Forums-->Off-game forum-->
1|2|3|4|5|6
| Author | God and Religion |
|---|
universe have a sense if and only if a god exists
EQUAL TO:
universe have no sense if and only if there is no god
ups.. i mean if we negate this statement, we would get: "NO sense in world if and only if there is NO god"
so this are only some idea constructions.. to try to find some logical answers, - to get at least something, because religions won't do it at all. they don't give your answers. religiious have same profile... try to allign the ideas of religiois (multiple [sequence] idea allignement xD). don't try to find logic in religions. they have some logic of course, but there basics and all this beliefs have no proof. and atheism is the same (but masked) belief in that there this something not exists. so this guys just negate the idea of religious people and say "hey" we invented esomething new - "we decided that we don't believe in all your religious stuff".
but this not-believe is problematic too.
some more advices: don't study philosophy xD i guess you want to work after you philosophy study as taxi driver ;) [nothing against taxi drivers].
there is some man who had lots of interesting ideas: Stanislaw Lem. i can only advice to read his sci-fiction books, because they have lot of deep and interesting and philosophical ideas.
but on the best of his works is: Summa Technologiae
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Technologiae]
there you could find lots of interesting ideas. | little comprehension about my thoughts:
1. religious people and atheist are nearly the same
2. discrepancy with our vision of god and (maybe) the real god
3. who created god? if no god: universe created itself? could creature in this universe understand mechanisms behind all this "magical" stuff of creation ?
4. our mind/cognition and understanding of the mechanisms of the world creations ans some higher-order stuff like "god" and "self-creation of universe" if this is really possible. = are we able to understand this all ? our mind was created in this universe and we learned to thought in universe' fashion. so the idea is: another universe with another physical rules = another cognition and understanding of the world or is our cognition ultimative? is there some higher-order cognition which could understand this complex-mechanisms of world-creations ? ... freaky question. i know. but only if we'll make freaky questions we could find some answers.
5. god <==> sense of the universe ? | If you wanna talk about why those things are happening, I'm sorry but I can not answer you... A philosopher could do it, or at least could have some explanations... Remember that please, a cientific asks how not why!
damn! actually i promissed me not read all this stuff, but i did. ok it's too late and i'm little bit sleepy :/
since when can give philosopher such answers ? yes, philosophers are good taxi drivers, but i'm not sure that they are good philosophers. come on this guys have problems with logic. maybe philosophers could say something interesting 100 years ago, but no it is only waste of time if you want to talk about universe with them. some etical and social thing is something another. i speak here only about philosophy how i believe to see and my impression how philosopher see the universe. and i don't like there thoughts. but it is my opnion.
why we invented this strange stuff "sciieeenceee" ? we see something and want answers, so we start to make observations in systemaical and reprocudible way. science is only a nice tool of the human society to get some answers. but of course it have it's own confines and we know them.
buuut it is wrong to say that this is incredibly good combination of science and religion - "where ends the understanding of science - religions begin to give exlanation about sense of the world". and if we invented this religions, then we lie to owerselves. and to say it clear i don't make science to religious status - science is only a useful and reliable tool which humans have invented. reliable tool and we know how to use it. everything beside this scientifical confines are speculations because we can't explain them with our reproducible and systematically fashion. so we haven't any guarantee that this speculations besides scientists' confines have to be true. so there we can only _believe_ that our non-with-science-explainable ideas are true and we go even further: we define this speculative things as true. welcome in the world of religions and pink unicorns... | something interesting 100 years ago, but no it is only waste
no = now
and i don't like there thoughts.
there = their | Very interesting discussion. While I won't go into the details, I would just say that I'm agnostic; I could believe in something divine if I'd see it with my own eyes or get solid scientific proof that those religious or divine aspects truly exist. But I won't believe in something that has no solid proof, evidence, etc.
Best example would be the existence of haven and hell. Unless someone returns from there or sends a message or video report xD, I would not take it seriously. | jesus is just some guy that died and isn't of any real importance at all.
I tend to disagree. According to me he was a wise man of his time who taught people to live, love and care. He tried to bring the man up from petty prejudices. How could he have done that? Natural tendency of humans is to oppose the change. We prefer to live by the rules even if they are incorrect rather than trying to change them. Therefore, he created an extreme entity who was capable of doing anything in this world (create universes, shoot lighting up your ***) and posed himself as the son and messenger of that entity aka God. Very wise decision on his part. If he had claimed himself to be the God then he'd have his neck cut even before he had the chance to say something.
Thus, he created illusions, posed dilemmas and tried to civilize the tribal man by feeding him lies.
When he was successful to in bringing peace people dignified him as the holy saint out of respect.
It was a great contribution of his to our history if this proves to be correct and will explain how suddenly world started connecting, lesser wars for territories and advancement of humanity in science and religion.
