So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[spankythehippo]

Alright. So, I'm a nihilistic atheist.

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace. They then became, holy men. They controlled the people by putting the fear of God into them. But when the innovators died, their descendents took over. And when they died, the same thing happened. As time went on, these holy men actually started to believe what they were preaching to the people. And then they got greedy.

Look back at history. Huge amounts of taxes were paid to churches in medieval times. Beacuse people wanted to believe in a god. They wanted to believe that there was a big flying spaghetti monster controlling things out of their reach. And they believe this god has the power to take your life and send you to hell, if you don't obey his will. The churches capitalised on this fear. They Christians spread their religion as far and as wide as possible, ruining cultures in the process.
They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion. That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.
What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

I'm very anti-religious and anti-capitalist (not so much). But that doesn't mean I don't think religious teachings are bad. Religion is good as a set of morals. I, personally, do not follow any religion, since I have created my own set of morals to be used only by me. If other people adopt my system, good for them, but I don't care.

If you have any other theories, or would like to question what I've written, feel free to do whatever.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Disagree. Religion is a natural manifestation of order in regions where structured government systems that have the power to cater to its populace are not feasible.

Judaism was created in a region of multiple powerhouses surrounding a region of tribal lands. Shared belief allowed early folks to be able to trust one another which allowed for communities to be established. Religion was necessary for disorganized states so that proper systems of labor could be established.

Christianity was widespread by the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire but the age of Popes controlling fragmented kingdoms came about because of the power vacuum that resulted from the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The tribes that came to dominate the lands taken from the Romans were in no position to continue the same kind of social programs and order on the scale that the Roman bureaucratic system did. More responsibility was placed upon the priests and monks and religious system and what became the Catholic Church would come to embrace the responsibility to supplementing the tribes so that a reasonable level of order could once again be present in Western Europe. After centuries of this of course, as the saying goes, power corrupts and we began to see the repercussions of Popes that were no longer relevant in an age where Monarchies now once again achieved the level of complexity and order that the Roman Empire had achieved before.

Islam was similar in that, (if I recall correctly), the bulk of the Middle East still consisted of tribal lands when Mohammed came about preaching and conquering under the banner of Islam to unify the arab peoples.

That's my half thought out, crappy theory. I don't think that any religion was created for power and to manipulate but became powerful institutions because religion is a natural way for people to invest themselves collectively in order to continue their higher standard of living in an age where government could only rule as far as the king could see out his window.

[spankythehippo]

But according to my theory, all the prophets never existed. They were just figments of their imaginations. But, my theory is a bit controversial.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But according to my theory, all the prophets never existed. They were just figments of their imaginations. But, my theory is a bit controversial.

Doesn't matter if the prophets existed or not. Something was needed to establish a common trait throughout a populace in order to get them to work together.

Moses was probably an intelligent slave that created the idea of God and told it to fellow slaves in order to unify them against the Egyptian regime. By telling them they were the chosen ones, they rallied around him and he now had the power to free all the slaves from suffering. Not exactly an evil villain type thing to do. From there, they could create their own community, and so Moses isolated himself from everyone and came up with some basic but very smart rules to make sure that social order is maintained. He then came back and passed it off as God telling him directly. From that we got the 10 Commandments story.

Fast forward many years and you have the same situation. The Jewish people are now under the authority of the Romans who are not exactly very nice to them. An intelligent man comes along who isnow called Jesus and he sees how crappy everyone is treated in the region. He attempts to do the same thing that Moses did way back when, except this time some people don't believe him (those that would still be Jews) but many other people do believe him (the now Christians). This time though, the status quo wins and they kill Jesus. However, people love martyrs. So his popularity grows due to his dedicated fan base.

Neither of these cases has religion be some evil plot for control, but instead has been an emerging entity that attempts to correct injustices and restore social order.

EDIT: My point here being is that these intelligent people would have come along at some point or another. It is natural for someone to finally step up and say, "Let's do things differently because this sucks. Why? Because God."

EDIT 2: Ok, I still don't think I have made my distinction clear.

Religion was created by intelligent people to control a populace. BUT it was not out of malice and it was not a conspiracy. These intelligent men manufactured religion to control a population out of necessity for altruistic reasons. Religion in this way was inevitable to arise by someone with the balls to do it, because the impetus was there. These religions then grew out of control as they evolved beyond the life of the original creator.

No one ever sat around and said, "Imma create a religion so I can rule all these suckers and make lots of money$$$$$!" At least until L. Ron Hubbard.

[spankythehippo]

Doesn't matter if the prophets existed or not. Something was needed to establish a common trait throughout a populace in order to get them to work together.

Moses was probably an intelligent slave that created the idea of God and told it to fellow slaves in order to unify them against the Egyptian regime. By telling them they were the chosen ones, they rallied around him and he now had the power to free all the slaves from suffering. Not exactly an evil villain type thing to do. From there, they could create their own community, and so Moses isolated himself from everyone and came up with some basic but very smart rules to make sure that social order is maintained. He then came back and passed it off as God telling him directly. From that we got the 10 Commandments story.

Fast forward many years and you have the same situation. The Jewish people are now under the authority of the Romans who are not exactly very nice to them. An intelligent man comes along who isnow called Jesus and he sees how crappy everyone is treated in the region. He attempts to do the same thing that Moses did way back when, except this time some people don't believe him (those that would still be Jews) but many other people do believe him (the now Christians). This time though, the status quo wins and they kill Jesus. However, people love martyrs. So his popularity grows due to his dedicated fan base.

Neither of these cases has religion be some evil plot for control, but instead has been an emerging entity that attempts to correct injustices and restore social order.

EDIT: My point here being is that these intelligent people would have come along at some point or another. It is natural for someone to finally step up and say, "Let's do things differently because this sucks. Why? Because God."

You are merely proving my point. These intelligent guys were/are intelligent. But their descendants either got greedy or actually fervently believed the stories of their ancestors.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are merely proving my point. These intelligent guys were/are intelligent. But their descendants either got greedy or actually fervently believed the stories of their ancestors.

I was under the impression you were ascribing some malicious intent to the intelligent guys.

EDIT: AFGSHGD I misread like a ******* idiot. I read first couple sentences and then saw the word "greedy" and went "oh boy" and didn't take the time to read properly.

NEVERMIND

[spankythehippo]

I was under the impression you were ascribing some malicious intent to the intelligent guys.

No, not at all. These intelligent guys (I need a better name for them) had the right ideals, but my theory postulates that their respective societies have been corrupted from their original ideals, as time progressed. One of peace and harmony (probably).

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, not at all. These intelligent guys (I need a better name for them) had the right ideals, but my theory postulates that their respective societies have been corrupted from their original ideals, as time progressed. One of peace and harmony (probably).

Oh well then I agree with you 100%.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace.

What populace did Jesus Christ try to control?


They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion.

But Odinism, or whatever it's called, wasn't a religion? Wouldn't the Norse have already 'succumbed' to religion in your example?


That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.

:rolleyes: In cases were killing happened, wasn't it just the threat of killing that got most people to convert? So most of the population in such cases were not killed?


What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

What truth? That, for your example, we're low on food?

CR

[spankythehippo]

What populace did Jesus Christ try to control?

Control might be a wrong word. Reform. And there is the possibility that Jesus never existed.




But Odinism, or whatever it's called, wasn't a religion? Wouldn't the Norse have already 'succumbed' to religion in your example?

It's a belief. What would you do if someone came up to you and demanded you should stop all your beliefs/customs/ceremonies etc. and convert to their religion? Would you give up lightly? I think not. The Vikings showed incredibly fierce resistance. And whenever the Christians found any pagan temple, they killed all the inhabitants and any people nearby. Then they would place a big stone cross on it.




:rolleyes: In cases were killing happened, wasn't it just the threat of killing that got most people to convert? So most of the population in such cases were not killed?

These are Vikings we are talking about. They don't give up easily.




What truth? That, for your example, we're low on food?

CR
Ignore that part. That was accidental.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What populace did Jesus Christ try to control?
CR

The Jewish population there? If I remember correctly, the Romans and Jews didn't get along in the region. Wasn't there like three different major rebellions by the Jewish people living there at various times?

[spankythehippo]

Islam is a whole different beast. How many of you knew that Muslims consider Jesus one of the most important Prophets? To Islamic eyes, being a Muslim is not being in opposition to christianity--it is being the next logical step forward like Christianity was to Judaism.

My arm is aching, so I'll just answer this part. Jesus was not Jesus, but Isa. And he was never crucified, in Islam. There's alot of things about Islam that people don't know about, including the fundamentalist extremists out there.

[spankythehippo]

I thought they believed that he was crucified, but that he was not resurrected?

I think that might be the case. I vaguely remember the whole crucifixion being completely different, if not, non-existent, to the folklore in Christianity.

[Papewaio]

Religion when applied properly is about enlightenment.

Most religions that survived helped the societies they integrated into... Not sure how the Thugee cult survived so long, but they weren't particularly big in comparison.

Having a common framework and belief system creates a more powerful society that can survive better. The meme sets that developed meant that religious societies like are much like gene based animals they compete, create, and share resources.

IMDHO religions changed overtime to reflect the societies they were in. Changing from animalistic to animal-human hybrids to pantheons to families, paired entities and finally a single father figure. These changes were about the way we interacted with our environment moving from nomadic, to seasonal farming to city dwellers. No big conspiracy just humans trying to make sense of their surroundings.

[spankythehippo]

I don't doubt that. Some day, long after I'm dead, I hope someone lets me in on all these secrets. The very nature of organized religion makes it difficult to get facts.

Christianity is one of my favorites, because so many Christians like to act like The Bible is god's own text. I bring up the Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) to point out that The Bible is most certainly a product of man-made revision and editing. 99 times out of 100, that leads to some kind of insulting tyrade about how I'm wrong.

You know what my most hated time of the year is? Christmas. Because it isn't his birthday. It's Mithras' birthday. They "borrowed" his birthday. He's a Roman sun god. The legends that surround Mithras are uncanny to the feats that Jesus supposedly did.

Mithras was a saviour. Sent to Earth to live as a mortal. From whom it was possible for sinners to be reborn into immortal life. He died for the sins of others. But came back to life the following Sunday. He was born of a virgin on the December the 25 in a manger, attended by shepherds. He became known as The Light Of The World. He had 12 disciples with whom he shared his last meal before dying. His devotees symbolically consumed the flesh and blood of him. Since he was a sun god, he was worshipped on Sunday. He's often depicted with a halo above his head. Followers of Mithras gave each other gifts on December 25th. The leader of the religion was called the Papa. And their headquarters was in Vatican Hill, Rome.

In fact, most of Christianity's stories are unoriginal.

The reason why Christmas is celebrated on Mithras' birthday is so that the Christians can slip Christmas in on people that already celebrated on that date.

And according to the Qu'ran, Isa (aka Jesus) was born in the summer. And according to Jehovah's Witnesses (no comment here) his birthday was on the 1st of October.

[Tuuvi]

You know what my most hated time of the year is? Christmas. Because it isn't his birthday. It's Mithras' birthday. They "borrowed" his birthday. He's a Roman sun god. The legends that surround Mithras are uncanny to the feats that Jesus supposedly did.

Mithras was a saviour. Sent to Earth to live as a mortal. From whom it was possible for sinners to be reborn into immortal life. He died for the sins of others. But came back to life the following Sunday. He was born of a virgin on the December the 25 in a manger, attended by shepherds. He became known as The Light Of The World. He had 12 disciples with whom he shared his last meal before dying. His devotees symbolically consumed the flesh and blood of him. Since he was a sun god, he was worshipped on Sunday. He's often depicted with a halo above his head. Followers of Mithras gave each other gifts on December 25th. The leader of the religion was called the Papa. And their headquarters was in Vatican Hill, Rome.

In fact, most of Christianity's stories are unoriginal.

The reason why Christmas is celebrated on Mithras' birthday is so that the Christians can slip Christmas in on people that already celebrated on that date.

And according to the Qu'ran, Isa (aka Jesus) was born in the summer. And according to Jehovah's Witnesses (no comment here) his birthday was on the 1st of October.

AFAIK most Christians believe Christ was born in the spring. Christmas just replaced whatever pagan festival took place around that time because it was convenient. The original Christian sabbath was on Saturday, and then was moved to Sunday. The tradition of giving gifts on Christmas is more of a recent practice.

Also, Mithras is an Iranian god, so I have a hard time believing that he was worshiped on "Sunday" or that the headquarters of his religion was in Rome.

[spankythehippo]

AFAIK most Christians believe Christ was born in the spring. Christmas just replaced whatever pagan festival took place around that time because it was convenient. The original Christian sabbath was on Saturday, and then was moved to Sunday. The tradition of giving gifts on Christmas is more of a recent practice.
Yeah. Mithras' day.


Also, Mithras is an Iranian god, so I have a hard time believing that he was worshiped on "Sunday" or that the headquarters of his religion was in Rome.

No. Mithras is the Roman sun god. Mithra is the Persian god. Mithras is the Roman adaptation of Mithra.

[Tuuvi]

Yeah. Mithras' day.

Ok. A quick skim of wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring. But what it does tell me is that the December 25th date wasn't chosen until the 4th or 5th century, and that the original date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity was January 7th. Yes I know, it's Wikipedia, but I think Wikipedia is still fairly reliable for basic facts.


No. Mithras is the Roman sun god. Mithra is the Persian god. Mithras is the Roman adaptation of Mithra.

Ok I was wrong about that as well but Mithras worship didn't come into practice in Rome until the late 1st century AD, well after the establishment of Christianity.

[spankythehippo]

Ok. A quick skim of wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring. But what it does tell me is that the December 25th date wasn't chosen until the 4th or 5th century, and that the original date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity was January 7th. Yes I know, it's Wikipedia, but I think Wikipedia is still fairly reliable for basic facts.
Ok I was wrong about that as well but Mithras worship didn't come into practice in Rome until the late 1st century AD, well after the establishment of Christianity.

Yeah. Exactly. Christmas day wasn't established until centuries after Christ's death.

[Tuuvi]

lol well I guess that means we're misunderstanding each other, or the facts, or something. All I was trying to say is that I disagree with your assessment that Christmas is a plagiarism of Mithras' day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Alright. So, I'm a nihilistic atheist.

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace. They then became, holy men. They controlled the people by putting the fear of God into them. But when the innovators died, their descendents took over. And when they died, the same thing happened. As time went on, these holy men actually started to believe what they were preaching to the people. And then they got greedy.

Look back at history. Huge amounts of taxes were paid to churches in medieval times. Beacuse people wanted to believe in a god. They wanted to believe that there was a big flying spaghetti monster controlling things out of their reach. And they believe this god has the power to take your life and send you to hell, if you don't obey his will. The churches capitalised on this fear. They Christians spread their religion as far and as wide as possible, ruining cultures in the process.
They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion. That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.
What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

I'm very anti-religious and anti-capitalist (not so much). But that doesn't mean I don't think religious teachings are bad. Religion is good as a set of morals. I, personally, do not follow any religion, since I have created my own set of morals to be used only by me. If other people adopt my system, good for them, but I don't care.

If you have any other theories, or would like to question what I've written, feel free to do whatever.

You're a hypocrite - if religion is a lie then the religious doctrines do not stand up and should be opposed. Without a forgiving God christianity is a crock and totally nonsensicle.

Beyond that, your position is absurd and worthy od ridicule, it is based on the sort of historical ignorance practiced as a virtue by the segment of the urban population who wish to consider themselves intelligent and everyone else stupid. I suggest you look into the actual history of the Christianising of Scandanavia, particularly before Cnut put the full force of the Norwegian throne behind it.

I'll get you started, the english had a boast, "we were the only people who did not murder the missionaries sent to us".

You might also want to look at the cultural practices that were actually "supressed", it wasn't Yule, Yule logs, or Hobby Horses - it was rather more the hanging of dead men for the pleasure of Odin and the sacrificing, or ritual maiming, of captives to please the Gods.

Finally, if you think that a culture which glorifies death, violence, murder and rape, sees the world as spiralling down to the doom of Ragnorak and whose chief God is an undead Necromancer who exacts bloody vengence upon his enemies, and I mean really bloody, - is prefereable to ANY form of Christianity you are, frankly dangerously insane.

Go ask the Anglo Saxons how they felt about Danish Paganism, maybe ask Alfred why he spent a year in a swamp while his people were slaughtered and made into slaves.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Control might be a wrong word. Reform. And there is the possibility that Jesus never existed.

Possible, but unlikely, just as it is unlikely that the Trojan War didn't hasppen (in fact evidence increasingly stacks up in the "yes" camp there.


It's a belief. What would you do if someone came up to you and demanded you should stop all your beliefs/customs/ceremonies etc. and convert to their religion? Would you give up lightly? I think not. The Vikings showed incredibly fierce resistance. And whenever the Christians found any pagan temple, they killed all the inhabitants and any people nearby. Then they would place a big stone cross on it.

When Christians came to a Pagan temples/sites they did indeed put crosses on/near them, but there is no evidence of slaughter connected to those events - I have never heard tell of mass graves near Christianised cult sites, and it runs in the face of the instructions given to missionaries like Augustine and Melius. "killing all the inhabitants" is pretty stupid really, because then you have no one to convert.

So I can only assume whoever told you this was pretty stupid.

On the other hand, Danes were keen on crucifying, or otherwise martyering missionaries, when they felt missionaries were being overly offensive to the Alfader, of course. The key difference being that Danes went in for sacrifices, Christians didn't.


These are Vikings we are talking about. They don't give up easily.

Were these Saxon Vikings, or Frankish Vikings?

What do you think, "Viking" means - you can by Christian and Viking you know, and Danish and not Viking.


I don't doubt that. Some day, long after I'm dead, I hope someone lets me in on all these secrets. The very nature of organized religion makes it difficult to get facts.

Christianity is one of my favorites, because so many Christians like to act like The Bible is god's own text. I bring up the Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) to point out that The Bible is most certainly a product of man-made revision and editing. 99 times out of 100, that leads to some kind of insulting tyrade about how I'm wrong.

Ah, Council of Nicea - the one that actually canonised the Bible was the Council of Carthage about sixty odd years later. You are basically right though.


You know what my most hated time of the year is? Christmas. Because it isn't his birthday. It's Mithras' birthday. They "borrowed" his birthday. He's a Roman sun god. The legends that surround Mithras are uncanny to the feats that Jesus supposedly did.

Mithras was a saviour. Sent to Earth to live as a mortal. From whom it was possible for sinners to be reborn into immortal life. He died for the sins of others. But came back to life the following Sunday. He was born of a virgin on the December the 25 in a manger, attended by shepherds. He became known as The Light Of The World. He had 12 disciples with whom he shared his last meal before dying. His devotees symbolically consumed the flesh and blood of him. Since he was a sun god, he was worshipped on Sunday. He's often depicted with a halo above his head. Followers of Mithras gave each other gifts on December 25th. The leader of the religion was called the Papa. And their headquarters was in Vatican Hill, Rome.

In fact, most of Christianity's stories are unoriginal.

The reason why Christmas is celebrated on Mithras' birthday is so that the Christians can slip Christmas in on people that already celebrated on that date.

And according to the Qu'ran, Isa (aka Jesus) was born in the summer. And according to Jehovah's Witnesses (no comment here) his birthday was on the 1st of October.

Actually, Yeshua was probably born in September, because the shepards would not have been on the hills in the spring because the ewes would likely have been lambing.

You're also confusing Mithras and Sol Invictus, who were sort of squidged together with Jesus to make the formal Roman Christian cult. Mithras was not a Roman "Sun God", he was an Eastern warrior-saviour and his followers did not consume his flesh, but the flesh of a white bull which symbolised the one he killed in a cave, nor was he depicted with sunbeams (halo) that was Sol, nor were his followers burried facing the rising sun (Sol again).

A few more things, the "Pope" is called "Father" because all priests were in Roman parlance, he is not even the only current "Pope" in Christianity, and December 23rd (and 25th) is a significant date because it is the Winter Soltice, and the Roman festival was the Saturnalia - with Seneca was complaining had been comercialised as early as the 1st Century AD.

you've been watching Zeitgiest.

It's crap.

[spankythehippo]

You're a hypocrite - if religion is a lie then the religious doctrines do not stand up and should be opposed. Without a forgiving God christianity is a crock and totally nonsensicle.

I don't understand how I'm a hypocrite. I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in religion. That doesn't mean other people do the same.

Ahhh... You see. There is no god.


Beyond that, your position is absurd and worthy od ridicule, it is based on the sort of historical ignorance practiced as a virtue by the segment of the urban population who wish to consider themselves intelligent and everyone else stupid. I suggest you look into the actual history of the Christianising of Scandanavia, particularly before Cnut put the full force of the Norwegian throne behind it.

The Christianisation of Scandinavia was much slower than other parts of the world. The most likely reason for this was opposition of some sort.


I'll get you started, the english had a boast, "we were the only people who did not murder the missionaries sent to us".

What?


You might also want to look at the cultural practices that were actually "supressed", it wasn't Yule, Yule logs, or Hobby Horses - it was rather more the hanging of dead men for the pleasure of Odin and the sacrificing, or ritual maiming, of captives to please the Gods.

I never mentioned anything about the suppression of cultural practices. But either way, Odin was the patron for hanged men. The Norse were barbaric. It's in their culture. Their culture should be respected. If you walk past a holy pagan burial site, it isn't wise to spit, defecate, urinate etc. on it, just because these people were savage. If I walked by Hitler's grave, I would show some deal of respect. The man had discipline, and did A LOT of good things, but also did a lot more bad things which outweigh the good that he did.


Finally, if you think that a culture which glorifies death, violence, murder and rape, sees the world as spiralling down to the doom of Ragnorak and whose chief God is an undead Necromancer who exacts bloody vengence upon his enemies, and I mean really bloody, - is prefereable to ANY form of Christianity you are, frankly dangerously insane.

I have been called sociopathic. And I don't care.


Go ask the Anglo Saxons how they felt about Danish Paganism, maybe ask Alfred why he spent a year in a swamp while his people were slaughtered and made into slaves.

You are speaking as if people will still hold grudges against the Danes. If something bad happens, learn from your mistakes and move along. Don't dwell on the past.

Alfred was only human. No one is perfect.

[spankythehippo]

Possible, but unlikely, just as it is unlikely that the Trojan War didn't hasppen (in fact evidence increasingly stacks up in the "yes" camp there.



When Christians came to a Pagan temples/sites they did indeed put crosses on/near them, but there is no evidence of slaughter connected to those events - I have never heard tell of mass graves near Christianised cult sites, and it runs in the face of the instructions given to missionaries like Augustine and Melius. "killing all the inhabitants" is pretty stupid really, because then you have no one to convert.

So I can only assume whoever told you this was pretty stupid.

On the other hand, Danes were keen on crucifying, or otherwise martyering missionaries, when they felt missionaries were being overly offensive to the Alfader, of course. The key difference being that Danes went in for sacrifices, Christians didn't.



Were these Saxon Vikings, or Frankish Vikings?

What do you think, "Viking" means - you can by Christian and Viking you know, and Danish and not Viking.



Ah, Council of Nicea - the one that actually canonised the Bible was the Council of Carthage about sixty odd years later. You are basically right though.



Actually, Yeshua was probably born in September, because the shepards would not have been on the hills in the spring because the ewes would likely have been lambing.

You're also confusing Mithras and Sol Invictus, who were sort of squidged together with Jesus to make the formal Roman Christian cult. Mithras was not a Roman "Sun God", he was an Eastern warrior-saviour and his followers did not consume his flesh, but the flesh of a white bull which symbolised the one he killed in a cave, nor was he depicted with sunbeams (halo) that was Sol, nor were his followers burried facing the rising sun (Sol again).

A few more things, the "Pope" is called "Father" because all priests were in Roman parlance, he is not even the only current "Pope" in Christianity, and December 23rd (and 25th) is a significant date because it is the Winter Soltice, and the Roman festival was the Saturnalia - with Seneca was complaining had been comercialised as early as the 1st Century AD.

you've been watching Zeitgiest.

It's crap.

Since history is not my career, but only an interest, I'll just write this.

There is a lot of contradictory evidence out there in ancient history. Blatantly dismissing a theory purely on the basis of another theory does not make the former theory incorrect. Neither does it make the latter theory incorrect. There could be another theory which is correct.

Here's one: There are magical monkey poopy faced people out there that preached 3 religions to 3 groups of people, just so they can start fighting and make bets on them with their mates. It's a theory. Now it's just waiting to be disproved. But in this case, it can't be, since there is no evidence behind it. But I wish there were.

I had to google what you meant by Zeitgiest. I don't watch anything on TV, or movies. Except for 3 shows. And I especially hate conspiracy theories that are half-arsed.

Man didn't land on the moon? Shut the :daisy: up.

[The Stranger]

Alright. So, I'm a nihilistic atheist.

My theory is that all Abrahamic religions were created by very intelligent leaders as a way to control the populace. They then became, holy men. They controlled the people by putting the fear of God into them. But when the innovators died, their descendents took over. And when they died, the same thing happened. As time went on, these holy men actually started to believe what they were preaching to the people. And then they got greedy.

