Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 17/10 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   We know there's a God because...
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 15 of 256 (458115)
02-27-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
02-27-2008 9:53 AM

Re: DIY god
The world and especially the US would not be as it is today.
The US was populated by people leaving religious persecution in European countries. They came to America to be able to worship God without interference from the Government.
This nation was founded by God fearing men on the principals they found in the Bible.
History lesson time: The Puritans did not found the United States. The Puritans had essentially disappeared before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers consisted of Christians, yes, but also of Deists, and Thomas Jefferson, who once produced his own version of the Bible that completely removed any and all "miracles" (including Creation, Jesus' resurrection, etc) because he considered it all to be superstitious nonsense.
The US was populated not only by those fearing religious persecution (ironically, those settlements perpetrated the most religious persecution, as anyone not agreeing with their specific interpretation of the Bible could be executed or banished, which amounted to the same thing). The thirteen colonies also consisted of businessmen seeking fortunes in new markets, and regular people wanting a fresh start.
Saying the US was founded on Christianity is a blatant falsehood. Just read the Constitution, and count how many times "god" or "Jesus" are mentioned.
Then read the Treaty of Tripoli, in which the government of the United States agreed that we are in no way a "Christian nation." Treaties, if you know your law, are held as the highest law of the land along with the Constitution.
Take that away and what would you have?
The same country, but with fewer of the idiotic leftover hangups from the Puritans, like the way it was illegal to buy and sell sex toys in Texas until just a few weeks ago. And probably with fewer fundamentalist anti-science bigoted luddites.
I'd count it a much better place.
If memory serves me correctly when we had Bible reading and prayer in school this was the most feared nation in the world.
Oh, we're still feared, and primarily because our President is a fundamentalist anti-science idiot with the brainpower of a retarded dodo backed up by the strongest military force in the world.
That last part, the military force, was why we were considered "strong." We weren't nearly destroyed after WWII like most of Europe. We had our infrastructure intact, and a large enough population to pick up stronger than when we left off.
We removed those because it offended a few people.
Not "offended," ICANT. It violated their rights. I have the right to not have a Christian's rhetoric forced down my throat at events sponsored by the government, which supposedly represents all of us, from Christians, to Muslims, to Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans, and Atheists. And everything I left out. The Constitution is quite clear that, in order to protect all beliefs, the government must remain strictly neutral and practice a hands-off policy. The fact that this was not followed for a long time doesn't change the fact that it was unconstitutional, which is why we no longer have prayer in public schools, and why some are working to remove "under god" from the Pledge (where, amusingly enough, it was added in the 1950s to combat the "godless commies").
Now this nation is the laughing stock of the world.
Because we still have large segments of the population, up to and including the freaking President, that still believe in Creationism, and have the scientific understanding of a braindamaged Neanderthal. I'd laugh too, if I didn't live here.
So Percy we would have pretty much what we have today.
People would believe that they are their own God and do as they please.
If it wouldn't earn me a suspension...
If you'd like to talk about American history, ICANT, feel free to start a thread. Your falsehoods would fill volumes, I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2008 9:53 AM ICANT has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 16 of 256 (458119)
02-27-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
02-25-2008 9:10 PM