He gave his wise words and asked fellow humans to write them for future so that we don't resort to undignified activities like cannibalism etc.
If we look closely religion had indeed played a great role and had a major impact to connect people. I feel the religion accomplished its true purpose of civilizing and creating socialized modern humans. It promoted social activities like teamwork as well. If there was no love and care then we wouldn't caring about MH-370, Boeing-777 Malaysian Airlines so much or feel sad when others are in pain or know hurting others is a bad habit and much more. Religion did taught us great things.
Respect that! Its not easy to stand up against the entire world, shape it for betterment and not manipulate it. It requires immense courage and determination :)
Although its completely my hypothesis and understanding. Change my view if you can come up with a logical explanation. | Problem is that there are lots of religions almost all of which have a "prophet(s)" who claim to be "messengers from god".
You also generally have each religion claiming that it is the only true path and that other religions are false. Plus the largest religions claim that people who do not believe their particular version of religion are evil and will suffer infinite punishment in some imaginary afterlife. Of course adherents are considered automatically more moral and of greater value than people outside the religion and are promised eternal reward in the same imaginary afterlife.
Some consider the promise of "heaven" to be convincing but the big one is the promise of "hell". So often I hear believers espouse the aren't you worried about being wrong about religion X (Pascals Wager)? Of course they themselves aren't concerned about the "hell" proposed by other religions but somehow consider it a convincing argument to others that their "hell" exists.
To me this tendency is very revealing. IMO people who think this is a convincing argument have been convinced to join/stay in their religion because they are afraid of this imaginary punishment. And once you establish an infinite punishment then you can make pronouncements as to what is immoral (characterised as "sin") and enforce it by invoking "hell" as the penalty for transgressing.
It is also of note that most religions advocate donating wealth to support the primary representatives of that religion (church, synagogue, priests, imams, etc). Very convenient.
Finally there is a lack of any identifiable evidence for the existence of many of these "prophets" outside of their holy books. Often the accounts of these "prophets" doesn't match archeological evidence. It is also the case that the "holy" books have developed over time with parts added & removed and "canon" being redefined by different sects.
Some people (as you do) consider that religion is necessary for civilization. However some of the most important basics of civilization predate any existing religion. Fire, language, tool use, the wheel, agriculture and writing are not dependent on any particular religion. It's almost as if civilization was a result of a social species (humans) achieving intelligence and slowly bettering things for all members.
It doesn't require religion to know that killing other members of your species is bad. All it takes is a realisation that *you* don't want to be killed and enough empathy to realise that others would feel the same way. In a similar way it is possible to figure out that slavery is wrong (I don't want to be a slave so it's probable that others also wouldn't want to be slaves) however that's one that christianities holy book never made clear. I imagine that Islam held a similar position. Not to mention that most religions consider that it is fine to kill others outside the religion (heretics) and the worst "sin" is not believing in the religion, much more so that murder for example.
Religion is unnecessary for morality. Just because religions make rules and *some* of those rules happen to be moral doesn't mean that religion is a source of morality.
Grunge | Problem is that there are lots of religions almost all of which have a "prophet(s)" who claim to be "messengers from god".
The first thing that comes into my mind is Jesus telling his disciples,"Alright, this time I don't want 4 different versions of my story." somewhere in future xD
Anyways the assumption is the existence of a prophet & hence God. I mentioned in my above comment(s) that I deny the existence of the God and hence automatically heaven and hell. I just believe these were created to terrify people if they did something inappropriate.
Some people (as you do) consider that religion is necessary for civilization. However some of the most important basics of civilization predate any existing religion. Fire, language, tool use, the wheel, agriculture and writing are not dependent on any particular religion. It's almost as if civilization was a result of a social species (humans) achieving intelligence and slowly bettering things for all members.
Good point!
It doesn't require religion to know that killing other members of your species is bad. All it takes is a realisation that *you* don't want to be killed and enough empathy to realise that others would feel the same way. In a similar way it is possible to figure out that slavery is wrong (I don't want to be a slave so it's probable that others also wouldn't want to be slaves) however that's one that christianities holy book never made clear. I imagine that Islam held a similar position. Not to mention that most religions consider that it is fine to kill others outside the religion (heretics) and the worst "sin" is not believing in the religion, much more so that murder for example.
Religion is unnecessary for morality. Just because religions make rules and *some* of those rules happen to be moral doesn't mean that religion is a source of morality.
I believe religion acted as a catalyst in promoting social values.
And for the slavery and other religions part - That is where I stop listening to religion and rather apply logical and critical thinking.
Thanks for your answer though. You've some good and deep insights. | | Although I still don't believe religion is entirely useless and will stick to my opinion with little modifications. | religious people and atheist are nearly the same
One is "holier than thou" while the other is "better than you". Most of the noisiest ones, anyway. I think I've been on both sides at certain parts of my life. Fun times. XD
Religion is unnecessary for morality.