Look back at history. Huge amounts of taxes were paid to churches in medieval times. Beacuse people wanted to believe in a god. They wanted to believe that there was a big flying spaghetti monster controlling things out of their reach. And they believe this god has the power to take your life and send you to hell, if you don't obey his will. The churches capitalised on this fear. They Christians spread their religion as far and as wide as possible, ruining cultures in the process.
They did not preserve the other peoples cultures. They destroyed them. Most notable example is in Scandinavia. They tried to teach the vikings the ways of Jeebus. It worked. What happened? They started ignoring Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. A lot of vikings fought against the Christians to preserve their way of life, but they were either killed or succumbed to this disease called religion. That's how lands were "Christianised". By killing most, if not all, of the pagan population.
What problems occurred in the world before the formation of religion? Petty ones, like "Oh s!@#, there's no more food!!!"
What was the answer to their problem, look for food.
Unlike what's happening now. Now, people are trying to hide this problem by hushing the truth.

I'm very anti-religious and anti-capitalist (not so much). But that doesn't mean I don't think religious teachings are bad. Religion is good as a set of morals. I, personally, do not follow any religion, since I have created my own set of morals to be used only by me. If other people adopt my system, good for them, but I don't care.

If you have any other theories, or would like to question what I've written, feel free to do whatever.

what is your view on non Abrahamic religions then?

I think that there are two seperate matters that are often confused. Faith (common to all men, the fundamental principals on which they base their worldview) and Religion (institute of power which acknowledges no other truth which impairs the truth they stand for)

I dont think that there people who have no faith. The person who would come closest to it would be a total skeptic but I dont think such a person can exist.

People can have faith in a God without being religious if they were to tolerate other Faiths as being (possibly) truthful.
People can partake in groups of people who share common faith without being religious for the same reason.

Religion has little to do with faith tho it exploits faith to get a better grip on their followers, to create a feeling of us vs them. Religion is an institute to claim, consolidate and expand power. (or wealth, and through wealth power).

Both my notions of faith and religion not neccesarily mean that a God is involved in the traditional way. A scientist has faith the same way a christian does, even tho their values might be different. I think of organised Capitalism as religious, same as islam as an institute.

I think the corruption went a different way with religion, to a point where the people involved start to belief truly in the message they spread as a justification for what they are doing. instead of it just being a cover for what they are doing.

there are still some problems with this, such as how can individual people be religious other than being followers of a religious group. What if a person or an institute doesnt acknowledge any other truth but his own truth but doesnt not aim to acquire more power.

Anyway, it is possible that certain religions came from groups of people with shared faith (wether this was through education/social processes or coincidence is up for debate) which had the idea to shape the world they lived in according to their values, and this process deteriorated into a powerstruggle. I guess its a simultanious process. As soon as someone starts something for whatever reasons there will almost always be someone looking to get a profit out of it.

An interesting thing is that out of all the faiths that the world has known only a few were very agressive expansionistic (the 3 faiths of the book and perhaps Hinduism, tho i am not sure about that at all, and also judaism being an exception because they are not really expansionistic but not tolerant either). Someone told me this is because the faiths of the book acknowledge no other truth but their own truth, they acknowlegde only one god, and there is no god but God. And God is truth. It is an interesting notion i think, and i would like to know from Pape what he thinks this process resembles in our "evolution" from hunter-gatheres to city dwellers.


Religion is a natural manifestation of order in regions where structured government systems that have the power to cater to its populace are not feasible.

this is an interesting thought, ill think on it some more.

[The Stranger]

Religion when applied properly is about enlightenment.

Most religions that survived helped the societies they integrated into... Not sure how the Thugee cult survived so long, but they weren't particularly big in comparison.

Having a common framework and belief system creates a more powerful society that can survive better. The meme sets that developed meant that religious societies like are much like gene based animals they compete, create, and share resources.

IMDHO religions changed overtime to reflect the societies they were in. Changing from animalistic to animal-human hybrids to pantheons to families, paired entities and finally a single father figure. These changes were about the way we interacted with our environment moving from nomadic, to seasonal farming to city dwellers. No big conspiracy just humans trying to make sense of their surroundings.

What exactly do you mean by enlightment? Emancipation into an free-thinking individual? If so I disagree, religion in any sense of the word, i think is a group thing. The group goes before the individual, and the Truth (god or whatever) goes before all.

Enlightment is supposed to be the victory of rationality, but I dont believe rationality is the answer to all problems, and i also believe that it is quite undebatable that rationality (whether because we cannot oversee the consequenses of all our actions, or because we are not as rational as we believe, or just because rationality has to be kept in check by other forces) has been the cause of many new problems.

[Sigurd]

Christianity is one of my favorites, because so many Christians like to act like The Bible is god's own text. I bring up the Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) to point out that The Bible is most certainly a product of man-made revision and editing. 99 times out of 100, that leads to some kind of insulting tirade about how I'm wrong.
Right... You need to stop bringing up Nicaea when talking about the creation of the Bible. Somehow this has become "the event" to mention when talking about the agreed upon compilation of the Canon. That particular council did nothing towards establishing a canon of scripture. They settled the celebration of Easter and handled the heretic Arius and began the process of establishing the doctrine of the Trinity (Which was a direct result of putting down the ideas of Arius. That a smaller group with equally weird ideas, won this debate is a discussion for later).
edit: Bah.. Philipus beat me to it...


Ok. A quick skim of Wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring.
You aren't wrong m8... I could have written that Christ wasn't born during spring in a Wikipedia article and the world would believe it. Most likely the Jesus written about in the New Testament was born during early spring, somewhere around April. It was also convenient for Christianity to absorb mid winter celebrations like Yule.
It's kinda funny that my native word for Christmas is Jul.. which is even worse than x-mas in a modern Christian perspective (yeah.. I know the old tradition concerning this).

As a response to the OP:
Yes, it is a plausible theory and most certainly applicable to most religions, as the logic result of even considering that there is a God, the shear number of religions dictates that some of them, if not most, would be false. And if there are false religions, there would be some agenda behind them.

If we even remotely consider that this world we live on was somehow made under the influence of a Deity, and that there is an agenda behind it. Let's say that we are godly offspring that are to be tested and someday return to this Deity as deity-graduates. This Deity would have put out a training course and given instructions... to .. let's call them prophets. These prophets recorded these instructions and created schools (churches). Most likely this would have happened at a very early stage.. to get this .. agenda.. on track from the beginning.
Yes.. I am talking about a "religion" of Adam (or someone just like him).
Now this would have been the pure religion, the one that would turn man to Deity offspring and a future with Deity.
But because of man's inherent nature of anarchy and wanting to do their own "thing", this pure religion became diluted and many warped versions spread over the continents.
If this is so... there should be a core in them all, which is similar if not identical. I am gonna stop that particular chain of thought here.

Then if we consider the Judeo - Christian particular.
We should all be familiar with its basics. Maybe Moses (the first recorder that we know of) was the originator. But he incorporated stuff that preceded him. Stuff that might have been familiar to the Israelites that were in Egypt. OK maybe there was a guy called Abram and Isaac and Jacob and that they moved to Egypt due to famine. Maybe they had the genealogy with them back to this first man.. called ADAM (A name which incidentally is older that the Judeo - Christian religious roots). Who knows... the ancients was very persistent when it came to family history.
So.. the deity involved with making this planet was someone called Yahweh/Christ and he established a "method" of returning to the Heavens where once we lived (why did we leave in the first place?).
We know the history of said religion... and scrolling down to around present day we find ourselves with quite a few variations of that original Abrahamic religion. Not only Christianity has its roots there, but Judaism (with its several variations) and Islam (with its variations). I am taking Islam into this for the mere fact that Muhammad got instructions from an Angel called ... Gabriel (yeah.. how inventive was that?).

We cannot escape the claim, in this discussion, from a more modern version of this old method of establishing a religion. The claim of Joseph Smith, the founder of a religion that the next president of the mightiest nation subscribes to. :sneaky:
Yes.. this puts the OP to naught (if it is true).

So this kid prays about which church he should join and lo and behold he is visited. Not only by God (singular), but God and his Son (the holy ghost must have been there too). Three distinct entities. Later he is visited by an angel. Not Gabriel this time, but a former American native prophet that lived 1400 years prior to that event, giving directions to a record of the Judeo - Christian religion that the natives of the the Americas lived by. Is that the end of it?
Nope... he is visited by John the Baptist (given authority to baptize), Peter, James and John (yep, the top three Apostles).. and more... Moses, Elijah and a return of Yahweh to bless the first temple, and apparently many more.
Jesus Christ established his church among the native Americans and called 12 apostles among them too. Three of which was granted the same boon that John the beloved was granted - to tarry on the earth until the official return of the Son in glory which is THE event in the Judeo - Christian religion. Yes these three was seen (three men with extraordinary powers) several times in the early history of that church. Not presenting themselves as to who they were, but things like... "My father told me to plant the crops, but I had to go and get the prophet and his wife, how will I be able to do both?" whereupon three men came and with great skill and speed planted the crops for them without being asked. They never introduced themselves, but the speculation is clear.

Much controversy... and all of this is greatly attacked by many.. since the very day this began. But none of the church "fathers" has confessed. Even under torture and grave danger, mobs destroying their settlements, killing their men and raping their women did this religion crumble. Witnesses that later was hostile to the church never denied the testimonies of seeing and angel and holding the ancient record. They would rather restate them.
No attack on this religion has made the house of cards fold.
I have read much of the anti-Mormon stuff, but none of it is too convincing and much if not all is dishonest and based on either projection, outright lies or straw-men.
This religion sticks out like a sore thumb in this discussion.

[Hax]

25th of December was a Holy Day attributed to Sol Invictus, not Mithras.


I think that might be the case. I vaguely remember the whole crucifixion being completely different, if not, non-existent, to the folklore in Christianity.

No, I believe the common idea is that he (Jesus/Isa; note that there is no real difference between the two. It's just a name; there are no real connotations. However, Arab Christians use a different name for Jesus, "Yasu") got switched out at the last moment with a common criminal. Make of it what you will.

I do have to have breakfast now, but I have my own theories concerning the rise of Islam; I'll do that in a couple of minutes.

[The Stranger]

breakfast now? good idea... you must be a student! ill go get mine!

[Hax]

That's right, I only slept for three hours the night before and I had dinner and drinks with some lecturers and professors afterwards, so I got up around 1:00 PM.

In any case, talking about Islam, and more specifically, its origins and the way it came into existence. Of course, professing that it "came into existence" is a form of heresy in its own right as Islam is, according to its own believers, "the original religion of Abraham". Regardless, it's worth taking a look at its history, its practices and its particularities. There are many interesting things within Islam that can be traced to pre-Islamic roots, be they Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian or "pagan".

We know several things about Islam (or at least, we're pretty sure we do);
1) Muhammad started preaching his message in Mecca around the year 600; according to Islamic tradition, he first spread the religion within his close family, before moving out to spread the religion in public around 610; after severe persecution, he and his followers (the so-called muhajirun) moved to Mecca.
2) Prophets in Judaism and Christianity are also acknowledged by Islam
3) Concerning rituals; the central "point" of Islam is the Ka‘aba, located in Mecca; there is a Holy Month in which Muslims should fast (including abstination from other sorts of "wrong" behaviour; sexual promiscuity, lying, getting angry, etc.); every Muslim is obliged to make a Pilgrimage to Mecca in his lifetime; every Muslim is obliged to pay the Zakat (alms tax); every Muslim has to pray five times a day.

So when you take a look at points one to three, there are several footnotes to be made, which in my opinion, are pretty interesting.

Point 1: Muhammad preached his message around the year 600; he moved to Medina after persecution with a small group of follower

For a first glance, this seems pretty straightforward; nobody denies that Muhammad did indeed preach a message of radical monotheism around the start of the 7th century. However, with critical analysis; two things are going to stand out:

1) The discrepancy between the verses revealed in Mecca and the later verses revealed in Medina; when he was still living in Mecca, Muhammad actively tried to harmonise the different traditions into a new, single religion; verses such as "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) or "The People of the Scripture" (2:62, 3:113) (including the relatively little-known "Sabians"; a group of moon-worshipers of a sort in Iraq). However, when he got to Medina, where he was the political leader with heavy responsibilities, the tone of the verses shifted:


O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.


Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners[...]


If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.

The word the Qur‘an uses here is "munafiquna" which is usually translated as "hypocrites"; I don't think it refers to non-believers (kafirun) but rather to Muslim apostates who reverted to pagan traditions. In any case, that's not the issue here:

It's evident that the Meccan verses diverge so much from the Medinan verses; it also explains the shift of Muhammad from a religious prophet to a politico-religious statesman.

==============================

Point 2: Prophets of Judaism and Christianity are acknowledged by Islam

The religious argument here being that Islam is the logical conclusion of Judaism and Christianity, and is such, is mandated by God and is also an excellent political tool to use when engaging (on a religious level) with Jews and Christians; how could Muhammad have known about all these religious figures being the illiterate merchant he was; this would only have been possible through divine power.

However, there are a few things that are also commonly accepted about Muhammad's life (besides, there are serious doubts on whether Muhammad was illiterate at all; it's not very likely that a merchant of his caliber and prestige was unable to read or write even the most basic things).

1) He had been in direct contact with a Christian monk (his wife Khadija's cousin, if I recall correctly)
2) In his travels to Syria in his youth, he was said to have discussed religion and spirituality with Christians and Jews there.

It's clear that Muhammad had at least some basic knowledge about how Judaism and Christianity functione; and when the hijra (exodus to Medina) came around, he was able to politicise this knowledge by pointing towards Islam as the logical conclusion of Judaism and Christianity and by pointing towards Jews and Christians as forsaking God by ignoring his message.

And later on, when Mecca was taken over by the Muslims and other tribes flocked to Muhammad, the acknowledgement of the Jewish and Christian prophets (especially by putting Jesus/Isa‘ in a rather elevated position), Arab Christian tribes must have felt more comfortable. In fact, some of those Arab Christian tribes did not initally convert to Islam.

==========================================
Point three: Rituals

This is a subject that intrigues me the most; I spoke at length about this with my professors of Islamology and Literature and it hasn't ceased to be interesting to me. So this'll basically be about the Five Pillars of Islam:

1) There is no God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet (and Shi‘ites additionally say; "and Ali is the viceroy of God")

This was the WHAM moment, basically; for Pagan Arabs this was a radical shift towards pure, uncompromising monotheism. There are some doubts about when exactly this was formulated (the whole Satanic Verses thing sprung from this), but I think that by the time there was no doubt about it. This was radical. I can't possibly stress that enough.

2) Salat; praying five times a day.

I've caught some flak for saying this earlier in a more private environment, but the point remains. This might have been influenced by Zoroastrianism (bolded by me):


and it [veneration of the divinities of natural phenonema] is a duty incumbent on its adherents to offer reverence to the Sun Yazad together with Mithra by recitation of the Khoridd and Mihr Niydyes three times a day (at the sunrise, noon and sunset prayers)

In fact, there are five times of prayer in Zoroastranism; however, this is something I don't really know too much about, so I'm not (yet) willing to say that Zoroastrian rituals definitely influenced Islam. It's an interesting similarity though.

3) Ramadan

Periods of fasting and non-violence have been known throughout Bedouin and pagan Arab practice; there were holy places associated with Gods where warfare was forbidden; markets sprung up around these places and they quickly grew into sizeable towns and hotspots for people to come trade goods and information.

4) Zakat/alms tax

This is something I don't know too much about; however, I know that Arab culture was dominated by the idea of the tribe and the clan; physical and economic security was dependent on your clan. Deviant behaviour would likely result in death. I'm not too sure about this, but the instution of the zakat might very well have been a way of replacing the dependence of the believers on the clan, and rather to the umma (community) as a whole. In my opinion, this was a way of trying to demonopolise the position of the tribe in relationship with the individual believer.

5) Hajj/pilgrimage

As in the case of the Ramadan, pilgrimages to Holy places existed long before the coming of Islam in the Hijaz; the Ka‘aba in Mecca was surrounded by a haram (holy spot) in which many different kinds of Gods and demi-gods were revered. After Muhammad took Mecca, the haram was "purified" and the worship of idols was banned. In any case, the hajj is one of those things that most definitely has a pre-Islamic founding.


A final note on Arab identity
When we spoke in our History classes about the existence of Islam and its success in destroying the Sassanid Empire and bringing the Byzantine Empire to its knees, there were basically two things that were important:
1) The recent Sassanid-Byzantine wars, that left both empires immensely weak
2) The fact the Arab tribes were united for the first time.

While the first subject is something that should not be discussed here as it has had no real influence on the formation of Islam, the second point is important. The concept of a shared Arab identity did not exist until that point; I'm not too sure if the rise of Islam was the affirmation or the cause of the idea of Arab identity, but the idea of the Arabs as forming a single group probably was a reaction to the presence of Persian colonies in southern Arabia. Apart from that; anything goes.


In any case, I'm not yet a professional scholar, I don't speak Arabic fluently and I only started my academic career half a year ago; I'm not at all a good authority, let alone an authority at all on the origins of Islam; I just hope to have sparked some interest, because this is a subject that still requires serious research.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I mean, when did Judaism actually start? When were the first scrolls of the Torah written? Surely thousands of years before Christ.

The first scrolls may have been written thousands of years ago but they lay hidden for a long time after, it was only when David united the tribes that the Jews rediscovered fragments of them, which made the reforms of King Hezekiah possible. Although even then it was only when the Jews were exiled to Babylon that anything recognizable to modern Judaism emerged. It was only the shock of being separated from the temple that led to the Jews placing more emphasis on studying the Tanakh and it was during their exile in Babylon that they began to observe the sabbath and their other customs that allowed them to keep their identity.


Of course, out of this group came Jesus. Whether you're a religious person or not, the reason Jesus Christ was such a hit was because of the Romans--and the way they dealt with him was classic martyrdom. The results should have been predictable, but for some reason nobody thought of that before they stuck him up on a cross.

Well it was a pretty effective method of dealing with the prophetic leaders of the many cults that were in the area at the time. It was also pretty effective in dealing with Christianity in Judea itself, martyrdom didn't do much for Jesus there. The real question is why Christianity appealed so much to the Jewish diaspora.


Islam is a whole different beast. How many of you knew that Muslims consider Jesus one of the most important Prophets? To Islamic eyes, being a Muslim is not being in opposition to christianity--it is being the next logical step forward like Christianity was to Judaism.

Well yes, four of Islam's five major prophets are Biblical characters. Although this doesn't mean you should get too hopeful about the inter-faith possibilities, the Muslim understanding of the Bible is very different to that of Jews and Christians.

[Beskar]

You got to remember that Christianity was full of converts, most often or not, the most notable were the the rich nobility of the Roman atrocity who used to be believers of religions such as Mithra. These lord and ladies, if you will allow me to address them as such, brought with them great art pieces and styles from their former regions, from songs, poetry and mosaics. As addressing the statement: "Christmas is a plagiarism of all kinds of things" the influences from the others through the major conversions of the area had a massive influence. Great many of Christianities' early traditions came from the converts of other faiths.

But basically Christianity was co-opted the suit the purposes of those in charge.

[Papewaio]

When religion opens the mind and doesn't close it, that is enlightenment with a small e.

Jesuit priests would have to be an example of this. Gene dominance and the Big Bang Theory originate from within that order.

=][=

If you put your trust in evidence and not unprovables you can lead a non Faith based life. Science works when ideas are tested, it doesnt work in untestable absolutes. Also for scientists untestable absolutes are like couch to extreme sportsmen... comfortable but neither satisfying nor challenging and certainly doesnt inform ones life. Trusting in people and evidence is not faith. Faith is believing and trusting in an entity you havn't met, can't measure and can't disprove. Such entities are called tooth fairies, Santa Claus and unicorns for children. An adult who believes in the tooth fairy is ridiculed, yet no one can prove or disprove such an entity any easier then God.

I don't have faith that their is a higher power. If others wish to believe in a tooth fairy they are welcome. Just dont expect me to wear fairy wings, donate to your faith or be impressed with it being exempt to taxes. If evidence comes along to prove one I'll at that point change my mind. After all there is always the chance another black swan event can happen.

[Viking]

I don't think leaders create religions. One often sees that "prophetic" people create new offspring of already existing religions (or mix two or more of them). So I'd place my money on that the more ideological religions (as opposed to those who rely more on rituals rather than moral understanding) are created by "prophetic" people. Maybe not every "prophet" believes his own words, but I'd bet that the majority of them do.

What goes on in North Korea might look related to religion, but relevant to this topic one must note that the 'religion' here focuses on the individuals here on Earth, and do IIRC not provide any mandate from some higher power for the ruling of the guys at the top; so it might not be relevant.

BTW, your understanding of the Christianisation of Scandinavia strikes me as pretty odd. I don't know the story in Denmark and Sweden, but in Norway, it was Vikings that fought Vikings over the issue; and the Christian Viking kings won in the end (unfortunately, I suppose; this bit becomes pretty theoretic).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't understand how I'm a hypocrite. I don't believe in a god. I don't believe in religion. That doesn't mean other people do the same.

Ahhh... You see. There is no god.

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.


The Christianisation of Scandinavia was much slower than other parts of the world. The most likely reason for this was opposition of some sort.

What?

The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.


I never mentioned anything about the suppression of cultural practices. But either way, Odin was the patron for hanged men. The Norse were barbaric. It's in their culture. Their culture should be respected. If you walk past a holy pagan burial site, it isn't wise to spit, defecate, urinate etc. on it, just because these people were savage. If I walked by Hitler's grave, I would show some deal of respect. The man had discipline, and did A LOT of good things, but also did a lot more bad things which outweigh the good that he did.

Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.


I have been called sociopathic. And I don't care.

Well, if you really don't care about other people - that would be sociopathy.


You are speaking as if people will still hold grudges against the Danes. If something bad happens, learn from your mistakes and move along. Don't dwell on the past.

Alfred was only human. No one is perfect.

Congratulations - you completely failed to get the point. Before you bemoan the death of Nordic culture, you might want to see which bits were killed off. Read Snorri Sturlasson.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.


Since history is not my career, but only an interest, I'll just write this.

There is a lot of contradictory evidence out there in ancient history. Blatantly dismissing a theory purely on the basis of another theory does not make the former theory incorrect. Neither does it make the latter theory incorrect. There could be another theory which is correct.

There's a lot of evidence, Constantine's religious reforms combined Sol Invictus (God of the elite) with Mithras (God the army) with Yeshua (God the poor). It was about unity, and winning an Empire. It is also, believe it or not, a matter of historical record, as is Constantine's life. You can't even distinguish Sol Invictus from Mithras, you're working off hearsay, books written by hack writers, not history.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, its not the be-all and end-all, but it highlights my point that the Bible is a heavily edited and revised document written by human hands and compiled by human hands. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks otherwise, but there are a lot of people that do.

And I am one of them! As has been pointed out, Nicea had nothing to do with the canon, and it was in fact the Third Council of Carthage that formulated it. However the canon that was approved by that council was not formulated by it, it was merely putting a rubber stamp on what was widely accepted throughout Christendom.

First off, around 80% of the Bible is the Old Testament, which given the Judaic roots of Christianity, meant it was taken for granted by Christians as part of the canon.

So that leaves just 20% which the whole controversy is over. And in fact, there are suggestions within the scripture itself that even while it was still being written, a somewhat coherent set of documents had come to be accepted as scripture:

"As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

[The Stranger]

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.



The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.



Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.



Well, if you really don't care about other people - that would be sociopathy.



Congratulations - you completely failed to get the point. Before you bemoan the death of Nordic culture, you might want to see which bits were killed off. Read Snorri Sturlasson.

I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.



There's a lot of evidence, Constantine's religious reforms combined Sol Invictus (God of the elite) with Mithras (God the army) with Yeshua (God the poor). It was about unity, and winning an Empire. It is also, believe it or not, a matter of historical record, as is Constantine's life. You can't even distinguish Sol Invictus from Mithras, you're working off hearsay, books written by hack writers, not history.

faith should be a personal matter. religion a is always a matter of state. whether you unify state with religion or seperate it, doesnt matter. the state will decide upon this. could be so that the religion is (rules) the state tho.

[Sigurd]

No, its not the be-all and end-all, but it highlights my point that the Bible is a heavily edited and revised document written by human hands and compiled by human hands. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks otherwise, but there are a lot of people that do.
Hey... I am not arguing the validity of you point, just the reference to the wrong council.
Even though the Bible apologetics will throw the "It was a widely accepted compilation", it doesn't remove the fact that this is a human construct.
If I am not mistaken, it was the same culprit that formulated the doctrine of the trinity, that was asked to suggest which books were considered canon. He compiled a list and several contemporary scholars agreed. It was not decided on a particular council, but the process would be too similar to ignore.
If only they would recognize the Bible for what it is and what it claims, I think we would have had a bit fewer versions of established denominations in the Christian world.

[spankythehippo]

If you believe that, it follows that religion is evil - your contention is that religion is used as a dishonest control system, and was created for that purpose.

I do not "like" the religious system. That should speak for itself. Judging by your abrasiveness, it suggests that you are religious. It shouldn't matter to you what I think. If you believe in a god, go ahead and worship him. But I won't. And no one will force me to.


The Roman Church sent missionaries, every people killed them except the English, who welcomed them.

And?


Odin was not the "Patron" of hanged men, men were hanged for his pleasure, left to rot. The Norse were not "barbaric" they were violent and bloodthirsty, a Death Cult who glorified and sanctified violence and abuse of those they conquered.