Sorry, I couldn't let ICANT go without a response. I'll return to the regularly scheduled topic now.
Say there were no Bible, no Qur'an, no Bhagavad Gita, no religious texts of any sort. How would we know just by examining the world around us that there is a God?
I don't know that you could. Iano's half-right - the only way would be to assume that whatever god exists must have properties reflected by the real world. If there are wars, "god" must like wars. If there is love, "god" must be a god of love.
The issue, then, is that it all becomes a matter of base assumptions. If you specifically define "god" as benevolent and all-powerful, then you can look at the world as it exists and reasonably conclude that that god does not exist.
If you define "god" as a supernaturally powerful entity that's simply responsible for the existence of teh Universe, that god may exist.
But it all depends on your base assumptions - iano is correct in that you wind up creating a god in your own image. You'll find whatever you want to find, becasue you have no evidenciary basis upon which to construct an objective description.
There could be one god, or twenty, or a thousand. There could be a god of hiccups, whose sole purpose is to annoy humanity - and reality would "support" such an assertion becasue, after all, hiccups exist.
For myself, I would approach this question by asking what differences might exist between a world created by God and another world that came about in the absence of a God. Which would be expected to have more wars, more prejudice, more disease, more disasters? Certainly we seem to have enough of these to suspect the possibility of an absence of God in this world.
But only if you define "God" to be both benevolent and all-powerful. Such a deity would certainly oppose such things, and step in to stop them, right? But what if there's another god who supports them? And a third, who really just doesn't care, but created the other two gods?
Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster really did create the world exactly as it is, with all of our memories intact, last Thursday, and all of the famines and wars and hatreds and hiccups are thre by His Noodly Design specifically for his sick amusement. This reality supports that, doesn't it?
I'm interested in how others might approach this question, and what answers they think are suggested.
I think the answer is simply that we find what we are looking for if we look hard enough, even if it's not there. If you see something out of the corner of your eye in a graveyard at night, you might say you "found" a ghost, even if it was just a moth flying by.
You can define an infinite number of "gods" and test them against reality, but no matter how many of them "fit" our world, they're still just figments of your imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 02-25-2008 9:10 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 02-27-2008 1:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 30 of 256 (458217)
02-27-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 5:25 PM

From the original comment (above yours): "The observation of design and organized complexity seen in all aspects of nature and organisms"
Of course you knew this but have no way of refuting so you ask a rhetorical question that presupposes said observation to not be evidence. Again, the answer is the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature. Do you know what an observation is?
In other words, you find that design and organized complexity in nature are self-evident, and that these could only be the result of direct divine control.
You ignore examples of organized complexity spontaneously forming from chaos, like snowflakes.
Evolutionists use observation to say that gradations infer evolution.
That's one part of it.
In reverse: what evidence do you have for the observation of gradations to infer evolution?
But this doesn't follow your comparison. You're taking observations of complexity in nature and assuming that this implies design, and that this assumption is a self-evident observation. That's not the case - it's the result of your personal incredulity, nothing more.
The personal incredulity of a man who honestly believes that the acceptance of evolution is a punishment from god (and that this mere statement refutes all of evolutionary theory) is somewhat suspect, Ray. Put bluntly, I don't trust your conclusions over what time it is. When you respond with incredulity, I'm amused at the irony.
How do you like a taste of your own stupid medicine?
Oh no, Ray's angry! Stop watching your angry televangelist mentor, Dr. Scott, and perhaps you can carry on a civil conversation like the rest of us.
Of course you WILL now evade and misrepresent or ignore these simple points altogether.
Or perhaps we'll refute your "irrefutable logic," show the lurkers why your line of reasoning is compeltely flawed, and sit back and laugh as you get all angry and call everyone who disagrees with you an "evil atheist."
The fact is, Ray, complexity in nature, even organized complexity, is not a self-evident observation of design, unless you'd like to propose that snowflakes are individually designed as well.
The observations that provide evidence for evolution make no such (il)logical leap. We directly observe, with the five senses, that the allele frequency of biological populations change over time. We directly observe, with the five senses, that this process of change is guided by natural selection, where unsuccessful traits do not reproduce, and successful versions do.
We then use the simple process of logical inference to make predictions, like similarities in DNA between species the evolutionary model tells us should be closely related. We then observe, with the five senses, that these genetic similarities are there, just as predicted, and conclude that the model so far is accurate.
There are no logical leaps here, Ray. Only observations, hypotheses, testing, and further observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 2:30 PM Rahvin has replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 37 of 256 (458322)
02-28-2008 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by AZPaul3
02-28-2008 10:05 AM