I think you have way too much faith in the willingness of human beings to embrace rational thought. Consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator
It may look more art than science but I find it remarkable that there is a "thinking versus feeling" sort of dichotomy. I have observed that a lot of people seem to engage in behavior that I find "irrational". These people are capable of rational behavior but they simply prefer being irrational. And it's perfectly natural and fine. For those people, religion may be necessary as basis for ethics and morality.
I once saw a video where a bunch of atheists would answer questions over the radio and there was this religious wacko who called them who apparently is unable to comprehend how the atheists could come up with a moral code outside the bible. He thinks that non-believers would have no hesitation to rape. I thought, what if this guy did not find the bible? Would he be out there in a raping rampage? It is a "chicken-and-egg" question. Was he messed up by the bible? Or is the bible the only thing keeping him functional in society? I'm afraid I do not have sufficient data to make a primary computation. XD | Neither. He was taught that you had to follow the bible to be moral.
Left to his own devices he would probably formed his own system of morality - influenced by the laws that his society has in place.
But most societies across the planet and at different times have some rules that could be considered universal (at least for civilised societies) that at least apply to members of your own society, like "don't kill" and "don't steal".
That whole "do unto others" schtick existed long before jesus or mohammed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
IMO religions like to claim a monopoly on morality because it enables treating those outside the religion as morally inferior and enables poor treatment of those that do not indulge in the same beliefs. Just look at the treatment of homosexuals by almost every major religion. Without religion the reasons so many use to profess hate against homosexuality simply evaporate.
Grunge | Religion is unnecessary for morality. Just because religions make rules and *some* of those rules happen to be moral doesn't mean that religion is a source of morality.
True, but most of the time in today's world, most people will NOT do what is moral or right, by their own wish themselves. But they will definately do it, under the fear of death, God or whatever..
Human Tendency, My friend :)
It is also of note that most religions advocate donating wealth to support the primary representatives of that religion (church, synagogue, priests, imams, etc). Very convenient.
The whole purpose of donating to the common prime religious entity called priests or for the church, imams or whatever way you call it, was not to garner huge wealth for the priests, But this system was intended to garner the wealth under one common cause, the cause of helping the poor, the needy, the neglected people of the society. To help them in their life monetorily or otherwise by the use of this wealth. I think, that could have been the main purpose behind advocating donations. But it did not turn up that way, sadly. It all depends how our priests or the so called religious leaders used it or have been using it. :D | True, but most of the time in today's world, most people will NOT do what is moral or right, by their own wish themselves. But they will definately do it, under the fear of death, God or whatever..
And that's not the way it should be. The problem with religion is, it attempts to enforce the power of fear without trying things without it. Because it generalizes the population under it into people having homogeneous minds. Which is wrong. Even the people who are capable enough to have their own morality are taught to follow the "Fear" concept thanks to religion.
There are two ways to make a kid do a homework,
* Tell him he will be beaten up for not doing it.
* Tell him he will attain intellectual progress by doing it.
Religion unfortunately practices the former, since it is more convenient on a mass basis, although not correct. | What we gotta think of, is whether we really need religion? Are we that weak to not be able to influence our own decisions without the external interference of a supernatural (nonexistent) being? Maybe that's how we have been brought up.
Earlier there were many of our kind stricken with poverty, famine and natural disasters. If you are being pushed to the extremes of livelihood, I am sure the thought or hope of some "Divine Savior" coming for your aid would be pretty common and convenient for the masses. And considering that practically more than half the population then was suffering, every damn person needed a "Divine Savior". So all they talked to each other was, "I hope that someone comes and takes away all our suffering".
I am sure that if in those times (I'm talking thousands of years back) I would have went around tribe to tribe giving food to everyone, my stories would have been passed on from generation to generation and by now I might have become the man who came down from the heavens to shower the poor and needy with life.
It is very very easy for stories to take supernatural twists and turns especially when you have story tellers who want more and more listeners for what they have to tell. If I confer to a mass population that some random stranger came walking from the north and gave us food, it is obvious it is less interesting than me saying, the northern skies sparkled as he stepped upon our lands from the north, making his presence known with a shower that gave life.
Similarly tales of all these "Messengers of God" are absolutely over hyped to the extremes. They were just good people doing good deeds. It's the generations there on that have turned them into supernatural entities. | Similarly tales of all these "Messengers of God" are absolutely over hyped to the extremes. They were just good people doing good deeds. It's the generations there on that have turned them into supernatural entities.
Exactly, all these "Nessengers of God" have never said like "follow me!, form my behaviour into a new religion, or Believe in me!" I guess, none of them have..