He IS the patron god of hanged men. He was hanged himself on Yggdrasil to gain the knowledge of the Nine Worlds. And gave up his right (?) eye to Mimir.



I don't dwell on the past, but I do study it - more carefully than you.

OK then. Do you want a medal? Being hostile to others brings forth more hostility. If I'm wrong about anything, I question why I am wrong, and why other's are right. It's the process of learning. As I said, history is not my career, so I do not focus my full attention to it.

[naut]

And, lo, suddenly there came forth from the cave many dragons; and when the children saw them, they cried out in great terror. Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired.
-Biblical Apocrypha. Book of Matthew.

Stop insulting Abrahamic religion, Jesus was bad-ass.


-----

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

[spankythehippo]

-Biblical Apocrypha. Book of Matthew.

Stop insulting Abrahamic religion, Jesus was bad-ass.


-----

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

Wow. My name is in bold.

I'm not really trying to convince religious people to not believe. I'm trying to say that atheists and religious people aren't enemies. Although people like this really get on my nerves. I mean, really.

https://img593.imageshack.us/img593/111/screenshot20110806at103.png


Fus Ro Dah?

:creep:

Uhhhh. Skyrim memes. It ruined the game for me.

[spankythehippo]

I used to hate Skyrim memes, until I took an arrow to the knee!

I still think Chuck Norris jokes are funny... don't judge me.

https://img113.imageshack.us/img113/3404/fffffffffuuuuuuuuuu.jpg


Seriously though, people like in the above post are a dime a dozen, and they're all over the country. They outnumber us rational folks by a considerable amount, and are one of the main reasons I fear impending social collapse. Just saying.

Normally, those types of people don't exist here. I guess Australia learnt the error of it's way, when it discriminates against others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not "like" the religious system. That should speak for itself. Judging by your abrasiveness, it suggests that you are religious. It shouldn't matter to you what I think. If you believe in a god, go ahead and worship him. But I won't. And no one will force me to.

As a matter of fact, although I have what are generally recognised as "Christian" beliefs I am extremely leery of organised religion. My objection to your thesis is not the basic point, but rather the evidence you present to report it, which is factually wrong.

Religion is a social construct, that is patently obvious because even the "same" religion varies its practices and nuances its doctrines over time and place. That being said, the major world religions today do not have internal logical problems, and they are not so set against the phyiscally understood reality of the world as many people claim. If they were they would have gone the way of the old religions, which died out when they ceased to have any relevence or grip on reality.


And?

Your opening gambit was, "Christian missionaries killed lots of Pagans in Scandanavia, and everywhere else" My point is that not only is this generally incorrect, certainly before the founding of the Order Militant, but also that the context for the few cases of Christian Kings making war uppon Pagans (such as Charlamagne) were actually reprisal attacks for sending peaceful missionaries home sans heads.


He IS the patron god of hanged men. He was hanged himself on Yggdrasil to gain the knowledge of the Nine Worlds. And gave up his right (?) eye to Mimir.

Yes, and he had two Ravans, and an unerring spear, and he tied Loki up in a cave with his own intestines, and he will be devoured by the Grey Wolf after the final charge of the Holy Dead at the Doom of the Gods, after which the world will be reborn in a flood and the God Baulder the Fair will arise from the dead and rule over a new and perfect world.

Christianity went down well in Scandanavia once Europe had recovered enough that the remaining Pagans realised Ragnorak was not coming and they were not living in a "wolf age". As to Odin, he like having men hanged for him.


OK then. Do you want a medal? Being hostile to others brings forth more hostility. If I'm wrong about anything, I question why I am wrong, and why other's are right. It's the process of learning. As I said, history is not my career, so I do not focus my full attention to it.

I want you to go away, read up on Constantine's reforms, his conversion to Christianity (ish), he refounding of Roman Religion and the differences between the Cults he welded together into the Roman church, and then make an actual argument.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, it comes down to faith once again. Which makes this argument impossible to have. For me to prove my point, we have to assume that the Old Testament is all man-made too. That's fundamentally at odds with your view, I would imagine.

Whether or not God inspired the individual authors is a matter of faith. But the formation of the Old and New Testaments is a historical process/event and one that we can debate based on the evidence we have.

That Peter referred to the Pauline Epistles as "scripture" hundreds of years before the Third Council of Carthage is significant, since they make up a significant chunk of the New Testament.

[The Stranger]

i dont see how ragnarok is that much different from apocalypse but i havent read much on the matter.

[spankythehippo]

Yes, and he had two Ravans, and an unerring spear, and he tied Loki up in a cave with his own intestines, and he will be devoured by the Grey Wolf after the final charge of the Holy Dead at the Doom of the Gods, after which the world will be reborn in a flood and the God Baulder the Fair will arise from the dead and rule over a new and perfect world.

Wrong. The Aesir transformed Loki's son Narvi (or it could be Vali, I can't remember exactly) into a wolf, which then proceeded to disembowel his brother. From there, Loki's son's intestines were used as shackles, and then turned to stone (or iron).


I want you to go away, read up on Constantine's reforms, his conversion to Christianity (ish), he refounding of Roman Religion and the differences between the Cults he welded together into the Roman church, and then make an actual argument.

I'd rather not. I formulated this "theory" based on current situations, tied loosely with some historical facts. Hence the title of the thread "So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here."

If it was a concrete theory, I wouldn't begin the thread with "So...". It's just a weird theory I came up with while on the crapper. And I'm a casual weed smoker, although I do not enjoy smoking. So this the product, a theory that is plausible, but backed by close to no evidence.

So, yes, I do not know a great deal about the intricacies of Christianity, but I know enough to form an opinion on them. An opinion that shouldn't matter to anyone.

[The Stranger]

opinion is the result of a process of careful study and deliberation. its not just waking up one day and thinking hey, i dislike this or that.

thats preference or whatever. your thing you can call it an idea, a hypothesis, a feeling, a rant... but not really theory or opinion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

I think this is unfair, I seem to have the most changeable views of anyone on the planet. I've went from a born again Evangelical type to a hardcore 'the rapture is coming young earth creationist' type to a liberal type that would believe in evolution etc, to a quite traditional Calvinist, to one of those people that claims to be against organised religion, and finally to a follower of the British Israelite movement.

Indeed, this is a weakness on my part, and the verse from Ephesians 4:14 seems pretty applicable to me:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"

It's got to the stage where I don't honestly know what I believe anymore.

Bah!

[The Stranger]

spankythehippo, IMHO, rational discussion with the religious is pointless. Religion is inherently irrational, and those that "believe" cannot be convinced otherwise through reasoned arguments. They have to discover the logical flaws themselves, and unfortunately many cannot or will not.

its not just unfair its plainly wrong.

everyone believes things, everyone believes things that cannot be proven. this is irrational, it is true, but it is not unique to religious persons, in fact it is common to all men.

theology can be logically consistent, in fact theology has many arguments to back it. these arguments are not scientific, but the domain of theology is metaphysical so the argumants hardly can be scientific. (besides the fact that most which i know were constructed before the rise of science). you might not accept these arguments, but that doesnt mean they do not exist. and you cannot judge it entirely on the layman. as if all the persons who claim they think evolution and general relativity are true have good reasons to believe this other than the argument of authority. which is basically what the layman religious person is claiming too.

[Sigurd]

About the reference to Odin being hanged.. I think we should be a bit careful to draw any particular conclusions on the nature of this "hanging".
The myth comes from Hávamál (old Edda by Snorre Sturlasson) and a particular verse there. Snorre in Yngligesaga do not mention anything about the tree or a hanging. It is only found in Hávamál and the verse (3 versions under):

138.
Véd jeg, jeg hang
paa vindige træ
alle de nætter ni,
med geir saaret
og given Oden,
selv hen til mig selv;
oppe paa træet,
som ingen véd,
af hvad rod det randt.

Eg veit at eg hekk
på vindalt tre
næter heile nie,
med geir-odd såra
og gjeven Odin,
gjeven sjølv til meg sjølv
oppå det treet
som ingen veit
kvar det av rotom renn.

I ween that I hung | on the windy tree,
Hung there for nights full nine;
With the spear I was wounded, | and offered I was
To Othin, myself to myself,
On the tree that none | may ever know
What root beneath it runs.

You should note the preposition "på" (on). If you were hanged with a rope, you would say 'in' a tree and not 'on'. This is more true in my language.
So if someone is hung on a tree, it would be the same as someone being hung on a cross. "Jesus hang på korset. Odin hang på treet". This could mean that he was nailed to the tree and not hanged with a noose on a rope. Which... looks more like something coordinated with the Christian lore. Note also that Odin is wounded in his side by a spear which is also suspiciously close to Christ being stabbed in the heart with a spear while on the cross. Snorri lived during a time where Christendom absorbed/removed the pagan rituals and customs... Some say that he recorded these things to preserve them.


Honestly, I don't even bring it up as a bad thing. There's nothing un-Christian about admitting that the Bible is something that was compiled by human hands.
:sneaky: Oh you poor innocent soul. You haven't "met" the right kind yet

[Rhyfelwyr]

In my point of view, the idea that someone would put their trust in something completely unprovable that is held together only because of powerful establishments that bridge generations for the benefit of a few people over the many makes the entire concept--and thus people who subscribe to it--incredibly suspect. edit: By this I mean the concept of heaven and hell. Us vs. Them. The Believers and the Non Believers. All major organized religions agree on one thing: Its better to be a believer.

My reasons for believing have nothing to do with the church as an establishment nor is it a generational thing that was passed down to me. I also believe there is evidence that supports both the existence of God and the authority of the scripture.

As for the us v them mentality, religion can also be a source of unity that hold society together. Judaism held the tribes of Israel together even when they were divided between two kingdoms. Islam united the Arab tribes. Christianity tore down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. etc.

As for it being better to be a believer, well that is obviously true for any belief. I'm sure many people in this thread feel I would be better off if I was cured of my ignorance.


I understand that this is an unfair prejudice, but that doesn't mean I understand where you're coming from any better. This is the cause for the entire divide.

Religion isn't inherently more divisive than politics or race. For all practical purposes here on earth, I have more in common with the atheist next door than I do with a born again convert over in China, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

Although I'm guessing you might be influenced in saying what you said by the fact that politics, race and religion are all so intertwined in America with your classic white Christian Right Republican.


It only gets worse when people of one faith or another try to push for REAL laws and reforms on the basis of something that the rest of us simply find ridiculous. Its an impossible debate to have. And now we're getting to a point in America where being an intellectual athiest is actually kind of a social stigma. That scares the crap out of me. There are a lot of Americans out there who are only a few steps removed from the Taliban they hate so much--the only difference is that the Americans are benefitting from the REAL and TANGIBLE fruits of intellectual labor while at the same time trying to create a divide between the faithful and the intellectual. It is a scary trend.

Well, the fact is that America has seen massive social upheaval in recent decades that really has eaten away at 'traditional' values. The radical Christian Right is really just a reaction against that, its no surprise that its heartland in the south also happens to be the area with most problems in terms of divorce, single-parents, and the poverty that seems to complement such trends.

I would also suggest that the Christian Right is not as new and terrifying a development as you suggest. It may be a fringe element in political nowadays but it would tbh have been fairly mainstream fifty years back.

I mean we all like to believe that its the end of the world and things are only going to get worse before they get better (whether its the Viking Ragnarok, Christian armageddon or Marx's final class war) but it wasn't that long ago America was enduring McCarthyism and IIRC 'The Buraeu of Un-American Activities'. I'm sure you'll get through this...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong. The Aesir transformed Loki's son Narvi (or it could be Vali, I can't remember exactly) into a wolf, which then proceeded to disembowel his brother. From there, Loki's son's intestines were used as shackles, and then turned to stone (or iron).

Well, I don't know. See, Vali was also the son of Odin born to avenge Baulder, and the important wolf was Fenris (another son of Loki), so I think that version is a later garbling of the myth.


I'd rather not. I formulated this "theory" based on current situations, tied loosely with some historical facts. Hence the title of the thread "So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here."

If it was a concrete theory, I wouldn't begin the thread with "So...". It's just a weird theory I came up with while on the crapper. And I'm a casual weed smoker, although I do not enjoy smoking. So this the product, a theory that is plausible, but backed by close to no evidence.

So, yes, I do not know a great deal about the intricacies of Christianity, but I know enough to form an opinion on them. An opinion that shouldn't matter to anyone.

So, basically, you pulled it out of your fundament based on an vague idea about how you don't like religion and a sketchy understanding of the history of Christianity?

And you're surprised it gets ripped into?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right. None of that is wrong. My contention is this: Religion is an irrational and dangerous way of holding people together with far more pitfalls than benefits.

Well if we're just going to look at the pros/cons regardless of what we believe to be the truth, I think you have to say religion does a lot more good than harm. It's all well and good to talk about the Crusades and jihadism and what not, but its faith/religion (I think I can blur them in this context without engaging in sophistry) that gives people hope when they are lying on their deathbed, or that can give a comforting answer to a kid when someone they love dies.


My beliefs are the result of weighing evidence carefully and with skepticism--from all sides. That is not true of any religion,

Well that is more or less how the Protestant reformers worked, and the later deists of the Enlightenment.


and even though there are many religious intellectuals that temper their beliefs with fact and reason, this is increasingly not the case with young americans.

Again, you're getting upset about the lack of reason and the polarisation of attitudes today, and looking back to a golden age that never existed. For millenia people have held to beliefs simply because they are the ones they were brought up with, and have not really bothered to either understand them never mind challenge them.

Your bog standard atheist is every bit as guilty of this as you bog standard Christian. I bet 90% of those that believe in evolution have a really minimal understanding of it, and the crew over at answersingenesis.com could mop the floor with them if they wanted to.

As for intellectuals being somewhat better in this respect, I don't think they are. Generally, beliefs are not the product of balanced reason, they are instead self-reinforcing prejudices. Rather than objectively analysing information, the more intelligent types are better at finding a narrative that allows them to place new information into their existing belief systems.

This is no more true for the religious than for anything else.

[The Stranger]

Right. None of that is wrong. My contention is this: Religion is an irrational and dangerous way of holding people together with far more pitfalls than benefits. My beliefs are the result of weighing evidence carefully and with skepticism--from all sides. That is not true of any religion, and even though there are many religious intellectuals that temper their beliefs with fact and reason, this is increasingly not the case with young americans.

but you assume then that it is useful to look at the world the way you do and that the type of evidence you have gathered is says anything about this world and that gathering evidence is a good way to get better understanding of this world. for this you need to have arguments too and then you need to have arguments for these as well untill you reach a point where you have an argument which you cannot get an argument for and this you shall have to assume to be true. and if this argument influences how you look at the world and what you see as valid evidence to support claims than whatever evidence you bring forth to strengthen this argument is trivial...

besides that fact that in the 20th century the most horrible crimes were commited and they were not the (direct) result of religion but of political and rational processes (eg holocaust, atombomb, bioindustry if you like) ofcourse you can say that the good of these processes outweigh the bad, but not only is this highly subjective and a rather weak argument, i doubt that it is true for atleast politics.

and these happen to be the only other candidates...

none of this means that i think religion is good... i think its rather bad, but i think a distinction should be made. in a sense religion is politics, or part of it.



Here's a question, then, to any vehemently faithful: Why do you get angry with me because I'm mad at you for pushing agendas that affect my life in a negative way? That question deserves facts, not faith.

really? the only answer to this quite straightforward.

1. i push agenda to affect my life in a positive way or to avoid it getting affected negatively
2. you oppose this, thus hinder me in getting a better life or avoid getting a worse one
3. i get mad at you for hindering me.

and you are both doing that...how can you surprised if you yourself say that you are mad at the other :O



Why do you believe?

can i ask you the same question?

[The Stranger]

Stranger! You bring up very good points, and I'm really sorry that the answer is shorter than you probably think the points deserve. In fact, its times like this I wish someone would pay me to write stuff like this, because it deserves a much bigger answer than I'm willing to write out.

thank you :bow: lets see how far we get :)


The 20th century was very bloody, as a result of bad people doing bad things with power. That whole Hitler/WWII/Genocide thing would have never happened if the people of the Wiemar Republic hadn't been so easily duped into believing the lies of the Nazi party. Isn't that a pretty epic statement against blind faith and acting like sheep? Are the dangers not incredibly evident?

this is true, but what is important to note is that they were all thinking they were doing the rational thing. and since its incredibly hard for a person who is in the thick of things to judge whether he is doing what is rational or doing what is irrational. this is politics however, and i would say that politics is a weird spectrum of society. and its hard to balance reason and emotion in such heated topics.

as regarding the holocaust, and the atombomb, these were rational processes. what was horrible in particular about the holocaust was the fact that the jews were not treated as humans any longer but just as dispensable items, they were a problem. and the nazis simply tried to solve this problem in the most rational way. and after trying a few methods they concluded that gassing was the most effective. now you can say what you want, but that is as rational as it can get. you can say that their belief in the nazi supremacy was wrong and therefor irrational but how they then acted from that point was wholly rational. they had reasons for their beliefs, and they used these beliefs to solve a problem in the most effective way accordingly. (ofcourse its all more complicated than this.)

also its not as if all those 80 million germans and other euros all followed the nazis and shared their ideals. there was a proportionally small amount (compared to their power and impact even insignificant amount) of true nazis and the rest simply followed because they didnt care or because they were thinking they would be better off (the rational thing to do is follow in such a case) or becuase they were scared. Lets consider that for all people their basic goal is to survive, if you are in a big scary place and the odds that you will survive on your own is very low, than its rational to tag along a bigger group that can protect you. if this group starts killing other people of another group, you shouldnt care because this group is a threat to you. if the group starts to kill members of its own group, than you have to halt, and think about where this is going, that is irrational. sadly the nazis smartly maneauvered the jews outside the community a long time ago. and it has to be said that the jews have always tried to stay seperated from the rest, so this didnt help much either. what happened there wasnt so irrational on individual scale of survival. ofcourse if you will consider that it has to be viewed on the scale of humanity ofcourse the story becomes different. then global cooperation would be the most preferenced. basically weve ended up with a very complicated version of the prisoners dillemma and its life.

atombomb is a result of scientific progress, and you can say that the use of this deadly weapon was a political descision. but i cannot believe that the scientists who were involved in this didnt know that the weapon was going to be used. simple as this, science is about utility as much if not more than knowledge, you make something because you want it to be used. if you make weapons, you know there is a chance that they will be used. now from here there are several ways you can go, you can say that the scientists make stuff and its up to the moral consience of others about how they will use it (you cannot blame apple for making laptops if some idiot bashes someone to death with one). or you can hold the scientists partially responsible for making making something they know could be used to kill others in horrible ways. now for me both options are not really right. its already complicated but will get even more complicated if you take into account rationality. rationality is odd because for making rational descisions its important to know what ones goals are. so with GoalA making descisionY can be rational while with goalB making descisionY can be irrational. So now what stance must the scientist take? if he choses the individual, he will make these bombs, get paid, provide for himself and his family (if he was truly rational he wouldnt have a family, but ok... we still have instincts). but if he choses humanity, then its irrational to make a weapon that can slaughter the planet with just a dozen of them. but how can you judge which he must pick, or regardless of what he would pick, how can you judge him for making a choice with all the knowledge he has available.

then to the throwing of the damned thing... again same thing as with the germans, you can argue that the americans didnt have the right reasons for their belief that throwing the atombomb was a good thing to do (and again it is so damned hard to be the judge of that, whether you are in that moment, or a spectator watching from outside). but they believed they were threathened and that this weapon was sanctioned to save the lives of soldiers that would otherwise die trying to invade japan, even this would go at the cost of hundreds of thousands japs that would die. basically this descision is rational in any way given the situation. they make a sum, 10 million lives lost if japan is invaded, 500k lives lost with the bomb while the result is the same, the unconditional surrender of japan. Weird thing is, while we all want to be rational, the result of this, treating humans as mere statitistics and rescourses has resulted in some terrible things. its counterintuitive because we do not want to be treated as things, that can be disposed of if they end up on the wrong side of the line drawn by a sum.

i hope that still makes any sense...

ill look at the second part of your post after dinner :)



I'll tell you that I don't "believe" in anything. I make up my own mind after weighing evidence from competing viewpoints.

i find this very hard to believe. you are not a total sceptic are you? surely if you make up your mind with weighing evidence than you believe that this is preferred to the rest of what you could do to make a decision. you have a belief of what this evidence must exist of to be qualified as evidence. and since you look at competing viewpoints you believe that it is a virtue to do so, to have a broad perception and try take into account as many possible things. basically the scientific approach, but unless you have invented this approach or have analysed and scrutinized every single part of it, you are taking alot of things for granted from other people about this.

thing is, every person believes in things, and these beliefs are either based on something else or they are selfsufficient. and if they are selfsufficient then you have to assume or claim or postulate their truth (obviously if they required any kind of proof they wouldnt be self sufficient).

im quite sure there are a great many things you believe in that you do not understand but that you accept because of splinters of information you have understood and because they fit into the view of things you have you do understand and because they are told by authorities you respect.


Also, you don't qualify to answer my question directed at the vehemently faithful.

i dont believe that, but still i can answer the question i think... tho i didnt really answer it, i was just trying to show that you are doing the exact same thing. and its funny cuz thats what people all over the world are doing. they are basically looking into the mirror without recognising that they are identical in many aspects (even tho they are reversed).



I'm speaking very broadly here. I'm questioning the idea of believing in something just because you are told to. That is not the same as what I do. I question people who tell me things, and if the answers meet a basic criteria for objectivity then I'll possibly consider it truth pending further investigation. That is the scientific process.

cmon... you do not question everything that people tell you. when you watch the news and it tells you a man got shot you will not go check if its true. if your mom comes in soaking wet you and tells you its raining you will not go outside and check if she did not hide a bucket somewhere to prank you into believing that its raining. you do not question the belief that it is better to question things than not to. you talk about basic criterias for objectivity, but you have to be more explicit as to what it means. you have questioned it before u assumed it to be an acceptable criteria so surely you shouldnt have trouble to explain what it means. also what does truth mean exactly. and how do you know that what you belief is justified, how do know what are proper criterion for justification etc. you must question all this before u can say anything and decide that its true. and then you still have to assume that its significant to do so.

(sorry if this seems a bit hostile, i dont mean to slate you off. no offense was intended.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I ask people of solid faith and conviction: Why do you believe? If the answer is "because I do" or "because people told me to" then it is not an answer that satisfies me. But that's fine, since I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

The answer to your question, the only fair one, is "why don't you believe?"

That fact is, you do believe you have chosen rationally not to take the faith of any religion, yet I believe that the same rational process has led me to the conviction that there is a God, one best represented by Christian philosophy. Further, this is a situation that many people, on both sides, are in - so the only rational conclusion is that something other than our rational mind is making a decision somewhere. Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that faith comes first, and then you develop beliefs that spring from that faith.

[The Stranger]

Okay.. wow. That's not just a wall of text, that's a wall of really good text. I'm not sure what to say other than "Yes, you're absolutely right."

I am a lot more skeptical than most people, and that is something I do actively and on purpose with the knowledge that people will try and manipulate me to their point of view if given the chance. This is a historical given, and something that I think everyone should do for their own safety and well-being, but that doesn't mean that I'm right. It just means that I'm cautious and take an active role in ensuring that I don't become part of "the problem."

It is my belief that for people to really move on and become enlightened citizens of a better world, we need to embrace the ideas of honesty, justice, and equality for their own merits and not because one political or religious entity is using them to promote their brand. That is the closest thing I have to a religious-like belief.

But beyond that, there's not a lot I can say without sounding like an arrogant prick. I really don't think I'm better than anyone else because I choose to be more skeptical, but I do think the world would be a better place if more people chose to be more suspicious of any and all establishments that would seek to get your support. There are a lot of good causes out there, but not nearly so many as people would have you believe--or so I believe.

In short, good post. If everyone in the world thought like you, I wouldn't have anything to get mad at. I generally go out of my way to be polite and soft-spoken in public, because I know that my own personal outlook on the world is much harsher and more rigid than most people are comfortable with. So, there is an inherant dysfunction in my own world-view that makes it suspect anyhow.