Re: Once Upon A Time
But isn't this the intellectual exercise Percy is asking us to take on? In the same way as the ancients did without reference to religious texts (since there were none) yet with the benefits of modern knowledge?
I think iano means that, in the absence of an actual religious text to define "god," an individual will be foreced to come up with their own definition of "god." He's confusing becasue he's saying that this amounts to a "religious text," but I think his point is correct.
In the absence of a pre-existing religious text, any search for a deity will be a search for a deity of the individual's description. Such a deity will not have been described based on observation or objective evidence, but rather on whatever the individual "feels" like. It literally becomes a search for each person's imaginary friend.
In any case, of course, we're still violating parsimony. Even if someone describes a deity whose personality traits lead to a world like ours (both war and peace, hate and love, natural diasters, etc, or multiple deities each responsible for a facet of existence), there is still no reason at all to assume a deity is responsible. You can test the question, "is there a god of hiccups" by observing whether hiccups exist in the world...but since hiccups have a perfectly natural explanation, there is no need for a deity to be responsible.
The alternative to adding extraneous deities or testing infinite imaginary ones against reality is to pigeon-hole "god(s)" into anything we do not yet understand, like ancient peoples did. "God of the gaps" works very well when you have virtually no understanding of the world around you or the processes by which it works (Prometheus clearly is responsible for fire, and obviously Apollo drives the chariot of the Sun). Once you start to study reality objectively, however, and start to fill in those gaps with testable mechanisms, the "god(s)" position and responsibility slowly shrink away to nothing. Modern understanding has progressed to the point where assuming "god" is responsible for anything and everything that we don't currently understand is regarded as silly, and rightfully so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 02-28-2008 10:05 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 02-28-2008 12:57 PM Rahvin has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 41 of 256 (458352)
02-28-2008 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
02-28-2008 12:58 PM

Re: What If
We have observed numerous such human cultures throughout human history. To my knowledge, without exception all human cultures have concluded the existence of the supernatural.
And without exception, these supernatural entities are created to fill in gaps in knowledge. From Apollo's chariot of the Sun, to a Hawaiian volcano god, to Christian 6-day Creationism, every single religious myth is created as a way to explain natural phenomenon that the populace is completely unable to comprehend at the time.
An analasys with modern knowledge will acknowledge that there is no "volcano god" demanding a sacrifice to stave off an eruption, and that there is no chariot of the Sun.
And that the Earth was not created in 6 days.
It's simply a matter of human nature and our nearly universal curiosity and desire for understanding, combined with our sometimes-wonderful ability to detect patterns...even when no such pattern exists.
I believe all pagan religions have emerged from conceptions in the human mind as to what the explanation is. Many have devised and created their own concept of a god. Some have progressed to produce literature relative to their religions after having conceived of their version of a god.
Many recorded and observable pagan cultures experience miracle in their religions. Voodoo, witchcraft, spiritism and other such manifestations have been experienced among pagan cultures. Many have what they consider to be holy men or women who have seer capabilities.
That all cultures in history have been religious may be the answer to your questions.
Or that humanity as a whole posesses a desire to understand and control their environment, to fight off the fear of the unknown and uncontrollable natural disasters.
Or that some individuals realize they can control those around them by claiming to be the emissary of a deity, appealing to that same fear and ignorance to gain personal power.
Evidently humans simply observe the wonders of nature and conclude that beings of a higher realm exist. Perhaps part of this lies in the mental properties of the brain, human DNA, etc which have a religious propensity to seek out who/what god is.
Personal incredulity, a personal sense of awe and wonder, and perceived patterns are not proof or indeed even evidence of a deity. One can look on a showflake with awe and wonder, but it is demonstrably proven that snowflakes form by purely natural processes.
When one looks at a flower and says "wow, that's pretty...clearly there must have been some great designer who made it that way," this is a demonstration of a giant leap in logic.
My personal thinking is that the fact that only humans have this capacity is explained in Genesis where we read that man was created in the image of God.
We have no idea whether we are the only creatures with the capacity for recognizing nonexistent patterns or a sense of awe - the creatures closest to us in intelligence are incapable of communicating with us, and there isn't really a way to detect a sense of awe and wonder without expression through language.
And once again - you're using mythology to explain something you personally do not understand.
Any conclusion that the supernatural exists that is derived from personal incredulity, ignorance, or other such logical fallacies is also fallacious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2008 12:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 46 of 256 (458410)
02-28-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 5:25 PM

Of course you WILL now evade and misrepresent or ignore these simple points altogether.
I'd just like to point out that it is Ray himself who seems to be ignoring those who have refuted him in this thread, and not AZPaul3 or anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 61 of 256 (458507)
02-29-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
02-29-2008 9:49 AM

Re: Re-World around Us
So what do you think the odds would be of this happening by chance?
Then what would the scientific odds be of this happening by chance?
It did happen exactly that way.
Can you show that it could have happened any other way? Was it possible for the expansion to happen at a rate different from what happened? Because if we only know of one way that it could have happened, and it actually happened that way, the chances are 100%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 02-29-2008 9:49 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 02-29-2008 1:39 PM Rahvin has replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 66 of 256 (458514)
02-29-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
02-29-2008 1:39 PM