And that's not the way it should be. The problem with religion is, it attempts to enforce the power of fear without trying things without it.
I wish. But I do not think, its the religion which enforces the power of fear, but its the people representing the religion,do it.
What we gotta think of, is whether we really need religion? Are we that weak to not be able to influence our own decisions without the external interference of a supernatural (nonexistent) being? Maybe that's how we have been brought up.
Earlier there were many of our kind stricken with poverty, famine and natural disasters. If you are being pushed to the extremes of livelihood, I am sure the thought or hope of some "Divine Savior" coming for your aid would be pretty common and convenient for the masses. And considering that practically more than half the population then was suffering, every damn person needed a "Divine Savior". So all they talked to each other was, "I hope that someone comes and takes away all our suffering".
I am sure that if in those times (I'm talking thousands of years back) I would have went around tribe to tribe giving food to everyone, my stories would have been passed on from generation to generation and by now I might have become the man who came down from the heavens to shower the poor and needy with life.
It is very very easy for stories to take supernatural twists and turns especially when you have story tellers who want more and more listeners for what they have to tell. If I confer to a mass population that some random stranger came walking from the north and gave us food, it is obvious it is less interesting than me saying, the northern skies sparkled as he stepped upon our lands from the north, making his presence known with a shower that gave life.
Thats not religion, if you think thats the only concept of religion.
The concept of religion has always been wrongly represented over the years by the so called representatives of the religion , and will continue to be so,sadly. | And that's not the way it should be. The problem with religion is, it attempts to enforce the power of fear without trying things without it. Because it generalizes the population under it into people having homogeneous minds. Which is wrong. Even the people who are capable enough to have their own morality are taught to follow the "Fear" concept thanks to religion.
There are two ways to make a kid do a homework,
* Tell him he will be beaten up for not doing it.
* Tell him he will attain intellectual progress by doing it.
Religion unfortunately practices the former, since it is more convenient on a mass basis, although not correct.
I would like to give you an example.This game has chat moderators and forum moderators,Why do we need them? Can all the 20K players playing this game right now, not try to be civil, respectful and "moral"(as in game's sense) to each other? We still have them. Most people in the game avoid posting on forums or chatting in the room or messaging to admins etc.. for the fear of getting banned or blocked etc..
Everyone just try to be civil and we dont need the moderators or keepers? Will that happen, is the question...
(All my respect to Moderators and Keepers);) | Thats not religion, if you think thats the only concept of religion.
I was selective about Messenger of God and not entirely religion in that para.
I wish. But I do not think, its the religion which enforces the power of fear, but its the people representing the religion,do it.
The reason why people representing the religion can enforce fear is because the religions (which pretty much sum up in written books) back them to do so. If the fundamentals of the religion didn't allow something, the people representing the religion wouldn't be able to pursue it, in this case, morality by fear.
I would like to give you an example.This game has chat moderators and forum moderators,Why do we need them? Can all the 20K players playing this game right now, not try to be civil, respectful and "moral"(as in game's sense) to each other? We still have them. Most people in the game avoid posting on forums or chatting in the room or messaging to admins etc.. for the fear of getting banned or blocked etc..
That's a wrong comparison. Moderators are doing a job of policing, which is that of law enforcement and are not acting as religion which directs fundamental standpoints. As per your example, we only need religion and no legal law enforcement authority.
Let's take for instance a rapist or a murderer. It is but obvious the "Fear" of being caught and punished till death by the "LAW" that keeps them at bay. *LAW ENFORCEMENT ------> Fear*
The problem is, religion is trying to do the same. Instead of acting as a guide which speaks of "Why to do", it speaks more of "Why not to do". Instead of telling them, don't kill because it is important for us to care of our same kind, it says don't kill or you will plunge into abyss.
There is a huge psychological difference between the observers of the above mentioned ways. Let's take an obvious example. Why is winning a race in competitive spirit considered a better aspect than winning a race for the sake of defeating others? Both conclude to the same objective of winning, but the force that drives to that objective is different, which is what separates the two.
Similarly, religion also has an objective of making us morally and ethically right, but the method it follows is not what a "Divine Being" should have proposed. | http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-royal-decree-atheismterrorism/
That's the religion we talk of. Oppression is the key, autocracy is the motive.
Something that wants to "SUBMIT" people into believing in it, that's very humane. | http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html
Worth reading. :P | I can speak on that more specifically,but I skip it, given the limitations of this forum :(
I will just re-quote you , with my feelings or words :-
Similarly, religion also has an objective of making us morally and ethically right, but the method religious representatives or leaders follow is not always right, because every religious leader or representative has or does their own interpretations of the religious texts or books. But that does not mean religion preaches or teaches wrong things.
and I stop there.
Thanks. |
1|2|3|4|5|6Back to topics list
|