The numbers game is an unfortunate byproduct of reason. People have to tread the line between being rational and being empathetic. Both are important, and both are undervalued by too many people.

the thing is i agree with you, but if you are consistent with it you will have to notice that in daily life many things happens which you do not question, cannot question all the time. Skepticism is logically coherent and correct, just impossible to live. I too would opt for tolerance and mutual understanding, but i think that by opposing yourself to other people you are making a similar mistake.

like PCV said, i too believe everything starts at faith, and that in this all humans are the same, whatever springs for from that which they initially believe can be wholly different, and they can believe in opposing things. but the fact is that the process is the same for all men, and if we start there perhaps we can find the common ground to unite all. basically every person thinks he is right in believing what he believes, and if not for all people than for himself. and if we can understand that everyone is trying to make sense of it all in his own way perhaps we can perceive each other as brothers.

this might be idealistic, but this is what i believe in, and i have no argument for it other than that i think it is for the better of all.




just ignore this -_- i wrote it so i find it sad to delete... so i wont but its off topic XD
also some thought ive had since late, and this is off topic, is that rationality alone cannot fullfill the role of savior for mankind that many people wish it to fullfill. plain and simple if we were all going to be rational i cannot see how mankind will cease to exist within a couple of decades (being rational does not mean being brilliant so unless they find a way to become immortal i think what i have to say is sound)

like i said before being rationial (making rational descisions) is connected to whatever goal you have. in general we can say that our main goal in life is to stay alive best we can as long as we can

lets look at the west specifically, centuries ago it was rational for a human being to produce offspring for the following reason, there was no social network that would take care of you when you became old. so you needed children who you can rely upon more than a stranger or friends to take care of you in your time of need. also family provides protection in a hostile world, thus thats why you would get a partner, and to ensure protection and care when you are old, you get children.

however nowadays we have gotten to a point where there is a social network, people get paid to take care of you, so as long as you have money you will be taken care off when you are old. and its easier to get alot of money if you have no children. it rids you of all the effort that goes into raising children. you can basically work which you would have to anyway because you have to ensure your basic needs. you can do whatever you want in your free time, which you have cuz u have no children to take care off, and this will increase your quality of life. perhaps a partner would still be rational, i havent given this much thought, i guess if you see love as a basic need, then you would get a partner. when you get old you have alot of money cuz u worked and didnt have hungry mouths to feed, since you are a rational person you will not have any debts and such. you pay someone go into retirement and die old and grumpy without kids, while you have everything that people with kids have with less effort, thus it would be irrational to chose the path which requires more effort. thus if all people were rational they wouldnt get children (unless they do it from emotional perspective but this we have disabled in all people, because emotions are irrational and cause trouble)

hmm just thought of this... ofcourse this would mean that for the unlucky late comers there would be nobody to take care of them, and thus they would have to get children again, so i guess humanity might not die out after all...

[rvg]

kumbaya...

[spankythehippo]

Well, I don't know. See, Vali was also the son of Odin born to avenge Baulder, and the important wolf was Fenris (another son of Loki), so I think that version is a later garbling of the myth.

Loki had 3 wives. With his first wife, Glut, he had Einmyria and Eisa. With his second wife, Angrboda, he had Hel, Jormungand and Fenris. With his third and current wife, Sigyn, he had Narvi and Vali (not to be confused with the Vali that Odin made with Rind to avenge Balder's death.)


So, basically, you pulled it out of your fundament based on an vague idea about how you don't like religion and a sketchy understanding of the history of Christianity?

And you're surprised it gets ripped into?
No. I base my theory on the messages the Bible taught. Same with the Qu'ran. Same with the Torah. All 3 religions had very good morals. But nowadays, this is distorted. Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards.

And no, I'm not surprised it got ripped into. I'm surprised that people will go so far to challenge my thoughts.

[Kadagar_AV]

My reasons for believing have nothing to do with the church as an establishment nor is it a generational thing that was passed down to me. I also believe there is evidence that supports both the existence of God and the authority of the scripture./

That is, of course, a laughable excuse for a reason. Your reason for believing has nothing to do with the church as an establishment? Let me correct you.

If the same things happened as you have encountered in your life, but without the church, would you have gone all "I think this is because Jesus built a ship and Moses got people drunk on water alone".


As for the us v them mentality, religion can also be a source of unity that hold society together. Judaism held the tribes of Israel together even when they were divided between two kingdoms. Islam united the Arab tribes. Christianity tore down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. etc.

If anyone wanted a textbook example of the term: "can't see the forest for all the trees" this would be it. You are indeed absolutely 100% right that religion has kept the (as an example) jews together. Now that has got them a load of joy, right?

If not for the religion, the very same people might have discovered that there is a whole world out there, with humans just like them, who are seeking to have a good life!


As for it being better to be a believer, well that is obviously true for any belief. I'm sure many people in this thread feel I would be better off if I was cured of my ignorance. Yepp! That reply is directed towards the later part of the quote.




Religion isn't inherently more divisive than politics or race. For all practical purposes here on earth, I have more in common with the atheist next door than I do with a born again convert over in China, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

I see your point, but I do not agree.

It is way harder to talk someone into killing himself/others with political arguments than it is with religious ones. So I would argue that religion is more divisive.

Example A: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get 30% less tax" - not a very selling argument.
Example B: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get eternal bliss and several virgins and stuff" - A best selling argument.


Although I'm guessing you might be influenced in saying what you said by the fact that politics, race and religion are all so intertwined in America with your classic white Christian Right Republican.

Gah, really?

Error 1: America = USA
Error 2: Like anyone cares about the united states these days, they can not contend with countries like Afghanistan militarily or politicly, and their economy is an absolute joke.

Basically, let them elect Palin for president and walk on with a knowing smile.



Well, the fact is that America has seen massive social upheaval in recent decades that really has eaten away at 'traditional' values. The radical Christian Right is really just a reaction against that, its no surprise that its heartland in the south also happens to be the area with most problems in terms of divorce, single-parents, and the poverty that seems to complement such trends.

I think the hen just ate the egg. Or did the egg eat the hen?

But then again - are people radical christians because they are [insert], or are they [insert] because they are christian? All I can tell is that there seem to be a denominating factor.


I would also suggest that the Christian Right is not as new and terrifying a development as you suggest. It may be a fringe element in political nowadays but it would tbh have been fairly mainstream fifty years back.

Nah, 50 years back people more took church for what it is - Go there, bend your knee some, say "amen", enjoy being part of community.

Now it is more like "Ah mah gawd, day sayz sam darwenian monkey is godz!"


I mean we all like to believe that its the end of the world and things are only going to get worse before they get better (whether its the Viking Ragnarok, Christian armageddon or Marx's final class war) but it wasn't that long ago America was enduring McCarthyism and IIRC 'The Buraeu of Un-American Activities'. I'm sure you'll get through this...

You see it as a state they will get through.

Others might claim that the winner writes history.

[Kadagar_AV]

Loki had 3 wives. With his first wife, Glut, he had Einmyria and Eisa. With his second wife, Angrboda, he had Hel, Jormungand and Fenris. With his third and current wife, Sigyn, he had Narvi and Vali (not to be confused with the Vali that Odin made with Rind to avenge Balder's death.)


No. I base my theory on the messages the Bible taught. Same with the Qu'ran. Same with the Torah. All 3 religions had very good morals. But nowadays, this is distorted. Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards.

And no, I'm not surprised it got ripped into. I'm surprised that people will go so far to challenge my thoughts.

Remind me:

What did Muhammed think of sex with, say, a 9 year old?
What did the biblical angels think of mass-rape?

Sorry, I can not agree that those religious morals are good. Nor can I say that they only seem to fall short by todays standards, I would claim it is by more universal standards.

[spankythehippo]

Remind me:

What did Muhammed think of sex with, say, a 9 year old?
What did the biblical angels think of mass-rape?

Sorry, I can not agree that those religious morals are good. Nor can I say that they only seem to fall short by todays standards, I would claim it is by more universal standards.
Back then it was socially acceptable. You are judging them based on what's acceptable/legal now. If you lived in that time frame, I'm sure you wouldn't have minded, since you would have grown up around it. Hence, the part "Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards."

You can't dismiss the morals of a religion by pointing out specific flaws. The majority of the morals are acceptable, in fact are continued to be preached to this day.

[The Stranger]

I see your point, but I do not agree.

It is way harder to talk someone into killing himself/others with political arguments than it is with religious ones. So I would argue that religion is more divisive.

Example A: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get 30% less tax" - not a very selling argument.
Example B: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get eternal bliss and several virgins and stuff" - A best selling argument.

I have another one for you,

That guy on the other side of the trench is a dirty enemy to the Kaiser. Kill him.

I hope you will not argue that world war 1 was not politics and that these people didnt march to their death for other reasons than political ones. or that it was not politics which divided them... not that it matters much, the entire division is not principal of nature but they are different aspects of the same part of (public) life i would say. and religion as opposed to personal faith is pretty much politics.

[Kadagar_AV]

I have another one for you,

That guy on the other side of the trench is a dirty enemy to the Kaiser. Kill him.

I hope you will not argue that world war 1 was not politics and that these people didnt march to their death for other reasons than political ones.

I never claimed that there were no other reasons than religion to act stupidly.

However, I would claim that religion makes it easier for people to do stupid stuff. You disagree?

PS: To be more blunt - In a more scientific world we learn from our mistakes, such as WW1. In a more religious world not so much.

WW1: Oh, that was rubbish, this form of warfare obviously does not work.
WW2: Oooops we did it again, but with new tech and ideas.
WW... let's make a EU.


Compare this to:

Crusade 1: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 2: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 3: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 4: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 5: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 6: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 7: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 8: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 9: Oh this was rubbish

Hmm, didn't Bush II mention something about a crusade? Or am I just being stupid again?

[The Stranger]

Remind me:

What did Muhammed think of sex with, say, a 9 year old?
What did the biblical angels think of mass-rape?

Sorry, I can not agree that those religious morals are good. Nor can I say that they only seem to fall short by todays standards, I would claim it is by more universal standards.

you do know that also what you say is contradictionary or trivial or pretty arrogant, since if you mean by universal, all around the globe people would find these morals short of the mark, in this time right now, then it would mean that they could be (universally) different in another time. thus it would be trivial. if you say that they are universally unaccepted and untrue for all times then it would be contradicting what you say because these morals were accepted some centuries ago. if you would claim that these morals are untrue for all times but only became universally unaccepted of late than you are assuming that what we know what is true, which is quite arrogant. but ofcourse, you could be right, but then you can answer me this

what are the foundations for these universal standards, what are these universal standards, how do you explain obvious deviations in different cultures (since you are talking about universal standards this needs explaining) how come that these standards only now have become known/accepted (were all the people before us really so stupid?) and from there i could go on to more annoying questions such as if these standards are universal they must be objective, if they are objective where or in what in the world is their objectivity rooted. by what apparatus can we recognise these objective morals. do we have a moral sense? etc etc

[The Stranger]

I never claimed that there were no other reasons than religion to act stupidly.

However, I would claim that religion makes it easier for people to do stupid stuff. You disagree?

well you are now changing the initial statement which was religion is less divise than politics. but the worlds greatest division in known history, eg the world wars were of political nature and not of religious nature... another example could be the cold war, the division was less violent but perhaps deeper rooted, it still caused conflict all over the world.

[The Stranger]

PS: To be more blunt - In a more scientific world we learn from our mistakes, such as WW1. In a more religious world not so much.

WW1: Oh, that was rubbish, this form of warfare obviously does not work.
WW2: Oooops we did it again, but with new tech and ideas.
WW... let's make a EU.


Compare this to:

Crusade 1: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 2: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 3: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 4: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 5: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 6: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 7: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 8: Oh this was rubbish
Crusade 9: Oh this was rubbish

Hmm, didn't Bush II mention something about a crusade? Or am I just being stupid again?

this is so simplified and ignorant i will not even respond to this... fine ill respond -_-

to say this that the crusade was not just a religious mission, it was politics as well if not mostly (which again, for me are rather indistinguishable). and i do not see how we go from comparing religion to politics to comparing religion to science... really :S

if you whish to make such a comparison you have to compare theology to what... biology, or physics or chemistry... and only to conclude that one has a metaphysical field of work and the others physical and that one cannot make any claims about the other. and that the only thing you can basically do is deny the existance of one or the other...

[Kadagar_AV]

you do know that also what you say is contradictionary or trivial or pretty arrogant, since if you mean by universal, all around the globe people would find these morals short of the mark, in this time right now, then it would mean that they could be (universally) different in another time. thus it would be trivial. if you say that they are universally unaccepted and untrue for all times then it would be contradicting what you say because these morals were accepted some centuries ago. if you would claim that these morals are untrue for all times but only became universally unaccepted of late than you are assuming that what we know what is true, which is quite arrogant. but ofcourse, you could be right, but then you can answer me this

what are the foundations for these universal standards, what are these universal standards, how do you explain obvious deviations in different cultures (since you are talking about universal standards this needs explaining) how come that these standards only now have become known/accepted (were all the people before us really so stupid?) and from there i could go on to more annoying questions such as if these standards are universal they must be objective, if they are objective where or in what in the world is their objectivity rooted. by what apparatus can we recognise these objective morals. do we have a moral sense? etc etc

Sorry, all I got was blah blah blah sex with nine year olds is not so bad, can you back that up. Followed by blah blah blah is there a universal standard saying mass-rape is bad?.

A wall of nonsense, to be precise. I do believe that the majority is with me on these ones, so let us flip the card. In what way do you support these happenings as being part of the scriptures of the world religions?

If you really want me to explain why the "hide the Willy"-game is wrong with a 9 year old, you have way more urgent people to speak with than me. Same goes for mass-rape.

[The Stranger]

if that is what you got from it, perhaps you should learn how to read :)

[Kadagar_AV]

this is so simplified and ignorant i will not even respond to this... fine ill respond -_-

to say this that the crusade was not just a religious mission, it was politics as well if not mostly (which again, for me are rather indistinguishable). and i do not see how we go from comparing religion to politics to comparing religion to science... really :S

if you whish to make such a comparison you have to compare theology to what... biology, or physics or chemistry... and only to conclude that one has a metaphysical field of work and the others physical and that one cannot make any claims about the other. and that the only thing you can basically do is deny the existance of one or the other...

Ok.

The very minute you stop heavily editing your posts when you re-read and realize they do not hold up to standards, I will look beyond your initial statements. Is that fair mate?

[The Stranger]

the thing i added regarding to your post was basically fine ill respond and really :S

the 2nd thing i added was to provide further, but for this topic not necessarily relevent, clarification.

[Kadagar_AV]

the thing i added regarding to your post was basically fine ill respond and really :S

the 2nd thing i added was to provide further, but for this topic not necessarily relevent, clarification.

Is this the end boss of the internet, or what?

Someone help me please..

[The Stranger]

no i just like feeding trolls from Sweden.

All you have been doing so far is dodging, twisting, turning, running, ridiculing, joking, anything but answering the questions straightforward... obviously you are not interested in debate, so why are you here...?

[Kadagar_AV]

no i just like feeding trolls from Sweden.

Now that was rude. Not to mention geographically incorrect.

PS: Again, heavily editing your posts afterwards are just..

Answer my post 6 posts up and stop editing and you might get a better result?

[The Stranger]

lol... and you tell me to stop editing my posts in an edit... really wtf

i said sweden because your location tag says sweden. but really its indifferent to me. i will not answer your post 6 posts up because it was a dodge to some questions i asked you, which was again the result of some twist you made to an earlier statement and so on... i am quite done with you since nothing interesting is coming out of you anymore. rather sad, since you raised some good points to begin with.

edit: and here is the edit just because you love them so much :) i am not really editing, just adding.

[spankythehippo]

What have I created?

[Kadagar_AV]

What have I created?

Backroom.. Don't feel bad the about Frankenstein.

PS: The Stranger, if I edit my posts I make it clear what I edited from the original post. Don't get me wrong, you are way better off not following that example.

[rvg]

So far the most murderous religions have been the atheistic ones. Communism comes to mind with the Great Prophet Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin the Messiah, St. Joseph Stalin and St. Mao. With the Communist Manifesto in hand along with various works of the Messiah and the saints Communism was able to exterminate more people than any other religion/ideology and make like hell for millions more. Holy books, holy places, holy people, flocks of the faithful, chastisement of the heretics, communism had it all. One notion that communism was totally lacking: God. Perhaps that is what allowed it to be so brutal. After all, who needs the big man in the sky when you have The Great Successor Kim Jong Un right here and right now...

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is, of course, a laughable excuse for a reason. Your reason for believing has nothing to do with the church as an establishment? Let me correct you.

If the same things happened as you have encountered in your life, but without the church, would you have gone all "I think this is because Jesus built a ship and Moses got people drunk on water alone".

Really, my reason for believing is nothing to do with the church as an establishment. For as long as I can remember I've prayed, even when I would have called myself an atheist oddly enough. My father is an atheist and my mother a nominal Christian. I went to a non-denomiantional school. I guess it just comes naturally to me.


If anyone wanted a textbook example of the term: "can't see the forest for all the trees" this would be it. You are indeed absolutely 100% right that religion has kept the (as an example) jews together. Now that has got them a load of joy, right?

If not for the religion, the very same people might have discovered that there is a whole world out there, with humans just like them, who are seeking to have a good life!

I'm not sure if you are just being silly here and/or trying to lure me into the obvious Godwin, but lets be more sensible please. You don't have to respond to every sentence I write with a rebuttal - do you really believe what you wrote there contributed anything?


I see your point, but I do not agree.

It is way harder to talk someone into killing himself/others with political arguments than it is with religious ones. So I would argue that religion is more divisive.

Example A: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get 30% less tax" - not a very selling argument.
Example B: "If you detonate the bomb on your body among that crowd you will get eternal bliss and several virgins and stuff" - A best selling argument.


I only have to take a short trip on the ferry to see my family and I can walk down streets where there's a war memorial every ten metres and murals on every end-terrace commemorating the people that volunteered to fight and die in a political struggle.


Gah, really?

Error 1: America = USA
Error 2: Like anyone cares about the united states these days, they can not contend with countries like Afghanistan militarily or politicly, and their economy is an absolute joke.

Basically, let them elect Palin for president and walk on with a knowing smile.

Gah what? I was responding to Gelatinous Cube who I believe is a US citizen.


I think the hen just ate the egg. Or did the egg eat the hen?

But then again - are people radical christians because they are [insert], or are they [insert] because they are christian? All I can tell is that there seem to be a denominating factor.

Radical religious movements respond to changes that they see as threatening their way of life in the same way that political movements do - often in a reactionary and somewhat extreme manner. See the fascism of the 1930's for a political equivalent to the religious example.


Nah, 50 years back people more took church for what it is - Go there, bend your knee some, say "amen", enjoy being part of community.

Now it is more like "Ah mah gawd, day sayz sam darwenian monkey is godz!"

Well although the Christian Right never gained a real political voice until the 1980's with the likes of Moral Majority, the theory of evolution is now much more accepted even in Evangelical circles than in the past. A few decades ago evolution would have been dismissed out of hand by most Evangelicals, in the same way as interracial marriage would have been. These churches tend to be in more conservative areas, but they tend to catch up with the rest of society eventually.


You see it as a state they will get through.

Others might claim that the winner writes history.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

[Kadagar_AV]

Back then it was socially acceptable. You are judging them based on what's acceptable/legal now. If you lived in that time frame, I'm sure you wouldn't have minded, since you would have grown up around it. Hence, the part "Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards."

You can't dismiss the morals of a religion by pointing out specific flaws. The majority of the morals are acceptable, in fact are continued to be preached to this day.

I soo oo oo missed this answer. Sorry!

As to your claims.. You are right that back then this was socially acceptable. But really, do you want what was socially acceptable back then to be the moral code of today? If not, maybe we should not base the writings dictating our lives on morals based on some book written 2000 odd years ago?

Yes, 2000 years ago a MIGHT not have minded if some guy had intercourse with my 9 year old daughter. But then again, I might have had, no?
And also, I MIGHT not have minded to have women mass-raped. But then again, I possibly would have.



Please do explain why I can NOT dismiss the morals of a religion by specific flaws?

Just because a majority of the morals are ok, it does not mean that those very same morals can not be achieved otherwise. I do not need the bible to tell me not to kill, I kind of figured it out already that killing is generally bad.

I do not need the bible to tell me that having sex with your neighbors wife is a bad thing, again, common sense.

Also, I did not go to the bible to learn that my father probably is right, I just noticed that more often than me he was, well, right. However, that was something I learnt, not got taught. There are other dads out there, who are not always so nice. And I pity the child then growing up being taught that his/her dad is to be respected.. No matter what. Is that something you want to sign up on?

Christians have made good PR of claiming human values as "christian values", please do not fall into that trap.

What stops me from killing is not fear of prison, what stops me from killing is - "Hey, he is a human being too!"

Is that better or worse than religion?

[a completely inoffensive name]

what are the foundations for these universal standards, what are these universal standards, how do you explain obvious deviations in different cultures (since you are talking about universal standards this needs explaining) how come that these standards only now have become known/accepted (were all the people before us really so stupid?) and from there i could go on to more annoying questions such as if these standards are universal they must be objective, if they are objective where or in what in the world is their objectivity rooted. by what apparatus can we recognise these objective morals. do we have a moral sense? etc etc

The foundations come from the axioms we (our culture/civilization) have established as basic truths. We recognize them as universal since that ties into one of our axioms (natural rights). This is all of course subjective on Western Civilization's part. But such subjectivity means that although our view is not right, it neither wrong either. So it's perfectly ok to judge based on the axioms one has taken from his/her culture because within the context of such culture and its axioms, such judgement can be declared objectively right or wrong.

Well that's my attempt at providing real conversation. I await your devastating but highly educated rebuttal.

[spankythehippo]

I soo oo oo missed this answer. Sorry!

As to your claims.. You are right that back then this was socially acceptable. But really, do you want what was socially acceptable back then to be the moral code of today? If not, maybe we should not base the writings dictating our lives on morals based on some book written 2000 odd years ago?

I'm in the same boat as you. I have my own set of morals.


Yes, 2000 years ago a MIGHT not have minded if some guy had intercourse with my 9 year old daughter. But then again, I might have had, no?
And also, I MIGHT not have minded to have women mass-raped. But then again, I possibly would have.

As opposed to now where you detest it completely.




Please do explain why I can NOT dismiss the morals of a religion by specific flaws?

Just because a majority of the morals are ok, it does not mean that those very same morals can not be achieved otherwise. I do not need the bible to tell me not to kill, I kind of figured it out already that killing is generally bad.

I don't base my own morals on a book which I consider to be lies.

I do not need the bible to tell me that having sex with your neighbors wife is a bad thing, again, common sense.

Well, if she's hot... Hey hey.


Also, I did not go to the bible to learn that my father probably is right, I just noticed that more often than me he was, well, right. However, that was something I learnt, not got taught. There are other dads out there, who are not always so nice. And I pity the child then growing up being taught that his/her dad is to be respected.. No matter what. Is that something you want to sign up on?

Christians have made good PR of claiming human values as "christian values", please do not fall into that trap.

What stops me from killing is not fear of prison, what stops me from killing is - "Hey, he is a human being too!"

Is that better or worse than religion?

No comment. Because this is a delicate segment. Religion may condemn killing someone in cold blood, but may condone killing in the name of god.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

The foundations come from the axioms we (our culture/civilization) have established as basic truths. We recognize them as universal since that ties into one of our axioms (natural rights). This is all of course subjective on Western Civilization's part. But such subjectivity means that although our view is not right, it neither wrong either. So it's perfectly ok to judge based on the axioms one has taken from his/her culture because within the context of such culture and its axioms, such judgement can be declared objectively right or wrong.

Well that's my attempt at providing real conversation. I await your devastating but highly educated rebuttal.

I recognise, and agree, with most of this, and I believe that the Stranger probably wouldn't object either. The problem is that by definition these standards are subjective, thus invalidating Kadagar's point.

I believe that your point is that, in our context of a modern, western culture, we can take take some basic moral 'truths' as universal. I agree, provided that this doesn't extend too far. The problem is that since this 'objectivity' is inherently rooted in a particular context, it remains temporally and culturally subjective. If it is subjective then, ergo, at different times, and in different cultures - early Abrahamic cultures for example -one would find different ideals and values and moral 'truths'.

If so one can legitimately declare, as others have, that you cannot invalidate an entire religious system on the basis that some moral precepts, included millenia ago, are now at odds with our contemporary beliefs.

As an Atheist, I would suggest that I find the existence of a divine creator entirely implausible, and my moral values are exactly that - mine. But this does not mean that I do not have faith. I just do not have faith in the concept of a creator, or in the doctrines of an organised religious system. I do have faith that the sky won't collapse or that gravity will not disappear, something that cannot be proven beyond all doubt.

My take on the OP then is relatively simple. Religions were based on a combination of explaining the world as people saw it, and a basic moral code, acceptable to its converts. As societies became more complex, so did the belief systems. It is at this more complex stage that political or religious leaders may have seen an opportunity to exert more control over the populace, but to add some perspective, the very nature of a modern state is to exert control over a territorial area (and populace) for benefit, whether for an individual (dictator), or all its inhabitants (an ideal democracy).

For the sake of argument I'll contend that the only difference between religion and a state in this instance is that states are more fluid and flexible in their methods and their institutions.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, Lev. 19.18 and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Rhyf, do you think this is silly or not? I can't take it remotely seriously. Being a wimp is not laudable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My decision is made out of fear. I see in organized religion an active force that encourages reactionary behavior. That view is not held without good reason. The only reason I even care is because I have to live with the very real possibility that a Rick Santorum-type could come to power and undo countless years of intellectual and scientific progress--never mind the civil rights concerns.

The ironic part is that my view is no less reactionary--both extremes of this argument operate on the idea that their way of life is at risk sooner or later. So the question we have to ask is this: Who's concerns are more valid, and how do we measure? As long as people push for religious laws in the United States, this will be a serious concern of mine.

If you think religion is too reactionary, my advice is to join the Episcopal Church in the US, become a Bishop, then Presiding Bishop, then be less liberal than the current woman, just conservative enough and traditional enough, to draw people away from the crazies. I'd do it myself but the idea of residing in a country withour free-access healthcare fills me with utter and unqualified terror.