Re: Re-World around Us
There are other alternatives.
Such as?
In a coin toss, we know that the results can be either heads or tales. With dice, we can get a number between 1 and 6.
How many possibilities were there for the expansion, ICANT? Do you know? I can tell you that we know of exactly one possibility - this one. But we have no idea whatsoever whether there were any other possibilities. We could be dealing with a 1 in 2 chance, a 1 in 6 chance, a 1 in 100,000 chance....or a 1 in 1 chance. We simply don't know. The probability will be limited only by those variables that define the expansion - do you know what those variables are? I don't.
In the absence of any other possibilities (because we have no idea how many if any other possibilities there were), the probability of the only result is 100%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 02-29-2008 1:39 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 03-01-2008 12:24 AM Rahvin has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 69 of 256 (458523)
02-29-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object
02-29-2008 2:30 PM

Re: OP Claim & Thesis is now refuted
The degree of slander seen, that is, equating a Stanford Ph.D. to be a moronic Fundamentalist is equal to the degree that you perceive Dr. Scott to have invulnerably refuted your evolution theory; hence the reason and motive of the slander.
It's not slander if it's true, Ray. Your mentor is a moron. He has a PhD in theological studies, not anything remotely science-related. He's really good at reading the Bible. Whoopdey-do.
His argument is that evolution is false because acceptance of evolution is a punishment from god. It's the most retarded thing I've ever heard, and it's not a refutation of anything - it's the stupid statement of a schizophrenic doomsday prophet with a carboard sign on the corner of the street.
I say all of this despite it not being related to the topic just to remind any lurkers of exactly what Ray bases his beliefs on: the rants and raves of "gods angry prophet," Dr. Scott. Check him out on YouTube - he's not just a televangelist, he's the worst televangelist I've ever seen.
Without any religious texts a person can easily deduce that reality reflects the work of an invisible Designer based on the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature and organisms.
Such "deductions" invariably stem from personal incredulity and ignorance, not an objective study of the evidence. As such, those conclusions are fallacious and have no bearing on reality.
I can marvel at the beauty of a snowflake, examine how perfectly organized its structure is, and proclaim wonder at how each snowflake is totally unique...but snowflakes are still the result of natural processes, and are demonstrably not designed. My sense of awe, wonder, and beauty are just as irrelevant to the facts as your personal incredulity and ignorance.
Dennett, of course, is writing in the context that said designs were produced by the non-intelligence of natural selection. But the point and fact of the matter is that he, unlike most evolutionists, admits design to exist in nature. Creationists have a better explanation: this same "breathtaking design" corresponds to the work of intelligence or invisible Designer.
Silly wordplay. I can talk about the "design" of a snowflake, referring to its intricate structure. That doesn't mean there was a designer. Your conclusion once again rests on the premise that complexity and organization can not come about unless guided by an intelligence - a premise that is demonstrably false in such examples as the snowflake.
But the point in this thread, based on Dennett, reality can be SEEN to be the work of a Creator or Designer; hence the need of a religious text to conclude for a Designer is false and refuted.
You mean that design can be inferred from personal incredulity, ignorance, and other emotional reactions. That's true - without religious texts, belief in deities will still occur.
Someone had to make up the deities in all of those texts in the first place, after all.
But that has no bearing on reality. Any attempt to objectively show the existence of a deity without using a religious text as a definition for that deity will ultimately be a search for whatever imaginary deity the searcher can come up with. You can even make your definition of a deity match up with reality...but you're still violating parsimony, adding an extraneous entity without any reason to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 2:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 4:27 PM Rahvin has replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 76 of 256 (458538)
02-29-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Cold Foreign Object
02-29-2008 4:27 PM

