven by me, Noah's Ark is an impossible feat given the size of the boat and the size of animals on the earth, and a strictly literal viewpoint on genesis is scientifically (which, I remind you, means objectively) unsound. This failing is limited somewhat by the earlier command to believe at all costs.

The belief at all costs mechanic, which helps to retain so many of the faithful is a wonderful device, since it means that anything out-of the ordinary can be explained as "and act of god" and a lack of anything out of the ordinary can be explained as "not in his ineffable plan".

-Break-


This is why a textbook would be a bad starting point, since science textbooks almost always come with a disclaimer at the beginning or the end saying something along the lines of: Science is always changing, so the information in this text will not be 100% accurate as time goes on. This serves much of the purpose of the belief mechanic because it means that science in its most recent form will always be 100% correct by our interpretation at that point in time.


Personally I'm not inclined to indoctrinate myself with any particular book, the least of the reasons being that I don't believe that I can be indoctrinated due to my naturally cynical disposition.

-Other Religions-


However, I would point out that others have indoctrinated themselves with other books, or in some cases with belief systems that don't involve books. Scientology is a good example of this, using the promise of salvation in equal measure with the certainty of destruction to bind followers to its flock.

Think of the book "The Secret" this book claims that by willpower alone you can make the universe give you stuff (no sh*t, that's actually what it claims) and has sold millions, and there are actually people who believe this, because it promises them a salvation and probably has a "Faith in the face of disbelief" clause as previously discusses.

Every major religion today operates on the same three pillars:
1) A code of morals - 10 Commandments, Sharia Law, Karma
2) A belief in some form of Afterlife - Heaven, Jannat, Nirvana/Reincarnation
3) A belief in a system of divine punishment - Hell, Jahannam, Reincarnation

These pillars operate like the Carrot and the Stick and a set of rules, the rules define whether or not the donkey gets the Carrot or the stick, but since no-one ever knows if the Carrot or Stick are real they are presented with Pascal's Wager with the additional incentive of the "Faith in the face of disbelief" system which only serves to add credibility in their minds, most will choose to believe in the religion.

This in itself is not a bad thing, the code of morals ensures that most religious people are in fact, very nice people, however, religion has also proven to be a force for violence and an avenue to promote immoral political moves under the guise of morality.

-Religions inspired from fiction-


So again, I'm not particularly interested in this since I know that I cannot convince myself of the absolute veracity of anything, therefore I cannot indoctrinate myself, that's like trying to consciously lie to yourself, which is something no one can do.

However, I want you to consider that many people do just this, that is, become indoctrinated with belief systems and books which have no 'divine' influence. Think of The Spock which is a church and belief system based on the teachings of Mr. Spock of star trek. Or Buddislam, the religion taken from the Fremen of Dune by Frank Hebert.

Or most obviously of all, consider Jediism which is a church based on the teachings of the Jedi, again, no divine influence. I'm sure many Jedi believe this ironically, but there are a few, not many but a few, who absolutely believe this, which shows that indoctrination and 100% faith does not require intervention.


-Proof of lack of divine intervention in the bible-


Besides in the form of a mathematical proof:
Deuteronomy 4:39: "Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other."

Therefore there is only one god. (According to Christians)

And if true faith and indoctrination is not just a psychological trick then no other believers believe 100% in their faith.

But believers of Islam and Sikhism believe just as strongly as those of Christianity, therefore either divine indoctrination can be replicated by the hand of man, or, there is no divine indoctrination at all, which means that the bible is not in fact the word of god, in which case, why listen to what it has to say?



Anyway, you know my position: Religion was good, but is now irrelevant.

sir_alex_vu
Junior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 30 Aug 2009, 03:53

Post

So, I'm not Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, or religious at all.

So then why do people call me Atheist. (I know what an Atheist is, I don't need a definition). "Atheist" definately sounds like a religion to me.

You know what they call somebody who doesn't have a religion?

Smart.

klc123
Veteran Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 16:26

Post

^^ what they do call people like you is "moronic idiotic fools who can't appriciate any one elses faith or believe without insulting them because their so self centered and argumentative that they just have to insult someone else."

I think that name works well for you.

soccer11
Admin
Posts: 4870
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:40
Location: Michigan, USA

Post

klc123 wrote:^^ what they do call people like you is "moronic idiotic fools who can't appriciate any one elses faith or believe without insulting them because their so self centered and argumentative that they just have to insult someone else."

I think that name works well for you.
now was that really necessary?

you just contradicted yourself from what you said in the other thread about not insulting each other. seems like you just insulted him . .
Image

klc123
Veteran Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 16:26

Post

Depends what you consider an insult. The terms moron and idiot are actually words invented to describe people who fit the catagories, i think of it more as me appriopriately labelling him with the correct word.

Hugh
Veteran Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 20:26
Location: Vancouver

Post

So do the terms "Arrogant" "Boorish" and "Hypocritical"

Guess who fits in those categories? Like you said, they're not insults, they're labels.

EDIT: Also, soccer11 when did you become an admin?

Post Reply