Compare this to:

Crusade 1: Oh this was rubbish
This went really well
Crusade 2: Oh this was rubbish
This went badly
Crusade 3: Oh this was rubbish
This went OK, not a complete success
Crusade 4: Oh this was rubbish
This got sidetracked, but if we'd held Constaninople...
Crusade 5: Oh this was rubbish
Initially went well, failed only due to overstretch short of Cairo, qualified success
Crusade 6: Oh this was rubbish
Resulted in restoration of Jerusalem to Christian hands, except for the Temple Mount.
Crusade 7: Oh this was rubbish
Failed
Crusade 8: Oh this was rubbish
Failed
Crusade 9: Oh this was rubbish
Failed

Hmm, didn't Bush II mention something about a crusade? Or am I just being stupid again?

So, maybe not quite how you presented it?


Loki had 3 wives. With his first wife, Glut, he had Einmyria and Eisa. With his second wife, Angrboda, he had Hel, Jormungand and Fenris. With his third and current wife, Sigyn, he had Narvi and Vali (not to be confused with the Vali that Odin made with Rind to avenge Balder's death.)

Actually, Angrboda was not his wife any more than Rind was Odin's, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the Narvi/Vali story looks like a confused retelling of the Baulder/Vali/Fenris arc.


No. I base my theory on the messages the Bible taught. Same with the Qu'ran. Same with the Torah. All 3 religions had very good morals. But nowadays, this is distorted. Albeit, some of the things said in the religious texts are questionable by today's standards.

And no, I'm not surprised it got ripped into. I'm surprised that people will go so far to challenge my thoughts.

I dissagree, Christian "moral" teaching works only in the context of an all powerful God who created the world we inhabit and everything in it, including us.

The message of the Bible is, "Love God and obey him" - it is not actually about being nice to people just for it's own sake, but because we are all called to be God's servants and we are all his children. Given your status as an avowed Athiest, I would think that sits badly with you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not need the bible to tell me that having sex with your neighbors wife is a bad thing, again, common sense.

Hang on, you spent litterally years telling us you did EXACTLY that, including the specific examples of a priest's wife and a newlywed bride, you ridiculed we Christians on this board for taking a more circumspect and serious view of marital vows, and now you have the gall to tell us that you don't need a Christian to tell you it was a bad idea that it is not something you need to read in the Bible to know it is a "bad thing".

Seriously?

I call major foul, because you are seriously misrepresenting not just specific past remarks, but your entire posting history viz sexual ethics on this board.

I think you're claiming a moral position you don't actually hold in order to attack religion as a moral force, and I have a problem with that because I don't think you believe what you are saying.

[spankythehippo]

Actually, Angrboda was not his wife any more than Rind was Odin's, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the Narvi/Vali story looks like a confused retelling of the Baulder/Vali/Fenris arc.

Either way, Loki is chained up.




I dissagree, Christian "moral" teaching works only in the context of an all powerful God who created the world we inhabit and everything in it, including us.

The message of the Bible is, "Love God and obey him" - it is not actually about being nice to people just for it's own sake, but because we are all called to be God's servants and we are all his children. Given your status as an avowed Athiest, I would think that sits badly with you.

If there IS a god, IF there is a god, when I see him, I'd spit in his face. No offence. I have reasons that are personal and I do not wish to disclose. Again, it shouldn't matter to you how I feel about religion and god. Hate me if you will, I couldn't care less.

I don't consider myself an avowed atheist. I don't fight religion with every fibre of my being. In fact, I don't fight it at all. I only fight it, if it intrudes with my life.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If there IS a god, IF there is a god, when I see him, I'd spit in his face. No offence. I have reasons that are personal and I do not wish to disclose. Again, it shouldn't matter to you how I feel about religion and god. Hate me if you will, I couldn't care less.

To quote Lord Sachs, "That God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

The kind of God that would be the responsible for whatever has grieved you is not the kind of God the vast majority of religious people believe in, and whatever you choose to believe it is important you understand that. It is also important that you understand that the same God would not want me to hate you, nor does He hate you.

My objection is not your beliefs, it is the way that you presented them, which - frankly - seemed designed to draw the negative reaction they have.


I don't consider myself an avowed atheist. I don't fight religion with every fibre of my being. In fact, I don't fight it at all. I only fight it, if it intrudes with my life.

In your first post you declared yourself an atheist, you declared all religions deliberate fabrications and you just threatened to spit in God's face, if he exists. that's a pretty definitive avowel from where I'm sitting, even if you aren't an activist atheist.

[spankythehippo]

To quote Lord Sachs, "That God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

The kind of God that would be the responsible for whatever has grieved you is not the kind of God the vast majority of religious people believe in, and whatever you choose to believe it is important you understand that. It is also important that you understand that the same God would not want me to hate you, nor does He hate you.

My objection is not your beliefs, it is the way that you presented them, which - frankly - seemed designed to draw the negative reaction they have.

I will not give my reasons for hating the idea of a divine being.

Of course they will garner a negative reaction. Since I am on this forum, I'll give a Total War Diplomacy menu analogy (In this case Shogun 2).

I'm Takeda (because I love Takeda). You are Matsuda (since I'm Shinto-Buddhist which isn't technically a religion, and you are Christian.)

Becasue of Religious Differences, you are Unfriendly to me. Fair enough. With enough Religious Divide, you will become Hostile (maybe). And if a war starts, then I'll defend myself with my superior cavalry.




In your first post you declared yourself an atheist, you declared all religions deliberate fabrications and you just threatened to spit in God's face, if he exists. that's a pretty definitive avowel from where I'm sitting, even if you aren't an activist atheist.

I declared all religions fabrications. Yeah, but I'm not preaching this actively to everyone I see. If someone asks me on my thoughts on religion, there they are.

I'd spit in god's face, when I meet him. If he wants an appointment, he'll book an appropriate time with me. I'm not going to demand that god breaks his schedule, by barging in on him, spitting in his face, then leaving. Although, it does sound fun. It just isn't worth the effort. So, yeah, I don't actively hate religion. I just hate it. Using normal hate. Level 1 Hate.

[The Stranger]

Hang on, you spent litterally years telling us you did EXACTLY that, including the specific examples of a priest's wife and a newlywed bride, you ridiculed we Christians on this board for taking a more circumspect and serious view of marital vows, and now you have the gall to tell us that you don't need a Christian to tell you it was a bad idea that it is not something you need to read in the Bible to know it is a "bad thing".

Seriously?

I call major foul, because you are seriously misrepresenting not just specific past remarks, but your entire posting history viz sexual ethics on this board.

I think you're claiming a moral position you don't actually hold in order to attack religion as a moral force, and I have a problem with that because I don't think you believe what you are saying.

that guy is a joke... dont bother.

he is kicking at religious people and then he cant come up with better reasons than, everyone else is with me on this, its common sense, you are a psycho... hahah i make fun of you now answer this question... oh you just kinda said something that made my point troublesome but you did it in an edit, and you didnt say PS in the edit section so i will ignore your entire post.

ofcourse all valid arguments and offcourse we have seen them all before somewhere... just if i could remember where... :idea2:

[The Stranger]

I recognise, and agree, with most of this, and I believe that the Stranger probably wouldn't object either. The problem is that by definition these standards are subjective, thus invalidating Kadagar's point.

you are right, i wont object to what GC said. i more or less agree.



My take on the OP then is relatively simple. Religions were based on a combination of explaining the world as people saw it, and a basic moral code, acceptable to its converts. As societies became more complex, so did the belief systems. It is at this more complex stage that political or religious leaders may have seen an opportunity to exert more control over the populace, but to add some perspective, the very nature of a modern state is to exert control over a territorial area (and populace) for benefit, whether for an individual (dictator), or all its inhabitants (an ideal democracy).

For the sake of argument I'll contend that the only difference between religion and a state in this instance is that states are more fluid and flexible in their methods and their institutions.

this is well said. specifically the last i agree with.

[The Stranger]

I dissagree, Christian "moral" teaching works only in the context of an all powerful God who created the world we inhabit and everything in it, including us.

The message of the Bible is, "Love God and obey him" - it is not actually about being nice to people just for it's own sake, but because we are all called to be God's servants and we are all his children. Given your status as an avowed Athiest, I would think that sits badly with you.

i dont know, western morals in modern society are still pretty much the secular version of secular society. like i think already said before in this thread an atheist from sweden, an calvinist from holland and a catholic from france have probably more in common moral wise than perhaps a japanese/chinese or aboriginal or native brazilian.

i mean to stress the point that i can see many of the christian values work even if there is no god.

[Vladimir]

The answer to your question, the only fair one, is "why don't you believe?"

That fact is, you do believe you have chosen rationally not to take the faith of any religion, yet I believe that the same rational process has led me to the conviction that there is a God, one best represented by Christian philosophy. Further, this is a situation that many people, on both sides, are in - so the only rational conclusion is that something other than our rational mind is making a decision somewhere. Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that faith comes first, and then you develop beliefs that spring from that faith.

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.

[Strike For The South]

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.


Pascals wager isn't real faith

Anyway this turned into a sanctimonious circle jerk way earlier than expected

[The Stranger]

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.

i think you havent understood it correctly then, there are no people without faith, that is what i belief he is trying to say. and what i have tried to say as well.

and as SFTS said believing in something because you are afraid of punishment isnt true belief... its more like fear.

[Vladimir]

i think you havent understood it correctly then, there are no people without faith, that is what i belief he is trying to say. and what i have tried to say as well.

and as SFTS said believing in something because you are afraid of punishment isnt true belief... its more like fear.

Semantics; I think both of you are missing the point: There's only an upside for me while there there may be a downside for the other.

Don't discount fear as a means of encouraging a functioning society. Everyone lives in fear every day of doing something wrong and getting punished. It doesn't matter if it's getting a speeding ticket, upsetting a friend, or going to hell.

[rvg]

Don't discount fear as a means of encouraging a functioning society. Everyone lives in fear every day of doing something wrong and getting punished. It doesn't matter if it's getting a speeding ticket, upsetting a friend, or going to hell.

This is very true. The language of pain and fear is pretty much universal and immediately understood by just about everybody regardless of culture, convictions or level of intelligence.

[The Stranger]

yes but still we do not want fear to be the foundation of our moral ethics or of our moral actions.

vladimir, if there was a god, but i did not believe in him, yet i lived my life truly virtous but for the fact that i did not believe in him, what do think should happen to me? should i still be regarded a sinner for that and be punished as all other sinners? Because if it is about being a good person, than you can be a good person without believing in god, or would you disagree with that?

[Vladimir]

yes but still we do not want fear to be the foundation of our moral ethics or of our moral actions.

vladimir, if there was a god, but i did not believe in him, yet i lived my life truly virtous but for the fact that i did not believe in him, what do think should happen to me? should i still be regarded a sinner for that and be punished as all other sinners? Because if it is about being a good person, than you can be a good person without believing in god, or would you disagree with that?

Who says it is? Let it be a positive motivator.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You're interjecting false assertions. I suppose it would depend on what virtues you embody: Are you Marcus Aurelius or Commodus? It may be impolite to judge others but what matters most is our actions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will not give my reasons for hating the idea of a divine being.

Of course they will garner a negative reaction. Since I am on this forum, I'll give a Total War Diplomacy menu analogy (In this case Shogun 2).

I'm Takeda (because I love Takeda). You are Matsuda (since I'm Shinto-Buddhist which isn't technically a religion, and you are Christian.)

Becasue of Religious Differences, you are Unfriendly to me. Fair enough. With enough Religious Divide, you will become Hostile (maybe). And if a war starts, then I'll defend myself with my superior cavalry.





I declared all religions fabrications. Yeah, but I'm not preaching this actively to everyone I see. If someone asks me on my thoughts on religion, there they are.

I'd spit in god's face, when I meet him. If he wants an appointment, he'll book an appropriate time with me. I'm not going to demand that god breaks his schedule, by barging in on him, spitting in his face, then leaving. Although, it does sound fun. It just isn't worth the effort. So, yeah, I don't actively hate religion. I just hate it. Using normal hate. Level 1 Hate.

This is just irrational loathing, it's not pretty.

You hate somnething you believe doesn't exist, that no one (even religious people) do not believe exists. That is just not healthy.

Are there lots of things you hate?


Semantics; I think both of you are missing the point: There's only an upside for me while there there may be a downside for the other.

Don't discount fear as a means of encouraging a functioning society. Everyone lives in fear every day of doing something wrong and getting punished. It doesn't matter if it's getting a speeding ticket, upsetting a friend, or going to hell.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong - because your belief in God for your own sake is not garrenteed to get you into heaven, in fact if your main reason for believing in God is because you want to go to heaven, that's selfish and God doesn't like selfishness.

[Viking]

What? Are you just trolling? In our oh-so crippled state we could crush any one nation on the globe like a bug. Afghanistan gives us trouble because we're trying to fix their country, not destroy it.

This one statement makes you look just incredibly ignorant.

User X has always been a provocateur with few useful contributions to debates. But that is for the Backroom WT, I suppose.


My take on the OP then is relatively simple. Religions were based on a combination of explaining the world as people saw it, and a basic moral code, acceptable to its converts. As societies became more complex, so did the belief systems. It is at this more complex stage that political or religious leaders may have seen an opportunity to exert more control over the populace, but to add some perspective, the very nature of a modern state is to exert control over a territorial area (and populace) for benefit, whether for an individual (dictator), or all its inhabitants (an ideal democracy).

My understaning of the history of religion is not very complex, but with it, I usually find it useful to divide the religions into two groups: the ideological ones and the ritual ones; where the former will dictate most aspects of a human's life, and the latter is mainly about rituals every now and then, seemingly placing little responsibilty on the individual.

Over time, it seems that it is always the ideological religions that win. In the world today, we have world religions, and I think this speaks volumes about this fact (because most non-ideological religions are created for the local area). Among the 4 biggest religions, 3 of them, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are all higly ideological religions (but Hinduism also has its texts; while at the same time being geographically (culturally) somwhat limited in extent).

But something the three biggest ideological religions also have in common, is their sudden origin; they originated over a short timespan, and there was seemingly one single person at the heart of the launching of all three.

So again, it would appear to me that what one today often think of when the word religion is used, religions such as Christianity and Islam, these religions are very different beasts from older beliefs such as e.g. Norse mythology.

Now, if someone disagrees with this interpretation, I am interested in hearing about it. ~;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

you are right, i wont object to what GC said. i more or less agree.

I'm not GC. :(

[rvg]

No, I'm afraid you're wrong - because your belief in God for your own sake is not garrenteed to get you into heaven, in fact if your main reason for believing in God is because you want to go to heaven, that's selfish and God doesn't like selfishness.

IMHO God is all-forgiving, i.e. Heaven is wide open to anyone who wants to get in with no preconditions. Here's why: think of God. He's supposed to be just and omni-benevolent. Now think of a punishment, any punishment that is supposed to be stretched out over eternity. Kinda harsh, isn't it? Now think of any non-eternal punishment in the face of eternity: it's completely meaningless and pointless. Who cares if you have to spend a millenium in hell if afterwards the way to Heaven is clear? So in order for a punishment to mean something it has to be eternal.
Now let's take a look at humanity, and I'm talking the worst of the worst of humanity: the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Tamerlanes and Temujins of the world, men who have the blood of countless millions on their conscience. Do *they* deserve an eternal punishment especially for an omni-benevolent God who loves Hitler no less than he loves anybody else? IMHO, no.
In fact, the only purpose as to why Hell might even exist is because nobody is *required* to go to Heaven and those who choose not to be with God can be granted their wish Ultimately, that's Hell's only purpose: a place where there's no God. IMHO of course.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What? Are you just trolling? In our oh-so crippled state we could crush any one nation on the globe like a bug. Afghanistan gives us trouble because we're trying to fix their country, not destroy it.

This one statement makes you look just incredibly ignorant.

Don't overdo it. Bombing things into ruins, yes. Toying with British affections, sure. But crushing a nation?

You can't even manage the Afghans even with such an unlovable opponent as the Taliban. So what makes you think you could muster enough boots on the grounds to cover a properly large nation, with a much more united populace?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Because we have more and better things that go boom than anyone else? Seriously, this is stupid. There's a huge difference between conventional war and what goes on in Afghanistan.

Exactly. There's a huge difference in toppling a regime and crushing a nation, too. ~:)

[The Stranger]

I'm not GC. :(

i am sorry ACIN my mistake. also sorry that there was no intellectual rebuttal :) perhaps when im rested i have more to say about it. i find it a very interesting topic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

i am sorry ACIN my mistake. also sorry that there was no intellectual rebuttal :) perhaps when im rested i have more to say about it. i find it a very interesting topic.

<3 :)

[Papewaio]

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.

Really?

You have to be good, follow the religions rules from your heart and hope if there is a god/s you are in the correct religion an sect. Because I'm pretty sure most hardcore religious variants out there believe heretics go to hell.

Pascals wager assumes that there is a god, that you've selected the right one and that you are in the right sect.

How does one determine from Zeus, Ra, Odin, God (Jewish, Islamic , Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Sunni, Mormon, Witness etc) assuming from the thousands of faiths an variants you even chose the right one you uphold it in a virteous manner?

=][=

Abrahamic religions didn't just appear from one leader afterall the root of Christian and Islam is in the Jewish traditions. The Jewish traditions can be traced back to a conglomerate of tribal traditions including multiple entity worship followed by a male and female entity on those proto-Jewish societies.

However just like a good story we attach out faiths to singular leaders. And just like most good fiction their dad didn't raise them ie Richard Rahl, Luke Skywalker, James T. Kirk post reboot, Frodo are the main hero in their morality plays and they like Jesus are not raised by their Gene donor.

I see the hope in humans not by our love of fictional characters but by our choices in liking heroes.

Did Jesus and co exist? Probably
Have their stories been edited and manipulated for maximum audience appeal? Yes
Do the stories attributed to them appear before and are formulaic for their time? Yes

Orphan sun god, with 12 disciples and one a traitor: Unique or a rehash of earlier myth?

Jesus story is about as original as Lord of the Rings. So based on prior myth but with better story telling and a couple if twists. One only has to look at the differences between LoTR books and film to see how stories change... Imagine tribes using stories based on oral only traditions.

[Sigurd]

Orphan sun god, with 12 disciples and one a traitor: Unique or a rehash of earlier myth?

Jesus story is about as original as Lord of the Rings. So based on prior myth but with better story telling and a couple if twists. One only has to look at the differences between LoTR books and film to see how stories change... Imagine tribes using stories based on oral only traditions.
Unless it is the real deal...
Then these myths would be variations from an original "Adamic" religion, where the Lord of this universe revealed these things to man and this was either written and/or retold. All the older religions would be variations of this original. Common source gives common elements.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unless it is the real deal...
Then these myths would be variations from an original "Adamic" religion, where the Lord of this universe revealed these things to man and this was either written and/or retold. All the older religions would be variations of this original. Common source gives common elements.

not a bad point, but forgive me for trying to outdo you.

Jesus is an unashamed showman, his most famous miracles, feading the five thousand, waking on water, healing the cripple in the Synnagogue, these are pieces of performance theatre. In the same way, the followers Jesus surrounds himself with are a theatrical entourage as much as a practical support team, and the whole point of this is to create a story, one which people will believe and will lead them to God.

In that context, Jesus does things either "so that the prophecy was fulfilled" or to otherwise satisfy expectations, the "fact" that he had twelve disciples is not even exactly true (It's actually even less true of Mithras), what we have are the names of twelve men who were his disciples, then in Acts these men form a Council of the early Christians that chooses a replacement for Judas. However, while the identiy of the "beloved" Disciple is identified as "John" I have found no evidence that the "beloved" was actually one of the twelve, hence "Rufas" in Dogma I suppose.

Further, twelve disciples goes well not only with the twelve Tribes, but also with the Zodiac, but there is no real importance in the NT attached to the number of disciples, which I find interesting.

[The Stranger]

Jesus is an unashamed showman, his most famous miracles, feading the five thousand, waking on water, healing the cripple in the Synnagogue, these are pieces of performance theatre. In the same way, the followers Jesus surrounds himself with are a theatrical entourage as much as a practical support team, and the whole point of this is to create a story, one which people will believe and will lead them to God.

do they truly believe in the god and wish to lead them to it for their own good, and thus they are still saintly, or do they wish to get something else from it while still believing in doing something good, or they just purely doing it for their own sake?

[Sigurd]

not a bad point, but forgive me for trying to outdo you.

Just merely pointing out that the argument against Christianity by referencing older religions with similar content should be a fallacy.

Christianity shouldn't start with Christ, it should start with the creation story. I would rather say that today's Christianity lost its original form. Somewhere along the line it lost the elements of before creation, council of, and the war in heaven. Older religion puts much emphasis on this and the savior that would redeem.
As Rhyf has pointed out in previous discussions; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later David were Christians.
Even Abel, the slain brother, was a Christian and understood the significance of the Savior that would come. That is why his offering (a first born lamb) was accepted, but his brother Cain's were not.

[rvg]

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later David were Christians. Even Abel, the slain brother, was a Christian and understood the significance of the Savior that would come. That is why his offering (a first born lamb) was accepted, but his brother Cain's were not.

Nah. They were Jews. One cannot be a Christian prior to Christ's arrival by definition. Before Christ all Jews were waiting for a messiah to arrive. With Christ's arrival some saw him as the messiah and others didn't. But the distinction between the two groups could not be made prior to that.

[Sigurd]

Nah. They were Jews. One cannot be a Christian prior to Christ's arrival by definition. Before Christ all Jews were waiting for a messiah to arrive. With Christ's arrival some saw him as the messiah and others didn't. But the distinction between the two groups could not be made prior to that.
Would you say Enoch, Noah and even Abraham were Jews?
Both the Jews and the Christians believe they existed and that they have the same chance as any to inherit a place in heaven. They are not saved by their own merits, but by the saving work that Christ performed. Or for them, the work that Christ would perform.
You can't dismiss this fact of doctrine in Christianity. All men's salvation is dependent on Christ also those that lived prior to his birth. To say otherwise is not understanding what Christianity is all about. Looking to Christ for salvation is the definition of being a Christian. Not which denomination you belong to.

[rvg]

Would you say Enoch, Noah and even Abraham were Jews?
Both the Jews and the Christians believe they existed and that they have the same chance as any to inherit a place in heaven. They are not saved by their own merits, but by the saving work that Christ performed. Or for them, the work that Christ would perform.
You can't dismiss this fact of doctrine in Christianity. All men's salvation is dependent on Christ also those that lived prior to his birth. To say otherwise is not understanding what Christianity is all about. Looking to Christ for salvation is the definition of being a Christian. Not which denomination you belong to.

They believed that some day God will send a messiah (let's called him Bob for the sake of this argument). They had no clue as to what Bob would say, preach or do, nor did they have any insight into whether or not Bob would be accepted or persecuted.
Christians do not believe in some hypothetical Bob. Christians believe in Jesus who is identified by where and to whom he was born, what he did, what he preached, how he died and how he rose from the dead.

There is a pretty significant difference between Bob and Jesus. While I agree that salvation is through Christ, that does not make all those guys Christian. It doesn't mean they aren't saved either.

[Sigurd]

They believed that some day God will send a messiah (let's called him Bob for the sake of this argument). They had no clue as to what Bob would say, preach or do, nor did they have any insight into whether or not Bob would be accepted or persecuted.
Christians do not believe in some hypothetical Bob. Christians believe in Jesus who is identified by where and to whom he was born, what he did, what he preached, how he died and how he rose from the dead.

There is a pretty significant difference between Bob and Jesus. While I agree that salvation is through Christ, that does not make all those guys Christian. It doesn't mean they aren't saved either.
Do you say that Bob and Jesus are not the same entity?

[rvg]

Bob could be anybody. Only Jesus could be Bob.

Bob is God's hypothetical messiah. Jesus is a very specific person. Bob turned out to be Jesus, yes, and Jesus fits under Bob's definition, but believing in Bob does not make one Christian. The essential part of Christianity is Jesus' death and resurrection. The Davids and the Isaacs had no clue about Bob's impending fate, they didn't know that Bob would be Jesus.

In other words, Bob is Jesus' vague description, but Jesus is the person behind what Bob is supposed to be. Christians believe in that *specific* person.

[Sigurd]

Bob could be anybody. Only Jesus could be Bob.

Bob is God's hypothetical messiah. Jesus is a very specific person. Bob turned out to be Jesus, yes, and Jesus fits under Bob's definition, but believing in Bob does not make one Christian. The essential part of Christianity is Jesus' death and resurrection. The Davids and the Isaacs had no clue about Bob's impending fate, they didn't know that Bob would be Jesus.

In other words, Bob is Jesus' vague description, but Jesus is the person behind what Bob is supposed to be. Christians believe in that *specific* person.
Don't know what version of Christianity you subscribe to, but Bob, Jesus and Yaweh are supposed to be the same entity.
This is what Isaiah was prophesying about. They knew who he was and why he was coming. That the majority of the Jews - from the tribe of Judah forgot or missed the whole thing does not change the fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew about this prior to his coming. This was all quite clear to the early Christians, many of them of the tribe of Judah. That is why they offered up first-born lambs as a remembrance of what to come. The slaughter of God's first born for the remission of sins. The passover were also physical acts in remembrance of what to come. All these physical acts were done to remember the coming of a messiah. First as a lamb to slaughter and then as a lion who will destroy their enemies. They just missed the first part, expecting the second.
Take also into consideration the pre-Mosaic law vs. Mosaic law vs. The new order under Christ.