Re: OP Claim & Thesis is now refuted
Rahvin is just lashing out because a Stanford Ph.D. refuted evolution. If Dr. Scott did not refute evolution, and if he was a "televangelist" then Rahvin would not be lashing out and slandering a Stanford Ph.D. because as we know televangelists are stupid and they do not refute evolution.
I attack you and Dr. Scott becasue Dr. Scott's "refutation" is a large pile of feces. He hasn't refuted anything.
So do I. The crazy cannot be explained, it must be observed.
- he is the first person to explain WHY a theory with no evidence is accepted as true: Materialism and its products known as Darwinism or evolution, that is, to accept them as true, the reason why persons accept these fallacies as true is because God is punishing them for denying Him credit as Creator and Designer.
Which is stupid. Literally, you're saying that (not accepting miraculous creation from God) is a punishment for (not acceptinf miraculous creation from god). He's saying we're going to jail becasue we went to jail, Ray.
He hasn't refuted any observations. He hasn't introduced new evidence. He hasn't falsified any laboratory results. He hasn't published a scientific paper.
He's not even a scientist - he's a televangelist. A very angry, loud, greedy one at that. He loves to yell at his viewers and rant and rave until they give him money - it would be amusing if it didn't work so well at getting vulnerable and gullible people to send him money hand over fist.
To falsify evolution, Ray, he has to falsify something, not throw around idiotic accusations that a theory is somehow a punishment from god. Is the theory of gravity a punishment from god, too, Ray?
This is the only explanation as to why Darwinism is "successful".
...except that the model works, and makes highly accurate predictions that are verified through testing and observation. That makes it pretty convicing to rational people. People who are not like Dr. Scott. Or you.
This punishment exposes "Christian" evolutionists, like EvC member Phat, to be deceived and not real a Christian, much like Judas who was deceived when he betrayed Christ to His face with a kiss. This explains how and why "Christians" could side with Atheists CONCERNING ORIGINS.
And now ray again says that accepting evolution is a punishment. How is it a punishment? I mean, the evolutionary model has produced a great deal of knowledge in the fields of biology and medicine, including new treatments and a greater understanding of why certain treatments can stop working. If knowledge and treatments for diseases are considered punishments, by all means, punish me more!
Of course persons like Phat THINK they are the exception, that their feelings based salvation overrides what the Bible actually says. Again, to be deceived is of the mind and it makes you believe something to be true when it is not.
Mmmm hmm.
Rahvin understands the refutation and has no answer, that is why he is lashing out in anger at the Stanford Ph.D. who figured out the refutation.
This isn't anger, Ray - this is amusement. I take pleasure in pointing out utterly retarded arguments. I'm not angry at Dr. Scott - he has more than enough anger for ten people. I'm laughing at him, and I'm laughing at you for buying his BS.
The objective claims of Darwinism and evolution deny that design corresponds to Designer. The "success" of this illogic has been explained by Dr. Scott.
No, we deny that organised complexity necessarily implies design, at all. We give you examples of naturally organised complexity, like snowflakes, that are clearly not designed and thus require no designer, and you conveniently ignore them. You don't post anything of substance, Ray. You never have. The only thing you have ever done is extol the virtues of your moronic mentor, repeat your claim to have refuted evolution and that you will "soon" publish a paper and change science forever, and call everyone who disagrees with you an atheist. That sums up the totality of your time here - until we found out what your "refutation" of evolution was.
Then, your "participation" became funnier.
In any thread where it is relevant and you pop up, I fully intend to remind everyone exactly what your premise is, so that everyone else can laugh as loudly as I do. It's really not fair to keep the joke to myself, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 4:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 6:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 186 of 256 (458874)
03-02-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Chiroptera
03-02-2008 1:56 PM

Well, as Cold Foreign Object will remind you, if a given cloud looks like a bunny rabbit to every culture in Africa, then we must conclude that bunny rabbits live in the sky.
And you'd realize that if the Cosmic Bunny Rabbit wasn't punishing you for not believing in sky-dwelling bunny rabbits by removing your bunny rabbit sense.
I'm entirely too tempted to sig that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2008 1:56 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 212 of 256 (459167)
03-04-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Buzsaw
03-04-2008 12:45 PM

Re: All Cultures Religious]
Imo, absent from written text, Christianity would never have become the most prominent religion of the world. The powers of darkness would have been such that evil would likely have overtaken humanity to the extent that humans would have become extinct a long time ago. The Industrial Revolution would have never come about due to the depravity of humankind.
Because we all know that all of the filthy, heathen, non-Christian societies of the world wiped themselves out long ago. Christians never committed genocide or forced conversions, nope - all of those wicked, evil Greeks and Romans, the various animal-worshpping cultures of Europe, Africa, and the Americas, all of them were vile and depraved examples of what humanity would have been like without the Holy Bible, and clearly by their example we would have killed each other into extinction years ago if not for the wonderful Christians.
I mean, it's not like the Greeks or Romans had set up an example of civilization we still measure ourselves against today until Christianity came into the picture. And the older civilizations from Africa (like Egypt, or Timbuktu (sp?)) widely regarded as centers of learning and cultural tolerance were obviously Christian, even though Christianity didn't appear until much later. The Native Americans were all obviously warring against each other in such a genocidal bloodbath that there are only a small number of them left - it's a good thing the Christians came and saved them from such a fate with the Holy Light of the Bible.
And Asia? I mean, Confuscianism, Buddhism, and the other Eastern religiouns obviously would have resulted in the extinction of mankind if it werent for the Christian missionaries.
And of course the Muslim cultures prior to the Crusades never came up with anything useful, like a system of numbers we still use today, or early telescopes, or advances in machinery, or large libraries and centers of learning. Those were all Christian things.
Yup, it's a good thing the Christians saved us from destroying ourselves and brought on a new age of peace, tolerance, education, and increasing knowledge about the natural world.
If any of that had been true, then maybe you'd be right. As it is, you're either woefully ignorant, or in the most severe case of denial I've ever seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Buzsaw, posted 03-04-2008 12:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 242 of 256 (460681)
03-17-2008 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Chessmaster
03-17-2008 7:49 PM

I wonder, what with the evolution of super-natural texts. How long it will be before a new, more our time-frame, with modern countries and technology book of God is 'published'. What will this new God be like? almost certainly nothing like Zeus, Allah or Jesus. No doubt however it will demonstrate beautifully how are evolved brains can adapt.
I'm pretty sure it's already happened. It's called "Scientology."
Apparently "god" doesn't exist, but there's an evil space emperor named Xenu you might want to watch out for. Hear he like to freeze folks, stick them in a spaceship, and drop them into alien volcanoes a few lightyears away along with a few nuclear warheads. Then he brainwashes their souls so that they forever wander the Universe without discovering "the truth." Oh, and those brainwashed souls are the casue of all human suffering and previous religions. Nice chap.
In this case, the mode of revelation was a science fiction writer. Go figure.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Chessmaster, posted 03-17-2008 7:49 PM Chessmaster has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2008 10:08 AM Rahvin has replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 244 of 256 (460730)
03-18-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Straggler
03-18-2008 10:08 AM

Re: Scientology
I wonder if in a few hundred years time scientology will still be around.
I wonder if it will be up there with, or even have surpassed, Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.
Is there a holy book of Scientology?
"Dianetics," by L. Ron Hubbard. You know, same guy who wrote "Battlefield Earth." Though apparently it doesn't go into everything they believe - apparently, if you discover the SECRET HORRIBLE TRUTH! before you're ready for it, you die. TO become ready, you need to pay very large sums of money for "auditing" your Thetan levels.
Yes, you gain levels in Scientology. It really is pretty much what you'd expect a religion created by a slightly crazy science fiction writer as a scheme to generate cash would look like. Except even more retarded.
Do all religions ultimately need a holy book if they are to survive and thrive in the longer term?
I think they need a form of brainwashing and personal investment to grow from "cult" to "lasting religion." Scientology looks like it's going to be around for a while, unless more countries go the way of Germany and outlaw it as a harmful cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2008 10:08 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by pelican, posted 03-21-2008 4:14 AM Rahvin has replied

Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005

Message 246 of 256 (461027)
03-21-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by pelican
03-21-2008 4:14 AM

Re: Scientology
Scientology is alive and well in Germany. My daughter did a number of courses there and the experience was invaluable. She has learned to never be manipulated again.
Is it? I had heard that Germany had ruled Scientology to be a harmful cult as opposed to an actual religion, and as such it had been outlawed.
Oh well. Honestly, I think Scientology should be legal. People should have the right to believe whatever they'd like to believe, after all. I just reserve the right to laugh at them for it. It's the right to believe that should be respected, not the actual beliefs themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by pelican, posted 03-21-2008 4:14 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by pelican, posted 03-21-2008 9:49 PM Rahvin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024