[rvg]

They just missed the first part, expecting the second...

Which is why they're not Christians. Unless one can conclusively prove that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would recognize Jesus as Bob if they lived in the AD years, they cannot be called Christians. They might have been, but one cannot be sure.

[Hax]

Trying to fix Afghanistan is an oxymoron. You can't fix a civil society that has never existed.

[rvg]

Trying to fix Afghanistan is an oxymoron. You can't fix a civil society that has never existed.

And then Jesus said to his disciples: hear me oh ye of little faith. Thou shalt not try to fixeth the lands of Bactria, for lost to the son of man they art. Amen.

[Sigurd]

Which is why they're not Christians. Unless one can conclusively prove that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would recognize Jesus as Bob if they lived in the AD years, they cannot be called Christians. They might have been, but one cannot be sure.
You are missing the obvious... I'll rephrase it to a direct question.
Are not Bob, Jesus and Yaweh the same entity?

[rvg]

You are missing the obvious... I'll rephrase it to a direct question.
Are not Bob, Jesus and Yaweh the same entity?

Sure they are. What's the catch?

[Hax]

Anyone got the comprehensive list of all the empires that have conquered or tried to conquer that country?





Well, y'know, it wasn't unconquerable, there were several Islamic states that conquered and held it, actually centering their capital around that environment, such as the Ghaznavids, the Ghurids and the Seljuks (although the last were centered around Isfahan). Still, I think all of those states only exerted very light control without interfering in things like Pashtunwali.

Still, I was at a conference hosted by our professor of Persian Literature, and a guest speaker was invited to talk about Pashto literature. He said that it's an area that people have hardly invested time is, but perhaps the fact that recently there has been more and more attention to Pashto culture will actually be beneficial to their society. I don't know, I'm not an expert on the Pashto culture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just merely pointing out that the argument against Christianity by referencing older religions with similar content should be a fallacy.

Christianity shouldn't start with Christ, it should start with the creation story. I would rather say that today's Christianity lost its original form. Somewhere along the line it lost the elements of before creation, council of, and the war in heaven. Older religion puts much emphasis on this and the savior that would redeem.
As Rhyf has pointed out in previous discussions; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later David were Christians.
Even Abel, the slain brother, was a Christian and understood the significance of the Savior that would come. That is why his offering (a first born lamb) was accepted, but his brother Cain's were not.

Yes and no, Christianity begins with Christ, and ends with Christ but Christian time runs in two directions, with creation at one end and recreation at the other, both seen through the prism of Christ's teachings.

However.....


Would you say Enoch, Noah and even Abraham were Jews?
Both the Jews and the Christians believe they existed and that they have the same chance as any to inherit a place in heaven. They are not saved by their own merits, but by the saving work that Christ performed. Or for them, the work that Christ would perform.
You can't dismiss this fact of doctrine in Christianity. All men's salvation is dependent on Christ also those that lived prior to his birth. To say otherwise is not understanding what Christianity is all about. Looking to Christ for salvation is the definition of being a Christian. Not which denomination you belong to.


According to the Gospel of Nicodemus (a translation of which I am editing, hands off) Enoch was already in paradise with Elijah when the Patriarchs and Prophets were brought through the gate by Jesus.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Christianity shouldn't start with Christ, it should start with the creation story.

Thank you for making this excellent point. I see my 'Christian' faith as being different from other religious systems since while they tend to be based on either ritual or ideology, my faith is more of a worldview.

It's hard to say what I mean here and I'm not sure if my terminology is entirely correct. Both ideologies and worldviews attempt to create usually quite grand narratives in explaining how the world is. The difference is that ideologies are more designed for a specific context, usually at a certain period of time or development. An example of this would be the laws given to the Israelites after they came out of slavery in Egypt. These ideologies are useful at the time, but become redundant as things change. Likewise Islam to some extent came about as a response to what was seen as the watering down of monotheism in Christianity.

Worldviews on the other hand are less about providing particular solutions to particular problems and more about understanding how things develop, and why these issues come to be in the first place. I believe that my faith comes under this category. Many of my values go back as Sigurd said to the creation story, since I see that as the fundamental point to look at when it comes to understanding how we were meant to live under God and live our lives. Thus I appeal to a sort of natural law when explaining where my morals come from. For example, I am currently considering observing the sabbath. Many Christians would do this as they see it as a tradition, or perhaps as an artibtrary commandment. But I have taken this decision upon coming to the conclusion that the sabbath is a creation ordinance - meaning that to work six days and rest on the seventh is natural to the human condition.

I hope all that made some sense.

btw, @rvg - the idea that the Old Testament saints looked forward in faith to Christ and called him their Lord is seen in the New Testament itself. Matthew 22:41-46 reads:

41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

[Moros]

Simple as time went by one could lie more without it being so obvious.

Edit: I somehow find it funny how Christianity completely fits within the cultural and religious evolution of it's region. The newly trending apocalyptic sects and all. And boom! Christianity. Planned or an other marker on how Christianity was made by men of their time. Not unlike the inapplicable or outright rules all old religions these days have. At least when you speak to the mentally functioning believers of the religion. Wacko's of course don't care that way.

[Sigurd]

Sure they are. What's the catch?
The catch is that you are all bungled up with a technicality; the name Christ. Which is just the Greek translation of the Aramaic that Jesus and his contemporaries used. This entity we call Christ i just a parameter in the Judeo - Christian tradition.
It shouldn't matter what is used. It could be X, Y or Z for that matter. The equation would still be the same. So if I use Christ and Christian as parameters in the religion which should be the same that was taught Adam, I refer to the same entity as you call Bob and the Jews call Yahweh.
The point is, that they all look to this entity for salvation and hence they are alike. But for simplicity's sake, Christ and Christendom is something we all understand. It brings instant recognition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why is it that the four books of the Gospel get progressively better written and more interesting!? I know this is terribly off-topic, but its been bothering the heck out of me ever since I read the bible that one time.

Like, Matthew is bare-bones and basic compared to John.

It actually goes Mark, Mathew, Luke, John.

how's that change your persepctive? John is also the most accurate about 1st Century Palastinian geography while Mark and Mathew make the least "real world" sense. Basically, Luke is cleverer and better educated than Mark and Methew, he has access to better sources and he does the "Greek thing" of taking the existing account and modifying it based on other sources he deems more plausable, while keeping the narrative basically the same. John, on the other hand, is actually coming from a completely different literary stream, which is why he dissagrees with the other "Canonical" Gospels so often.


Simple as time went by one could lie more without it being so obvious.

Edit: I somehow find it funny how Christianity completely fits within the cultural and religious evolution of it's region. The newly trending apocalyptic sects and all. And boom! Christianity. Planned or an other marker on how Christianity was made by men of their time. Not unlike the inapplicable or outright rules all old religions these days have. At least when you speak to the mentally functioning believers of the religion. Wacko's of course don't care that way.

The best dressed gets the girl, or the truth makes the most sense. Take your pick.


Well, sure, but I want to hear the theological explanation. I'm genuinely interested in why the styles got progressively more.. I wanna say.. eloquent? Its like each one was just expanding and embellishing on the one before--but I don't even know if they're arranged in chronological order.

It is, roughly, "We don't know which one's right, but we think all the writers were cool - so read them all."

Fact is, if the early Church fathers had felt able to pick the "right" bits from each Gospel they would have rewritten a single account based on the 20-30 sources to hand, instead what they did was picked the best/earliest and presented them "as is".

[Sigurd]

Fact is, if the early Church fathers had felt able to pick the "right" bits from each Gospel they would have rewritten a single account based on the 20-30 sources to hand, instead what they did was picked the best/earliest and presented them "as is".

Just quoting this as this was the last comment on this particular issue. Didn't first want to reply to further sidetrack the topic, but I think we have gone too far down that road to redeem it.

The Bible and its origins, one of the favourite topics...
Always when discussing the Bible, we have to take into account that it did not exist in a compiled version at the time the books within was written. They should be scrutinized as individual texts. With the exception of some of the letters, these texts was not created to expand on or discuss a previous text. E.g. Matthew was probably not written to expand on Mark (common belief being the older text) etc.

However...
Many scholars believe as Philipvs suggests that the authors used source texts when writing the life and ministry of Jesus, commonly referred to as Gospels.
This whole theme is extremely complex and you would need to devote hours to get a grasp of it all. There are so many factors to consider and skeletons to uncover that it will leave you with nightmares.
You might begin to ask; why only four gospels, and why those gospels? The sacred number of 4 is a product of some early church father with weird ideas. "There can be no less or more than 4". Basing this on an obscure references to earths 4 corners.
Truth is, many groups in the very early church, used only one gospel. The church fathers referred to this quite frequently. Most notably was the gospel of Matthew. Not today's version, but in a version they either called the Hebrew gospel or the gospel of the Nazarene; which we of course do not have a copy of other than Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen quoting from it.

Then there are early church scholars that accuse each other of tampering with the gospels, one even accusing Irenaeus for forging the gospel of John. It could be that this man was just projecting his own wrongdoing. (Common for most liars).
The after match of the martyrdom of the early apostles left a mess. There were many fractions and ideas being put forward. Earlier they had the Apostles to bring these "apostates" back in line, but after their deaths these ideas flowed freely. No wonder we have over 35 000 different Christian denominations today.
That some, after all these happenings, many are even documented, would go to the step of proposing an infallible Bible; A book that they can't trust having been compiled correctly, is beyond me. Truth is, there are 120 texts which could be candidates in a New Testament, yet they chose 4 gospels and a number of letters and books, which in its lifetime has been changed back and forth with regard to compilation.

There are more gospels or sources to the gospels in the Bible, scholars have been arguing this for hundreds of years. Some they can't even name. They remain the hypotetical Q-source, M-source and L-source. You have many of the early Church fathers quoting Jesus: "Jesus said thus:" but those quotes are not found in the 4 gospels of today. Where are they recorded? Which source were they quoting? Maybe they were just inventing stuff?
Others you might have heard of; Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Philip (there are more).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just quoting this as this was the last comment on this particular issue. Didn't first want to reply to further sidetrack the topic, but I think we have gone too far down that road to redeem it.

The Bible and its origins, one of the favourite topics...
Always when discussing the Bible, we have to take into account that it did not exist in a compiled version at the time the books within was written. They should be scrutinized as individual texts. With the exception of some of the letters, these texts was not created to expand on or discuss a previous text. E.g. Matthew was probably not written to expand on Mark (common belief being the older text) etc.

However...
Many scholars believe as Philipvs suggests that the authors used source texts when writing the life and ministry of Jesus, commonly referred to as Gospels.
This whole theme is extremely complex and you would need to devote hours to get a grasp of it all. There are so many factors to consider and skeletons to uncover that it will leave you with nightmares.
You might begin to ask; why only four gospels, and why those gospels? The sacred number of 4 is a product of some early church father with weird ideas. "There can be no less or more than 4". Basing this on an obscure references to earths 4 corners.
Truth is, many groups in the very early church, used only one gospel. The church fathers referred to this quite frequently. Most notably was the gospel of Matthew. Not today's version, but in a version they either called the Hebrew gospel or the gospel of the Nazarene; which we of course do not have a copy of other than Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen quoting from it.

Then there are early church scholars that accuse each other of tampering with the gospels, one even accusing Irenaeus for forging the gospel of John. It could be that this man was just projecting his own wrongdoing. (Common for most liars).
The after match of the martyrdom of the early apostles left a mess. There were many fractions and ideas being put forward. Earlier they had the Apostles to bring these "apostates" back in line, but after their deaths these ideas flowed freely. No wonder we have over 35 000 different Christian denominations today.
That some, after all these happenings, many are even documented, would go to the step of proposing an infallible Bible; A book that they can't trust having been compiled correctly, is beyond me. Truth is, there are 120 texts which could be candidates in a New Testament, yet they chose 4 gospels and a number of letters and books, which in its lifetime has been changed back and forth with regard to compilation.

There are more gospels or sources to the gospels in the Bible, scholars have been arguing this for hundreds of years. Some they can't even name. They remain the hypotetical Q-source, M-source and L-source. You have many of the early Church fathers quoting Jesus: "Jesus said thus:" but those quotes are not found in the 4 gospels of today. Where are they recorded? Which source were they quoting? Maybe they were just inventing stuff?
Others you might have heard of; Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Philip (there are more).

Yes, well I have the Apochryphal New Testement on my bookshelf (the proper Oxford one, not the one you buy in bookshops claiming to present "lost" texts) and the fact is that many of these texts were read, quoted from, and used as authorities well into the Middle Ages and up to the Renaissance, when the Humanists were able to prove they post-dated the Canonical texts by a few centuries and they were dropped.

[Strike For The South]

A cynic on the internet

Shocking

[Video had too much swearing and not much relevant content - Tiaexz ]

[Sigurd]

A cynic on the internet

Are you calling me a dog?

Funny you should mention this... There are those who say that one of the sources of the gospels might have been Cynicism. Others, that Jesus was simply a Jewish cynic, on the grounds that there was a town close to Nazareth which was a center for Cynic philosophy. There are notably many cynic traits in the early church.

[Strike For The South]

Are you calling me a dog?

Funny you should mention this... There are those who say that the one of the sources of the gospels might have been Cynicism. Others, that Jesus was simply a Jewish cynic, on the grounds that there was a town close to Nazareth which was a center for Cynic philosophy. There are notably many cynic traits in the early church.

I was talking about the OP

And no I'm not calling you a dog lol

[spankythehippo]

I was talking about the OP

And no I'm not calling you a dog lol

YES. I'm a dog. I love dogs.

[Strike For The South]

You can't love dogs, you're a nhillist

[Moros]

YES. I'm a dog. I love dogs.

We have so much in common! You should like totally give me a call and like hang out in the mall or something. :gorgeous:

[spankythehippo]

We have so much in common! You should like totally give me a call and like hang out in the mall or something. :gorgeous:

OH MAI GAWD! We should totally compare shoes and go on a shopping spree! :kiss::kiss:

[Moros]

OH MAI GAWD! We should totally compare shoes and go on a shopping spree! :kiss::kiss:
:sweetheart:

[Papewaio]

Very interesting meme suite. And much like DNA it is both mutable and self correcting.

[spankythehippo]

:sweetheart:

I'll see you at the mall, babe. Mwah.

[Sigurd]

Soo... my question is. Does nihilism necessitate atheism? can one believe in a higher entity and at the same time subscribe to nihilism?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

My short answer, which unfortunately is all that I have time for at the moment, is that in the most literal sense, nihilism rules out beleif in a theistic concept of the universe. In practice however, individuals tend to have individual beliefs. It would not surprise me if someone was able to reconcile the idea of a higher power with a belief in the efficacy of nihilism as an ideology.

[Viking]

Soo... my question is. Does nihilism necessitate atheism? can one believe in a higher entity and at the same time subscribe to nihilism?

There is always the question of semantics, what exactly nihilism means. One definition is that it is the idea that there is no [absolute] meaning of existence.

This definition does not necessarily crash with theism (belief in higher entities), it is just that any god or gods would be just gods. You could say that a god might have created the universe, but that this would not allow him to create a meaning of existence more than anyone else. That regardless of whether life is the result of a "random" process or carefully designed by a designer, a meaning of existence would not follow; which is to say that because a mouth might be perfectly suited to eat with, one could still say that eating was not the purpose or meaning of the mouth, because 'meaning' and 'purpose' are philosophic concepts that are supposed to exist separately of physical reality.

In short, any god is, as everything else, relativised. Any god would also be a part of something, and not outside of everything.

I'll go a little more into depth, because there is one more interesting aspect: how about the god being everything (or the only thing to exist originally)? With this viewpoint, he can still be relativised and compared with nothing. That is to say one can not take the existence of any eventual god for granted (even if one says that it is physically inevitable).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is always the question of semantics, what exactly nihilism means. One definition is that it is the idea that there is no [absolute] meaning of existence.

This definition does not necessarily crash with theism (belief in higher entities), it is just that any god or gods would be just gods. You could say that a god might have created the universe, but that this would not allow him to create a meaning of existence more than anyone else. That regardless of whether life is the result of a "random" process or carefully designed by a designer, a meaning of existence would not follow; which is to say that because a mouth might be perfectly suited to eat with, one could still say that eating was not the purpose or meaning of the mouth, because 'meaning' and 'purpose' are philosophic concepts that are supposed to exist separately of physical reality.

In short, any god is, as everything else, relativised. Any god would also be a part of something, and not outside of everything.

I'll go a little more into depth, because there is one more interesting aspect: how about the god being everything (or the only thing to exist originally)? With this viewpoint, he can still be relativised and compared with nothing. That is to say one can not take the existence of any eventual god for granted (even if one says that it is physically inevitable).

None of those definitions would qualify as "God" in the modern understanding, they would not even really qualify in the Norse or Greek understanding as the only constraint on Odin's power were other Gods (or fate) and Zeus was no more constrained than El.

It's also worth pointing out that in most modern theistic doctrines the universe is fundamentally a perpetual expression of Divine Will, not a created "thing" seperate from the God that created "it".

[Sigurd]

I think that the whole God created the universe is a straw man. I don't think the Bible really claims it. Looking through most of the creation stories and religious text that deals with before the creation, you might notice that most if not all deals with the creation of this system (solar).

I was hoping someone would quote Nietzshe on the issue of Religion and Nihilism. I think he had his own definition of what nihilism was all about.

[Viking]

None of those definitions would qualify as "God" in the modern understanding, they would not even really qualify in the Norse or Greek understanding as the only constraint on Odin's power were other Gods (or fate) and Zeus was no more constrained than El.

I disagree. What I did was simply to take the familiar deities and put them in a different perspective.

A religious person puts faith in whatever deity the person believes in, whereas an areligious person would not. In the case of atheism, no deities are thought to exist. In the case of nihilism, it is my argument that one could, for whatever reason, believe that a certain deity exists, but that the deity is not what it claims to be. So, same deity, different interpretation.

In other words, I do not find that nihilism implies atheism, insofar as atheism excludes the existence of deities.

[spankythehippo]

There are several theories being postulated as to the purpose of the Universe. One claims that when the true scope and purpose of the universe has been discovered, including why it is here, the Universe will instantly disappear. And from this, it will be replaced by something even more bizarre and complex. And other's claim that this has already happened.

I think this discussion arose due to my first post, which says something like "I'm a nihilistic atheist". In retrospect, it doesn't make much sense, so I will explain my transition from being part if a religious sect, to dismissing all religions, on the basis that they are scientifically incorrect.

I'm Japanese. I was born into a Shinto-Buddhist family. Whatever. When I got to age 13, I started to question religions (including my own, which is not really a religion). And thus, I became an agnostic. I was only agnostic for about a year, before I became a deist. I was a deist until the age of 18, whereby I embraced atheism. Now this is where my "nihilistic" thoughts began.

I have manic depression, without the depression part. I can be quite loony and think abstract thoughts, and then I go back down into the logical thought. When I'm "manic", I start to question not only the purpose of myself, but the purpose of everything. If we all die, in the end, what's the point in doing anything? What's the point in finding love (which I tend to walk away from), what is the point in playing Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight. What's the point in researching animal behaviour?

In the end, we all die. Which is another reason why I posted my "theory" in the first post. This fear of death gave rise to religion. When I questioned everything, I did not become scared. Scared of what's to come. No, I just wanted answers.

Then, my "mania" stops. And I do play Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight (on occasion). I do study animal behaviour. I then realise I'm doing it for short term satisfaction. That's all life really is. Short term satisfaction.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Playing computer games is short term satisfaction...other things are short term dissatisfaction, long term satisfaction.

[The Stranger]

thats all life is and probably can ever be to science. because what it is, is descriptive and such is science. what it can be or ought to be is normative and is beyond the realm of scientific duty.

btw if you play STW2 8 hours straight u need to get yourself checked. and ask yourself why the in name of hell and heaven arent you playing RTW EB.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that the whole God created the universe is a straw man. I don't think the Bible really claims it. Looking through most of the creation stories and religious text that deals with before the creation, you might notice that most if not all deals with the creation of this system (solar).

I was hoping someone would quote Nietzshe on the issue of Religion and Nihilism. I think he had his own definition of what nihilism was all about.

That rather depends on whether you're reading the Bible or Aquinas, but even in the Bible God creates the firmament, it just doesn't explain what he did with/to those other stars.


I disagree. What I did was simply to take the familiar deities and put them in a different perspective.

A religious person puts faith in whatever deity the person believes in, whereas an areligious person would not. In the case of atheism, no deities are thought to exist. In the case of nihilism, it is my argument that one could, for whatever reason, believe that a certain deity exists, but that the deity is not what it claims to be. So, same deity, different interpretation.

In other words, I do not find that nihilism implies atheism, insofar as atheism excludes the existence of deities.

Well, I dissagree with your dissagreement. Few theistic models today postulate "deities", pretty much all of them have just one primal, irresistable force which created and controls (at least passively) everything. There is only one correct interpretation of this deity if you believe in it, anything else is insane. To put it another way, there's no point believing the all-powerful ruler of the universe is a dick, because you can't do anything about it.


There are several theories being postulated as to the purpose of the Universe. One claims that when the true scope and purpose of the universe has been discovered, including why it is here, the Universe will instantly disappear. And from this, it will be replaced by something even more bizarre and complex. And other's claim that this has already happened.

I think this discussion arose due to my first post, which says something like "I'm a nihilistic atheist". In retrospect, it doesn't make much sense, so I will explain my transition from being part if a religious sect, to dismissing all religions, on the basis that they are scientifically incorrect.

I'm Japanese. I was born into a Shinto-Buddhist family. Whatever. When I got to age 13, I started to question religions (including my own, which is not really a religion). And thus, I became an agnostic. I was only agnostic for about a year, before I became a deist. I was a deist until the age of 18, whereby I embraced atheism. Now this is where my "nihilistic" thoughts began.

I have manic depression, without the depression part. I can be quite loony and think abstract thoughts, and then I go back down into the logical thought. When I'm "manic", I start to question not only the purpose of myself, but the purpose of everything. If we all die, in the end, what's the point in doing anything? What's the point in finding love (which I tend to walk away from), what is the point in playing Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight. What's the point in researching animal behaviour?

In the end, we all die. Which is another reason why I posted my "theory" in the first post. This fear of death gave rise to religion. When I questioned everything, I did not become scared. Scared of what's to come. No, I just wanted answers.

Then, my "mania" stops. And I do play Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight (on occasion). I do study animal behaviour. I then realise I'm doing it for short term satisfaction. That's all life really is. Short term satisfaction.

That sounds like something other than manic depression, but in any case you've gone from denigrating religion for not being scientifically "correct" to proffering pseudo-scientific myths about the purpose of the universe.

The fact is, "purpose" is not a scientific concept, so if you want "purpose" you need more than science.


thats all life is and probably can ever be to science. because what it is, is descriptive and such is science. what it can be or ought to be is normative and is beyond the realm of scientific duty.

btw if you play STW2 8 hours straight u need to get yourself checked. and ask yourself why the in name of hell and heaven arent you playing RTW EB.

Nice to know it's still appreciated.

[Sigurd]

That rather depends on whether you're reading the Bible or Aquinas, but even in the Bible God creates the firmament, it just doesn't explain what he did with/to those other stars.

I don't think this thread has room for this particular discussion.
However, I would like to say that I wasn't quite aware that Aquinas was on the same wavelength as me, but it didn't surprise me. I know you have Catholic roots and hence subsribe to the creatio ex nihilo camp, whereas I, due to the nature of my beliefs, hold to the greek ex nihilo, nihil fit.
I therefore read the first sentence of Genesis as a general header for what to come, and the second line as the real 1st line of Genesis. If you browse through the different translations, many do in fact treat the first sentence as a header, some even incorporate it into the second line. In some it says heavens, in others firmament, others the sky. Which to me is not mutual exclusive. Nor is it synonymous with the universe. I have also previously suggested how Genesis could be read with the current understanding of how our solar system came to be.
IF the universe was "created" for the sole purpose of creating man, I would think that our location in the universe would be more prominent.
Just thinking of the later discoveries and the unbelievable vastness of our universe and the galaxies in it, genesis, as classically understood, under-achieves. Since I wont dismiss it on a general atheism basis, I am looking for possibilities, and they are there. Earth without form and the spirit of God moving over the waters is particularly interesting, suggesting something rather than nothing.

[Viking]

Well, I dissagree with your dissagreement. Few theistic models today postulate "deities", pretty much all of them have just one primal, irresistable force which created and controls (at least passively) everything.

What I mean by the word "deity" is simply whatever entity, force or in whichever shape you want it; that has either supreme control or, as a minimum, a control over the universe that no "normal" being can have. Something outside our layer of existence, or reflecting a different part of existence.


There is only one correct interpretation of this deity if you believe in it, anything else is insane. To put it another way, there's no point believing the all-powerful ruler of the universe is a dick, because you can't do anything about it.


There are always two forms of beliefs for any phenomena: 1) that the phenomena exists, 2) that the common understanding of the phenomena is correct.

Here is one parallel: a mountain is believed to be a deity by some [fictional] world religion. The mountain supposedly has the power to change the course of destiny. People who do not follow this religion, do not believe that the mountain is a deity, but do believe that it exists (they can see it with their own eyes, and climb it).

Now of course, the parallel is weak because only one belief assumes the relevant deity to exist; for the other belief, it is just a regular mountain like any other. However, it is relevant because it concerns the position of a god. You can believe that a deity exists, but you do not have to believe the religion that follows it. You cannot say there is "no point" in believing that something exists, because if you hold that belief, then that is something you actually believe... It does not have to serve any other point than to be a part of the understanding of existence.

Whether or not such a belief is common, is outside of the scope of this debate; but such a belief is logically consistent.

[spankythehippo]

That sounds like something other than manic depression, but in any case you've gone from denigrating religion for not being scientifically "correct" to proffering pseudo-scientific myths about the purpose of the universe.

The fact is, "purpose" is not a scientific concept, so if you want "purpose" you need more than science.

These "pseudo-scientific myths" I come up with have nothing to do with my beliefs. It's just something I think about on occasion. Honestly, if you want to bring up the religion debate again, go ahead. But I wont participate. Live your own life. Believe what you want to believe.

"Purpose" is obviously something that cannot be answered by science. And by purpose, I mean, the absolute root reason for existence. So I don't think about it for too long. I just ponder on it, if I have free brain power, or free time.



btw if you play STW2 8 hours straight u need to get yourself checked. and ask yourself why the in name of hell and heaven arent you playing RTW EB.

Hey. I only played Shogun 2 for 8 hours when I took my annual leave. And Shogun 2 is my first Total War game, and I really enjoy it, so I might pick up the other ones.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

These "pseudo-scientific myths" I come up with have nothing to do with my beliefs. It's just something I think about on occasion. Honestly, if you want to bring up the religion debate again, go ahead. But I wont participate. Live your own life. Believe what you want to believe.

"Purpose" is obviously something that cannot be answered by science. And by purpose, I mean, the absolute root reason for existence. So I don't think about it for too long. I just ponder on it, if I have free brain power, or free time.

The point being that such ponderings are as logical or defensible as any of the major religious beliefs, and no more. If anything, they make less sense because at least in religion the claim is that these beliefs were provided by a higher, extra universal, power.


I don't think this thread has room for this particular discussion.
However, I would like to say that I wasn't quite aware that Aquinas was on the same wavelength as me, but it didn't surprise me. I know you have Catholic roots and hence subsribe to the creatio ex nihilo camp, whereas I, due to the nature of my beliefs, hold to the greek ex nihilo, nihil fit.
I therefore read the first sentence of Genesis as a general header for what to come, and the second line as the real 1st line of Genesis. If you browse through the different translations, many do in fact treat the first sentence as a header, some even incorporate it into the second line. In some it says heavens, in others firmament, others the sky. Which to me is not mutual exclusive. Nor is it synonymous with the universe. I have also previously suggested how Genesis could be read with the current understanding of how our solar system came to be.
IF the universe was "created" for the sole purpose of creating man, I would think that our location in the universe would be more prominent.
Just thinking of the later discoveries and the unbelievable vastness of our universe and the galaxies in it, genesis, as classically understood, under-achieves. Since I wont dismiss it on a general atheism basis, I am looking for possibilities, and they are there. Earth without form and the spirit of God moving over the waters is particularly interesting, suggesting something rather than nothing.

Well, if we assume that Genesis is to be poetically understood, or that the scribes poetically missunderstood the revelation given to them, then it seems reasonable that the account only describes the creation of the solar system. After all, Sol is where we live but that doesn't mean God didn't create the rest of the universe. Nor is it necessary that he created the "whole" universe purely for humanity's benefit, in fact genesis makes it unlikely unless we were seeded on other planets in the universe as well.

It is not necessary to be so narcisistic as to believe the entire universe was created to be man's playground, merely that the entire universe was created by God.


What I mean by the word "deity" is simply whatever entity, force or in whichever shape you want it; that has either supreme control or, as a minimum, a control over the universe that no "normal" being can have. Something outside our layer of existence, or reflecting a different part of existence.

I think you're unconciously building a straw man, the "limited power deity" is a favoured topic of some Atheists, but all you are really talking about is a cosmic man to our human dog. That is not an accepted theological concept, and hasn't been for a couple of thousand years for the simple reason that as soon as you postulate a constrained god you postulate a constrainer and that become "God" instead.

So, you cannot have a limted God.


There are always two forms of beliefs for any phenomena: 1) that the phenomena exists, 2) that the common understanding of the phenomena is correct.

Certainly true.


Here is one parallel: a mountain is believed to be a deity by some [fictional] world religion. The mountain supposedly has the power to change the course of destiny. People who do not follow this religion, do not believe that the mountain is a deity, but do believe that it exists (they can see it with their own eyes, and climb it).

Now of course, the parallel is weak because only one belief assumes the relevant deity to exist; for the other belief, it is just a regular mountain like any other. However, it is relevant because it concerns the position of a god. You can believe that a deity exists, but you do not have to believe the religion that follows it. You cannot say there is "no point" in believing that something exists, because if you hold that belief, then that is something you actually believe... It does not have to serve any other point than to be a part of the understanding of existence.

Whether or not such a belief is common, is outside of the scope of this debate; but such a belief is logically consistent.

The parralel does not map on to modern theistic religions, because phyiscal objects are not venerated, a point make repeatedly in the old testemant, and by Augustine in the first book of the City of God.

[Viking]

I think you're unconciously building a straw man, the "limited power deity" is a favoured topic of some Atheists, but all you are really talking about is a cosmic man to our human dog. That is not an accepted theological concept, and hasn't been for a couple of thousand years for the simple reason that as soon as you postulate a constrained god you postulate a constrainer and that become "God" instead.

So, you cannot have a limted God.

Limitations is where the interpretation enters. Religious person who believes in the existence a relevant god: the god has no limitations. Areligious person who also believes in the existence of this god: there are certain elements outside the control of this god.

The latter position cannot be understood to be atheistic, even if you do not want to label it "theistic" (only because the god does not control everything, that does not mean that there exists something higher up in the hierarchy, or that such a thing would even be meaningful to talk about) . The original point was that nihilism does not imply atheism; but more broadly one can state that areligiousity does not imply atheism/agnosticism.



The parralel does not map on to modern theistic religions, because phyiscal objects are not venerated, a point make repeatedly in the old testemant, and by Augustine in the first book of the City of God.

That is really beside the point. The thing is that person A and person B both can have an experience which leads them to conclude that god C exists; but that their interpretations of god C may differ by a lot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Limitations is where the interpretation enters. Religious person who believes in the existence a relevant god: the god has no limitations. Areligious person who also believes in the existence of this god: there are certain elements outside the control of this god.

The latter position cannot be understood to be atheistic, even if you do not want to label it "theistic" (only because the god does not control everything, that does not mean that there exists something higher up in the hierarchy, or that such a thing would even be meaningful to talk about) . The original point was that nihilism does not imply atheism; but more broadly one can state that areligiousity does not imply atheism/agnosticism.

Well, from a Christan point of view the limited and unlimited God are two distinct and mutually exclusive entities, as Lord Sacks said, "that God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

Also, the common Christain, Jewish and Islamic understand of "God" is as what Aquinas described as , "esse", the act of being.

If there are certain elements outside the control of this God several questions must be answered?

1. Is this God within or without the universe? His limitations imply either that he is "within" and therefore not the creator, and thus not "God" or:

2. Is he constrained by a greater force, one which he is beholden to, and therefore not "God"?

3. If this God is "within" the universe in a tangible sense is he hidebound by the universal laws, i.e. is he mortal? If he were he would not be God.


That is really beside the point. The thing is that person A and person B both can have an experience which leads them to conclude that god C exists; but that their interpretations of god C may differ by a lot.

Either A or B are wrong, that's the point.

Your similey lacks force outside of a polytheistic system, but nobody does polytheism today - not even Hindus.

[The Stranger]

A or B are not neccesarily wrong. they can look at it from different backgrounds and thus reach different conclusions and they can still both be (partially) right. ofcourse if their views exclude each other... one or the other might be wrong, it would depend on your definition of truth and knowledge.

[Papewaio]

If A or B must be wrong then there is no God worthy of that title that they experienced.

After all two people can experience electromagnetic phenomena. A saw a wave, B a particle. Both are right. So a God that can't also express basic natural duality must not be the God of all the Universe including its natural abilities

[spankythehippo]

There is one thing I don't understand. Why is this debate still going? Isn't it better to agree to disagree? This is how religious differences start wars, because everyone wants to believe that they are right. This paradigm of social status (i.e. What religion do you associate with?) is very detrimental. I've seen arguments from Christians who claim that all atheists should burn in hell, just because we don't believe.

The best example is this. "Answer me this atheists. If the Earth is 6 million years old, why is it only 2008?". This single thought was/is the most idiotic and stupidest thing to ever have been uttered by a human, in my opinion. This hostility is something I do not understand. If you don't piss them off, they wont piss you off. Those know-it-all Christians (and by know-it-all, I mean that they claim to know everything to everyone) are pissing everyone off. I know many Christians who don't question my beliefs, and I don't question theirs. All's well.

I'm in rage mode.

[Viking]

Well, from a Christan point of view the limited and unlimited God are two distinct and mutually exclusive entities, as Lord Sacks said, "that God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

Also, the common Christain, Jewish and Islamic understand of "God" is as what Aquinas described as , "esse", the act of being.

If there are certain elements outside the control of this God several questions must be answered?

1. Is this God within or without the universe? His limitations imply either that he is "within" and therefore not the creator, and thus not "God" or:

2. Is he constrained by a greater force, one which he is beholden to, and therefore not "God"?

3. If this God is "within" the universe in a tangible sense is he hidebound by the universal laws, i.e. is he mortal? If he were he would not be God.

I think your "worldview", or rather, view of general existence, is too narrow. The universe is where we exist, alright. But there is nothing wrong, in itself, to say there could be something outside the universe; that would depend on the definition the word 'universe' - is it everything, or is it the sum of that which is within our (theoretical) physical reach? There are some theories that operate with multiple universes, so evidently it is nothing new to consider the definition of the word 'universe' to be the latter.

Using the latter definition, there could exist something; an area where there is not spacetime, but something else (whatever it may be), in which 'gods' (or just a single one) could exist. Let us say that a god cannot interfere with the control of other gods over their creations. Let's say that 'god' A created our universe. Let us say that he can control everything within it; and since no other gods can control anything here, god A is almighty in our universe; he controls every aspect of it.

So, what is the limitations of god A? The limitations lie in that our universe is not everything, and that god A himself is a part of something. But we can still have god A to be immortal (the concept of death may be meaningless where the gods reside), no one can command god A to do anything (so he is completely independent). But god A cannot alter the things, or at least not everything, that lies beyond our universe. So therefore, he has limitations, but not when it comes to independent things in our universe.

What is a dependent thing in our universe; something that has to do with things beyond it? Well, this could be e.g. the concept of meaning; meaning can exist regardless of whether god A creates a universe or not, and so he cannot create meaning himself. What is dependent in our universe, is whatever that is not physical.

So to sum up, we could have a god that is almighty when it comes to the physical, but not when it comes to the 'philosophical'. I don't see how this would crash (too much) with a common understanding of what a god is capable of, because after all, you cannot touch or feel what is philosophic, only what is physical (that is to say, how could you possibly tell the difference between one god that can create true meaning and true moral, and one that can not?). The philosophical power of god A, is that he can decide which of his creatures that goes to heaven and which ones that does not based upon their believes, which are philosophical.



Either A or B are wrong, that's the point.

I assumed either of them is wrong, though that is not necessary.



Isn't it better to agree to disagree?

As long as there appears to be untouched aspects, the debate goes on.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I gotta say, I do like PVC's take on God. Is that a mainstream christian view, or something of your own?

I'd say I was fairly academically conservative in my theology, that doesn't necessarily make me "mainstream" but I'm not exactly controversial, not here anyway.


There is one thing I don't understand. Why is this debate still going? Isn't it better to agree to disagree? This is how religious differences start wars, because everyone wants to believe that they are right. This paradigm of social status (i.e. What religion do you associate with?) is very detrimental. I've seen arguments from Christians who claim that all atheists should burn in hell, just because we don't believe.

The best example is this. "Answer me this atheists. If the Earth is 6 million years old, why is it only 2008?". This single thought was/is the most idiotic and stupidest thing to ever have been uttered by a human, in my opinion. This hostility is something I do not understand. If you don't piss them off, they wont piss you off. Those know-it-all Christians (and by know-it-all, I mean that they claim to know everything to everyone) are pissing everyone off. I know many Christians who don't question my beliefs, and I don't question theirs. All's well.

I'm in rage mode.

....And yet, you're in rage mode.

What does that tell you about this debate? I'm trying to have a civilised discussion and you bring your baggage about people who are not represented here at all, by anyone.

In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism. That is because it is not what we believe that we fight over, it is what we refuse to believe.

Nothing is more important than dialogue among people who dissagree.


I think your "worldview", or rather, view of general existence, is too narrow. The universe is where we exist, alright. But there is nothing wrong, in itself, to say there could be something outside the universe; that would depend on the definition the word 'universe' - is it everything, or is it the sum of that which is within our (theoretical) physical reach? There are some theories that operate with multiple universes, so evidently it is nothing new to consider the definition of the word 'universe' to be the latter.

The "latter" definition was the traditional worldview prior to Copernicus and Kepler, who demonstrated that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and that there were other things in it. The key is in the word, "universe", it is per definition everything we know. Postulating multiple universes is fine but the evidence for them is of necessity non-existent.


Using the latter definition, there could exist something; an area where there is not spacetime, but something else (whatever it may be), in which 'gods' (or just a single one) could exist. Let us say that a god cannot interfere with the control of other gods over their creations. Let's say that 'god' A created our universe. Let us say that he can control everything within it; and since no other gods can control anything here, god A is almighty in our universe; he controls every aspect of it.

So, what is the limitations of god A? The limitations lie in that our universe is not everything, and that god A himself is a part of something. But we can still have god A to be immortal (the concept of death may be meaningless where the gods reside), no one can command god A to do anything (so he is completely independent). But god A cannot alter the things, or at least not everything, that lies beyond our universe. So therefore, he has limitations, but not when it comes to independent things in our universe.


OK, such a God would be indistinguishable from an unconstrained one from our perspective, but one merely applies Ockham's Razor to that theology to see that A: it is extravagently complex, and B: such a setup implies a further creator who created those "Gods", and then that would be the "real" God. The monotheistic God is not constrained, therefore a constrained entity is not God, because God is only one, and HE cannot be limited, he is limitless in all things.

It's a good gambit, but it doesn't work because it doesn't answer the monotheistic claim, it merely tries to suplant it with a parralel one.


What is a dependent thing in our universe; something that has to do with things beyond it? Well, this could be e.g. the concept of meaning; meaning can exist regardless of whether god A creates a universe or not, and so he cannot create meaning himself. What is dependent in our universe, is whatever that is not physical.

So another, higher, power created meaning.


So to sum up, we could have a god that is almighty when it comes to the physical, but not when it comes to the 'philosophical'. I don't see how this would crash (too much) with a common understanding of what a god is capable of, because after all, you cannot touch or feel what is philosophic, only what is physical (that is to say, how could you possibly tell the difference between one god that can create true meaning and true moral, and one that can not?). The philosophical power of god A, is that he can decide which of his creatures that goes to heaven and which ones that does not based upon their believes, which are philosophical.

You have made a catagory error in assuming that there is something, anything, independant of God in the common monotheistic view. To illustrate the point, the Greeks had seperate Gods for intangibles, like Law, Justice, Beauty, Wisdom, etc., etc. A monotheistic God incorporates all these aspects as well as the "Watchmaker".

[spankythehippo]

....And yet, you're in rage mode.

What does that tell you about this debate? I'm trying to have a civilised discussion and you bring your baggage about people who are not represented here at all, by anyone.

In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism. That is because it is not what we believe that we fight over, it is what we refuse to believe.

Nothing is more important than dialogue among people who dissagree.

I should have clarified the reasons for being enraged. I stubbed my toe twice while going back to my room. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand.

People who are not represented at all? Who was I talking about? Or who did you think I was talking about?


"In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism." You sure about that? I'm pretty sure wars have arisen, or at least conflicts of some sort, due to religious differences. Not all Atheists are pompous and arrogant about their beliefs. I don't really care if anyone is religious. You only live once, do what you will with it.

"Nothing is more important than dialogue among people who dissagree." On the contrary, it seems as if the opposite were true. I believe the phrase is "Let sleeping dogs lie."
If I believe something, and you believe something else, and there is no way of changing the other's mind, then it is wise to agree to disagree. Otherwise a debate sparks, followed by an argument, then a fight, then a battle, and finally a war.

[Papewaio]

6 million years old? Try 800x that. The Earth from pov of science is 4.54 billion years old.

[Viking]

but one merely applies Ockham's Razor to that theology to see that A: it is extravagently complex

Ockham has given you quite a weird razor. You cannot scrap a theory because one that is less complex emerges. In that case, you should remove the god element altogether, as it is not needed; it makes existence more complex than it needs to.

In science, it can be relevant; but not here. The reason why you can do it in science, is because science is typically supposed to be able to predict and describe; and if you cannot measure the difference between two theories, then there is no need for the more complex theory, as you will get the same results anyway; so you don't really care which theory is correct as long as there is no way to tell the difference (of course, some might keep the thought in the back of their head that, maybe, the more complex theory is actually the correct one). Relativistic versus non-relativistic physics is probably the best known case where the complex theory is the correct one, even though in many circumstances, the differences between the two are completely immeasurable.



B: such a setup implies a further creator who created those "Gods"

Not at all, they've always been there. They were never "created".


The monotheistic God is not constrained, therefore a constrained entity is not God, because God is only one, and HE cannot be limited, he is limitless in all things.

It's a good gambit, but it doesn't work because it doesn't answer the monotheistic claim, it merely tries to suplant it with a parralel one.

I am not trying to explain any monotheistic god in different terms (or something like that), I am just showing how you cannot tell apart a truly omnipotent god from one that holds power over only what is physical. Therefore, if you for whatever reason believe that a god exists, you can of him end up with e.g. the two different interpretations that I gave.



So another, higher, power created meaning.

Maybe meaning does not exist, maybe moral does not exist. We may assume either way. Moral, meaning and all that could have been around always, just like the god(s); it is only outside of their control. From our perspective, we can't tell the two scenarios apart.


You have made a catagory error in assuming that there is something, anything, independant of God in the common monotheistic view. To illustrate the point, the Greeks had seperate Gods for intangibles, like Law, Justice, Beauty, Wisdom, etc., etc. A monotheistic God incorporates all these aspects as well as the "Watchmaker".

It is true that religions and their followers assume their gods to be absolute, and not up for relativisation. I was not trying to dispute that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism." You sure about that? I'm pretty sure wars have arisen, or at least conflicts of some sort, due to religious differences. Not all Atheists are pompous and arrogant about their beliefs. I don't really care if anyone is religious. You only live once, do what you will with it.

Take another look at the part of the statement you didn't quote.

Muslims don't kill Christians because they believe Muhammed was His Prophet, they do it because they don't believe Christ was His Son.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many murderous non-religious regimes.

Like I said, religion is not, nor has it ever been, the problem.




The key was dialogue, not debate. Otherwise, you might think I thought you were going to hell, or something.

[QUOTE=Viking;2053420321]Ockham has given you quite a weird razor. You cannot scrap a theory because one that is less complex emerges. In that case, you should remove the god element altogether, as it is not needed; it makes existence more complex than it needs to.

In science, it can be relevant; but not here. The reason why you can do it in science, is because science is typically supposed to be able to predict and describe; and if you cannot measure the difference between two theories, then there is no need for the more complex theory, as you will get the same results anyway; so you don't really care which theory is correct as long as there is no way to tell the difference (of course, some might keep the thought in the back of their head that, maybe, the more complex theory is actually the correct one). Relativistic versus non-relativistic physics is probably the best known case where the complex theory is the correct one, even though in many circumstances, the differences between the two are completely immeasurable.

Ockham was a priest first, a scientist second - and he kept the two separate. the razor is to be applied differently in the two contexts, but in both cases the principle is sound, a more complex theory is more likely to be wrong either entirely or in its parts.

In the case of God, removing Him from the creation of the universe creates more questions than it answers, and in any case the question of God's existence is entirely different to the question of his nature, one can theorise about the later but we must assume the former a priori to begin the argument.


Not at all, they've always been there. They were never "created".

Why is there more than one of them?

Do they interact?

If they do not interact are the actually separate, or is it one God acting on multiple Universes?

Interaction requires limited entities that do not encompass the whole of existence, which violates the principle of "esse" from Aquinas.


I am not trying to explain any monotheistic god in different terms (or something like that), I am just showing how you cannot tell apart a truly omnipotent god from one that holds power over only what is physical. Therefore, if you for whatever reason believe that a god exists, you can of him end up with e.g. the two different interpretations that I gave.

No, I'm sorry - key to the conventional understanding of God is his command of the non-physical, the fundamental rules of the universe. If he does not control those that implies a greater being that does. Monotheism is as much about the theo as the mono.


Maybe meaning does not exist, maybe moral does not exist. We may assume either way. Moral, meaning and all that could have been around always, just like the god(s); it is only outside of their control. From our perspective, we can't tell the two scenarios apart.

That assumes the universe existed before God(s), implies a separate First Cause, higher God, etc., etc.


It is true that religions and their followers assume their gods to be absolute, and not up for relativisation. I was not trying to dispute that.

No, I know, my point is your alternative makes no internal logical sense.

It's a worse explanation, either your "limited gods" are not "Gods" (atheism again) or there is a higher "God" (monotheism again).

[Viking]

Ockham was a priest first, a scientist second - and he kept the two separate. the razor is to be applied differently in the two contexts, but in both cases the principle is sound, a more complex theory is more likely to be wrong either entirely or in its parts.

A probability is still only a probability, and is not a real argument in itself.



In the case of God, removing Him from the creation of the universe creates more questions than it answers, and in any case the question of God's existence is entirely different to the question of his nature, one can theorise about the later but we must assume the former a priori to begin the argument.

It is an entirely different question, but if you use Ochkams razor on it, it will shave any gods away.



Why is there more than one of them?

I have kept that possibility open so that my arguments become more general. Set the number of gods equal to one, and nothing changes from our perspective (one god per universe).



Interaction requires limited entities that do not encompass the whole of existence, which violates the principle of "esse" from Aquinas.

Aquinas has no monopoly on explaining what a god is and what a god is not.



No, I'm sorry - key to the conventional understanding of God is his command of the non-physical, the fundamental rules of the universe. If he does not control those that implies a greater being that does. Monotheism is as much about the theo as the mono.

It may collide with a traditional understanding of what a god is, but if these entities are not god, then I cannot see what on Earth they would be. Because, no, at no point is a greater being implied. In fact, no such greater being, force or existence exists. This god (or gods) is as powerful as anything gets.

We might once have held very wrong beliefs when it came to the planets, the stars and the sun; but we still call them the planets, the stars and the sun. That is unproblematic, because some of their earlier believed characterstics still hold true in one form or another.



That assumes the universe existed before God(s), implies a separate First Cause, higher God, etc., etc.

No, the relevant god (maybe he is the only god out there) created our universe. The universe has a beginning and a creation, the god does not.

[Papewaio]

In the case of God, removing Him from the creation of the universe creates more questions than it answers, and in any case the question of God's existence is entirely different to the question of his nature, one can theorise about the later but we must assume the former a priori to begin the argument.


From a science point of view there is no mass, space or time until the universe came about in the big bang. The razor is that the simplest measurable theory that predicts with the highest probability doesn't need a God in it.

Why add needless complexity when it isn't needed to explain a theory?

After all given the right scenario I'm sure even nuclear reactors can self assemble given enough time. Not all complex systems need a designer, most simple ones do.

[spankythehippo]

Take another look at the part of the statement you didn't quote.

Muslims don't kill Christians because they believe Muhammed was His Prophet, they do it because they don't believe Christ was His Son.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many murderous non-religious regimes.

Like I said, religion is not, nor has it ever been, the problem.

The key was dialogue, not debate. Otherwise, you might think I thought you were going to hell, or something.

OK. So what you're saying is that people that claim to kill in the name of god are not even religious, since they are disobeying the rules in their respective faiths? If so, then I would have to agree, given the amount of terrorists soiling the Islamic faith.


I'm going to leave a quote here, form Rise of The Dutch Republic by Motley.


Early in the year the most sublime sentence of death was promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation of the world. The Roman tyrant [Nero] wished that his enemies' heads were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of all his Netherlands subjects upon a single neck for the same fell purpose. Upon February 16, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution, without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably the most concise death warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines.






After all given the right scenario I'm sure even nuclear reactors can self assemble given enough time. Not all complex systems need a designer, most simple ones do.

I understand your point, but I don't think nuclear reactors can self-assemble.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A probability is still only a probability, and is not a real argument in itself.

In the absence of definitive evidence, all we have is probability.


It is an entirely different question, but if you use Ochkams razor on it, it will shave any gods away.

A fundamental of the universe is that all things have a cause, in order to avoid infinite regression one must postulate a cause outside the rules of the universe, the First Cause which is not hidebound by our laws of action and reaction.

The alternative is "The Universe just IS" which is exactly like saying "God IS".


I have kept that possibility open so that my arguments become more general. Set the number of gods equal to one, and nothing changes from our perspective (one god per universe).

From our perspective, but in actuality it is completely different, and what appears to be God is not actually....


Aquinas has no monopoly on explaining what a god is and what a god is not.

Except that no one has bettered him, and the idea of "esse" is not only unasailable, but it fits with our modern understanding of the physical universe.


It may collide with a traditional understanding of what a god is, but if these entities are not god, then I cannot see what on Earth they would be. Because, no, at no point is a greater being implied. In fact, no such greater being, force or existence exists. This god (or gods) is as powerful as anything gets.

well, Job is one of the earliest books in the Bible, Revelations the latest and both testify to heaven being full of beings, the least of which would appear as Gods to us.

It's a matter of perspective.

In other cultures Gabriel would be seen as a messenger God, but in Judaism he is just God's messenger.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK. So what you're saying is that people that claim to kill in the name of god are not even religious, since they are disobeying the rules in their respective faiths? If so, then I would have to agree, given the amount of terrorists soiling the Islamic faith.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and Islam has plenty of "kill the infidel, salt his land" stuff anyway.

What I'm saying is that people kill not because of what they believe, but because of beliefs they cannot tolerate in others - and that trait is a human one not a specifically religious one.

[Papewaio]

I understand your point, but I don't think nuclear reactors can self-assemble.

And the winner is. Mother Nature!

Oklo (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo) nuclear reactor was a natural formed water cooled nuclear reactor.

[spankythehippo]

And the winner is. Mother Nature!

Oklo (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo) nuclear reactor was a natural formed water cooled nuclear reactor.

Whoa. But it didn't really do anything, did it? Normal nuclear reactor's practically cause nuclear explosions, but they inhibit it's reactivity while exploiting the energy emitted.



No, that's not what I'm saying, and Islam has plenty of "kill the infidel, salt his land" stuff anyway.

What I'm saying is that people kill not because of what they believe, but because of beliefs they cannot tolerate in others - and that trait is a human one not a specifically religious one.

I noticed that you haven't made a rebuttal in regards to the quote from Rise of The Dutch Republic. So I assume that you can't disagree with what has happened in the past, and being recorded as it were.

[Sigurd]

A fundamental of the universe is that all things have a cause, in order to avoid infinite regression one must postulate a cause outside the rules of the universe, the First Cause which is not hidebound by our laws of action and reaction.

The alternative is "The Universe just IS" which is exactly like saying "God IS".
...

Except that no one has bettered him, and the idea of "esse" is not only unasailable, but it fits with our modern understanding of the physical universe.

:sneaky:

Aquinas version requires a causation in esse, meaning that this "essence" or "container" needs to continually control everything, or else everything would cease to exist. Quite differently to Plato and Aristotelian more deistic approach (watch maker).

To equate a necessary being cause to God begs the question.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:sneaky:

Aquinas version requires a causation in esse, meaning that this "essence" or "container" needs to continually control everything, or else everything would cease to exist. Quite differently to Plato and Aristotelian more deistic approach (watch maker).

To equate a necessary being cause to God begs the question.

Yes, but that's because Aquinas identified the essential flaw in the "watchmaker", and his "esse" has been the model for not only subsequent theistic systems, but also some deists like Spinoza.

If God is identified with the universe as a whole then his existence is beyond doubt and only his nature is in question. What's more, not matter what "character" we might attribute to Him, he must be unlimted.

at this stage in human history proposing some sort of limited God is not only unnecessary, it borders on childish.


I noticed that you haven't made a rebuttal in regards to the quote from Rise of The Dutch Republic. So I assume that you can't disagree with what has happened in the past, and being recorded as it were.

I seriously doubt the factual nature of that quote, and I'm apparently in good company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lothrop_Motley

For one thing, I do not see how the Holy Inquisition could condemn anyone to death, given that it's sole purpose was to root out heresy and then hand the guilty over to the Secular Law.

Beyond that, I know nothing of the specifics of Dutch non-Conformism, but I am dubious of the claim that 3 million people were condemned, the "Holy Office" presumably means the Pope, or the court of the Inquisition, if so such a record would be in the Vatican Archives (along with the Ark and the lost translation of the English Bible, not to mention prrof Gore won in 2,000), but seriously, it would be in the archive.

[Kralizec]

Upon February 16, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution, without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably the most concise death warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines.

The quotation doesn't seem plausible to me, if only for the reason that I find it hard to believe that there were three million people in those provinces. IIRC the Netherlands had somewhere between 2-3 million inhabitants in the latter 19th century. I'm not entirely sure, but I imagine that to get to 3 million in the 16th century you'd have to add up the "southern Netherlands" (and you probably still wouldn't arrive at that number), i.e. the general area of modern Belgium. And that wouldn't make sense, because at the time it was still largely catholic.

[Viking]

In the absence of definitive evidence, all we have is probability.

Which is completely inadequate for this purpose.


A fundamental of the universe is that all things have a cause, in order to avoid infinite regression one must postulate a cause outside the rules of the universe, the First Cause which is not hidebound by our laws of action and reaction.

I don't see what the problems would be with the 'universe' being infinitely old. The observerd causes for the universe are always inside, not outside.



Except that no one has bettered him, and the idea of "esse" is not only unasailable, but it fits with our modern understanding of the physical universe.

His arguments are the in contex of religion. The interpretation(s) that I am dealing with assumes the religions to be wrong on one or more points. For this particular context, it matters not if we are actually to call this entity/these entities for 'god(s)', only that it/they would have the same appearance and thus be able to be interpreted as the 'god(s)' we find in religions.

[spankythehippo]

I seriously doubt the factual nature of that quote, and I'm apparently in good company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lothrop_Motley

For one thing, I do not see how the Holy Inquisition could condemn anyone to death, given that it's sole purpose was to root out heresy and then hand the guilty over to the Secular Law.

Beyond that, I know nothing of the specifics of Dutch non-Conformism, but I am dubious of the claim that 3 million people were condemned, the "Holy Office" presumably means the Pope, or the court of the Inquisition, if so such a record would be in the Vatican Archives (along with the Ark and the lost translation of the English Bible, not to mention prrof Gore won in 2,000), but seriously, it would be in the archive.


Alright, how about direct orders from Pope Innocent III?


Therefore by this present apostolical writing, we give you a strict command that, by whatever means you can, you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them. You shall exercise the rigor of ecclesiastical power against them and all those who have made themselves suspected by associating with them. They may not appeal from your judgments, and, if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword.

How about this?


That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings.

Here's more.


The church has persecuted.... Protestants were persecuted in France and Spain with the full approval of the church authorities. We have always defended the persecution of the Huguenots, and the Spanish Inquisition. Wherever and whenever there is honest Catholicity, there will be a clear distinction drawn between truth and error, and Catholicity and all forms of error. When she thinks it good to use physical force, she will use it.

Hey, look! I found more!


The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and of liberty.... She has, and she loudly proclaims that she has, a 'horror of blood.' Nevertheless, when confronted by heresy, she does not content herself with persuasion; arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates tribunals like those of the Inquisition, she calls the laws of the state to her aid, if necessary she encourages a crusade, or a religious war, and all her 'horror of blood' practically culminates into urging the secular power to shed it, which proceeding is almost more odious—for it is less frank—than shedding it herself. Especially did she act thus in the sixteenth century with regard to Protestants. Not content to reform morally, to preach by example, to convert people by eloquent and holy missionaries, she lit in Italy, in the Low Countries, and above all in Spain, the funeral piles of the Inquisition. In France under Francis I and Henry II, in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics, whilst both in France and Germany during the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century if she did not actually begin, at any rate she encouraged and actively aided, the religious wars.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sigh.


Alright, how about direct orders from Pope Innocent III?

Yep, that looks like an authentic Bull, translated obviously.

Now read it.....

"you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them"

i.e. suppress the doctrines and excomunicate the miscreants until they recant.

"if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword."

This means, "in extremis hand the ringleaders over to the Secular Authorities for punishment"

Not, "kill, kill, kill."


How about this?

Not a primary source, over a hundred years old. Bring me something current - and not anti-Catholic propeganda.


Here's more.

I assume a magazine over 100 year old? Not evidence of anything, except that St. Louis had fundamentalists back then.


Hey, look! I found more!

More non-evidence, not a primary source.

In any case, it agrees with me that the Church itself does not "do" violence directly.

ANYWAY, none of this is about my actual point.

The Roman Catholic Church never had any executed because it believes in transubstantiation, it had them executed because it doesn't believe priests shouls marry.

[spankythehippo]

Sigh.



Yep, that looks like an authentic Bull, translated obviously.

Now read it.....

"you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them"

i.e. suppress the doctrines and excomunicate the miscreants until they recant.

"if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword."

This means, "in extremis hand the ringleaders over to the Secular Authorities for punishment"

Not, "kill, kill, kill."



Not a primary source, over a hundred years old. Bring me something current - and not anti-Catholic propeganda.



I assume a magazine over 100 year old? Not evidence of anything, except that St. Louis had fundamentalists back then.



More non-evidence, not a primary source.

In any case, it agrees with me that the Church itself does not "do" violence directly.

ANYWAY, none of this is about my actual point.

The Roman Catholic Church never had any executed because it believes in transubstantiation, it had them executed because it doesn't believe priests shouls marry.

So you're dismissing evidence on the basis of it being "old"? That has nothing to do with the accuracy of the evidence at hand (albeit, you could be right, and ALL the evidence is wrong). It is neither contemporary or modern, but it still sheds some light upon the matter. Because a source is not primary, does not make it incorrect. Hell, maybe the author's of these secondary sources had access to primary sources that no longer exist.

And you say that the evidence is not a primary source, AND to bring you something more modern. Aren't you contradicting yourself? All modern sources are secondary, because they are merely stating observations based on what they can see from evidence they have gathered themselves.

And say that it IS propaganda. Why would the Catholic church garner so much hate? Is it because of something they did? Because people were xenophobic? Care to share your thoughts (i.e. evidence) about the relations between the Catholic church and the general masses? Out of curiousity, of course.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you're dismissing evidence on the basis of it being "old"? That has nothing to do with the accuracy of the evidence at hand (albeit, you could be right, and ALL the evidence is wrong). It is neither contemporary or modern, but it still sheds some light upon the matter. Because a source is not primary, does not make it incorrect. Hell, maybe the author's of these secondary sources had access to primary sources that no longer exist.

No, I'm dismissing it as outdated, based on my knowledge of developments in historiography and the multiple failing in practice a hundred years ago. These include, but are not limited to, use of secondary sources as evidence, failure to cite sources generally or specifically, failure to consult primary sources, a tendancy to fill gaps with supposition (without notice) and a general tendancy to bend the narrative for literary and sometimes political benefit.

I should imagine that primary sources for this period of history in the Netherlands are fairly comprehensive, as the printing press would was well established as were the secular and eccesiasical administrations, and literacy was relatively high.

You seem to be somewhat confused as to what a primary source is, a "Primary Source" is either an original document, such as an actual Papal Bull, or a piece of physical evidence, such as a mass grave. A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source, but a different one to a narrative history - none the less niether are actually evidence in themselves, in the case of the latter type of secondary source I can dismiss them out of hand because they are just opinions from previous historians, they do not actually tell you as much about the period they purport to be about as they do about the period they were written.


And you say that the evidence is not a primary source, AND to bring you something more modern. Aren't you contradicting yourself? All modern sources are secondary, because they are merely stating observations based on what they can see from evidence they have gathered themselves.

Modern secondary sources can be checked because they have proper bibliographical citations, and they are better because they treat history as an art and a science, not a literary exercise.

So no, I'm not contradicting myself. Here we generally expect students to cite sources no more than twenty years old in support of their arguments, unless the source has stood up to previous attacks, of course.


And say that it IS propaganda. Why would the Catholic church garner so much hate? Is it because of something they did? Because people were xenophobic? Care to share your thoughts (i.e. evidence) about the relations between the Catholic church and the general masses? Out of curiousity, of course.

If you want my opinions on the Catholic Church, I suggest you start another topic as the precise nature and flaws in that ancient edifice are irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make for the last page or so.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The quotation doesn't seem plausible to me, if only for the reason that I find it hard to believe that there were three million people in those provinces. IIRC the Netherlands had somewhere between 2-3 million inhabitants in the latter 19th century. I'm not entirely sure, but I imagine that to get to 3 million in the 16th century you'd have to add up the "southern Netherlands" (and you probably still wouldn't arrive at that number), i.e. the general area of modern Belgium. And that wouldn't make sense, because at the time it was still largely catholic.

The number itself is not implausible for a number of reasons. First of all, the 19th century saw lots of migration out of the Netherlands, whereas the 16th and 17th centuries saw the exact reverse. For instance Amsterdam in the 17th century was a lot larger than it was in the 19th.

Additionally, this figure will include both the Netherlands as you know them and Belgium, or rather Flanders. This alone tends to double the figure relative to what you'd expect compared to the same for the territories that make up the modern Netherlands.

The tone of the piece is however rather sensationalist and indeed it makes little sense. However we also need to consider that 1566 had just happened and in a big way.

[spankythehippo]

No, I'm dismissing it as outdated, based on my knowledge of developments in historiography and the multiple failing in practice a hundred years ago. These include, but are not limited to, use of secondary sources as evidence, failure to cite sources generally or specifically, failure to consult primary sources, a tendancy to fill gaps with supposition (without notice) and a general tendancy to bend the narrative for literary and sometimes political benefit.

I should imagine that primary sources for this period of history in the Netherlands are fairly comprehensive, as the printing press would was well established as were the secular and eccesiasical administrations, and literacy was relatively high.

You seem to be somewhat confused as to what a primary source is, a "Primary Source" is either an original document, such as an actual Papal Bull, or a piece of physical evidence, such as a mass grave. A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source, but a different one to a narrative history - none the less niether are actually evidence in themselves, in the case of the latter type of secondary source I can dismiss them out of hand because they are just opinions from previous historians, they do not actually tell you as much about the period they purport to be about as they do about the period they were written.



Modern secondary sources can be checked because they have proper bibliographical citations, and they are better because they treat history as an art and a science, not a literary exercise.

So no, I'm not contradicting myself. Here we generally expect students to cite sources no more than twenty years old in support of their arguments, unless the source has stood up to previous attacks, of course.



If you want my opinions on the Catholic Church, I suggest you start another topic as the precise nature and flaws in that ancient edifice are irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make for the last page or so.

Regardless of the evidence being "outdated", I can still hold my own opinion without falling under heavy scrutiny. Since my opinion is formed from something that cannot be cited nor can it be explained. So you can believe in your god, and I wont care. Just don't force anything down my throat. This is always the case with religion, a topic that is very touchy. I absolutely hate and detest religion. But, right now, it is tolerable.

I'd rather not make another thread about religion. Your aggressiveness and hostility towards my half-arsed, and to be honest, joke of a theory, is why I'm still debating. My intent was not to disprove religion, it was to show that religion is not as innocent as it seems (well in my original post, it was stating that religion is false). Religion is becoming a social thing. People that share the same religion get on well (most of the time), but can have ... uhhh... disagreements with others. This is one of the reasons why I dislike religion. To a lot of people, it is not about enlightenment or faith or being true to oneself, it is almost becoming like a cult.

Sure, there are certain things scientist's cannot explain, but that does not prove the existence of a god (see, now I am disproving religion).

"Hey, look! There's a hangar. There MUST be a plane in it." That is not always the case (crappy analogy, I know). What if there is no god? Maybe there is something out there who Created everything, but just went to sleep? And according to many religions, god made humans as a spitting image of himself. Why us? Why not any other form of life? And if we are meant to an image of god, why so much imperfection in his creation? Greed, hate, lust, war, envy. These are all human qualities. If god wanted everyone to be happy, why would these attributes exist? Now, some might say "He's testing the faith and goodwill of each human being."

And with your, "A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source", wouldn't the Bible be classified a secondary source (assuming that the events told in the Bible have a degree of truth)?

If the presence of a god is uncertain and cannot be measured by any means possible, it is then safe to assume that god does not exist. If any evidence is found in relation to the presence of a god, the assumption is instantly discarded and replaced by a new assumption.

I don't feel like arguing anymore, since they seem to be falling on deaf ears. And also my argument is really crappy and I seem to contradicting myself in certain instances in this thread. I've had a long day.

[Sigurd]

And with your, "A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source", wouldn't the Bible be classified a secondary source (assuming that the events told in the Bible have a degree of truth)?

I was expecting you to bring this into the debate in light of your previous post.
You are completely on the ball here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Regardless of the evidence being "outdated", I can still hold my own opinion without falling under heavy scrutiny. Since my opinion is formed from something that cannot be cited nor can it be explained. So you can believe in your god, and I wont care. Just don't force anything down my throat. This is always the case with religion, a topic that is very touchy. I absolutely hate and detest religion. But, right now, it is tolerable.

You claim not to care, then you say "hate and detest", I call that a mixed message myself.

I'm really not bothered by your views, I have been by turns an atheist, a rationalist, a worshipper of Thor (briefly) and an Arrian before becoming an Augustinian.

It's not your views I object to it's the sloppy and combative way you present them, and the fallacies you believe about your opponents.


I'd rather not make another thread about religion. Your aggressiveness and hostility towards my half-arsed, and to be honest, joke of a theory, is why I'm still debating. My intent was not to disprove religion, it was to show that religion is not as innocent as it seems (well in my original post, it was stating that religion is false). Religion is becoming a social thing. People that share the same religion get on well (most of the time), but can have ... uhhh... disagreements with others. This is one of the reasons why I dislike religion. To a lot of people, it is not about enlightenment or faith or being true to oneself, it is almost becoming like a cult.

Christianity is per definition a "Mystery Cult", that's nothing new, and religion has always been social - see this is what I'm talking about.


Sure, there are certain things scientist's cannot explain, but that does not prove the existence of a god (see, now I am disproving religion).

No, you're just arguing against religion, you haven't provided a single "proof" of anything - Viking has provided some attempted proofs, but I think they are flawed.


"Hey, look! There's a hangar. There MUST be a plane in it." That is not always the case (crappy analogy, I know). What if there is no god? Maybe there is something out there who Created everything, but just went to sleep? And according to many religions, god made humans as a spitting image of himself. Why us? Why not any other form of life? And if we are meant to an image of god, why so much imperfection in his creation? Greed, hate, lust, war, envy. These are all human qualities. If god wanted everyone to be happy, why would these attributes exist? Now, some might say "He's testing the faith and goodwill of each human being."

The short answer to your question is, "free will", longer ones invole definitions of "image" and "likeness", and nobody said "spitting image" anyway.


And with your, "A translation of a Papal Bull is a type of secondary source", wouldn't the Bible be classified a secondary source (assuming that the events told in the Bible have a degree of truth)?

I would call a translated Bible a teritary source if anything, almost none of the books collected therein purport to be written by people who were there.


If the presence of a god is uncertain and cannot be measured by any means possible, it is then safe to assume that god does not exist. If any evidence is found in relation to the presence of a god, the assumption is instantly discarded and replaced by a new assumption.

"Safe" to assume? I think not.

You don't know what happens when you die - worst case scenario your brain becomes starved of oxygen and shuts down after your heart stops, there's no reason to believe that'll be pleasent, or there might be a God and a heaven, but you don't believe so you just get brain-shutdown.

In situations like this I think optimism is better than pessimism.


I don't feel like arguing anymore, since they seem to be falling on deaf ears. And also my argument is really crappy and I seem to contradicting myself in certain instances in this thread. I've had a long day.

Well, you're the one switching between bad history attacking the Roman Church and abstract arguments against religion.

[Papewaio]

PVC I'm liking your method of debate very much.

I disagree with your beliefs. But if I was stuck on a desert island your opinions would make for some very interesting conversations. Much better then someone who believes because they were told to either through faith or science.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC I'm liking your method of debate very much.

I disagree with your beliefs. But if I was stuck on a desert island your opinions would make for some very interesting conversations. Much better then someone who believes because they were told to either through faith or science.

I'm even more entertaining with a pint in hand.

[spankythehippo]

You claim not to care, then you say "hate and detest", I call that a mixed message myself.

I don't care if someone is religious, but I hate religion itself.


I'm really not bothered by your views, I have been by turns an atheist, a rationalist, a worshipper of Thor (briefly) and an Arrian before becoming an Augustinian.

It's not your views I object to it's the sloppy and combative way you present them, and the fallacies you believe about your opponents.

I know my arguments could do with some improvement. But I just don't put much effort into proving a point on a forum. If you so wish, I could improve my points and back them up with reliable sources.



No, you're just arguing against religion, you haven't provided a single "proof" of anything - Viking has provided some attempted proofs, but I think they are flawed.

You cannot prove religion. As I said, as is scientific practice, if it can't be measured, it does not exist. This phrase "It does not exist" is a theory, and a theory that is more plausible than it's antithesis. Lack of any evidence of a god is evidence in itself. Picture this as a court scenario. Religion is the prosecutor and the god-deniers are the defendants. Say, that the god-deniers have committed a crime. Obviously, the prosecutors must have some evidence to convict the god-deniers.

"Your honour, we have no evidence, but we know they committed the crime." Is that acceptable in a court of law? I think not. There is no actual evidence that proves there is a god. Only the uncertainty of the formation of everything. This is what really annoys me when religious people start yelling at me about.

"Well if you don't know how everything was made, there must be a god." Science has not completely dismissed the notion of a god. It just has not taken it into consideration, since uncertainty is not proof.


"Safe" to assume? I think not.

You don't know what happens when you die - worst case scenario your brain becomes starved of oxygen and shuts down after your heart stops, there's no reason to believe that'll be pleasent, or there might be a God and a heaven, but you don't believe so you just get brain-shutdown.

In situations like this I think optimism is better than pessimism.

So you're proving my previous point somewhere in this thread, that religion is a way to combat the fear of death. "Optimism is better than pessimism". That is completely subjective.




Well, you're the one switching between bad history attacking the Roman Church and abstract arguments against religion.

In my completely subjective opinion, the Roman Church is just begging to be attacked. But this is a matter of interpretation.

"Abstract arguments against religion"? Religion itself is abstract. Most of the stories preached by religion are either abstract or are showing the faults of human attributes. In many cases, they complement each other. An abstract story with a moral about what you should do as a human being. Perfect example (maybe), the Jeebus miracle that fed 5000 guys, or something like that.




I was expecting you to bring this into the debate in light of your previous post.
You are completely on the ball here.

I was wondering why no one mentioned it before.

[atheotes]

Either A or B are wrong, that's the point.

Your similey lacks force outside of a polytheistic system, but nobody does polytheism today - not even Hindus.

Are you sure? I disagree with you. Polytheism is part of the Hindu practice.

PS: Apologies for bringing up something bygone that was not even the topic of discussion...I simply couldnt move on. :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you sure? I disagree with you. Polytheism is part of the Hindu practice.

PS: Apologies for bringing up something bygone that was not even the topic of discussion...I simply couldnt move on. :bow:

I am sure, Hinduism is not theologically Polytheistic, only its legends are - and no I don't understand that but Muslims don't understand the Holy Trinity, generally speaking.

[atheotes]

I am sure, Hinduism is not theologically Polytheistic, only its legends are - and no I don't understand that but Muslims don't understand the Holy Trinity, generally speaking.

You might want to check your sources about Hinduism not being theologically Polytheistic . Any source that tries to explain Hinduism within the framework similar to that of religions like Christianity/Islam is over generalizing and inaccurate.
ps: it is not only the Muslims who dont understand the holy trinity, a lot of Hindus think the trinity makes Christianity polytheistic :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You might want to check your sources about Hinduism not being theologically Polytheistic . Any source that tries to explain Hinduism within the framework similar to that of religions like Christianity/Islam is over generalizing and inaccurate.
ps: it is not only the Muslims who dont understand the holy trinity, a lot of Hindus think the trinity makes Christianity polytheistic :)

God is one but His forms are many?

That's the definition of theological monotheism.

Of course, that doesn't exclude polytheistic worship, but that was not what I was talking about.

[atheotes]

God is one but His forms are many?

That's the definition of theological monotheism.

Of course, that doesn't exclude polytheistic worship, but that was not what I was talking about.

That definition effectivey means Hinduism is NOT theologically monotheistic. There are different "avatars" for some Gods and they are worshipped as well. But the different Gods are not considered as the forms of one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That definition effectivey means Hinduism is NOT theologically monotheistic. There are different "avatars" for some Gods and they are worshipped as well. But the different Gods are not considered as the forms of one.

Are not all Hindu Deities eminations of the one Brahman?

I'm being serious in asking, this is what I have read, essentially that Brahman is the one God and all the various deities are eminations from Him, in the sense that they manifest different aspects of the Divine whole.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I remember one guy on the TWC forums identified as both 'Hindu' and 'atheist'. I can't remember his explanation but apparently Hinduism covers a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs.

[Papewaio]

I know a Jewish atheist. There is a difference in culture, race and religion.

So although he identified with the genetics and culture of his heritage he did not believe in the religious parts his ancestors believed in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know a Jewish atheist. There is a difference in culture, race and religion.

So although he identified with the genetics and culture of his heritage he did not believe in the religious parts his ancestors believed in.

"Jewish" is considered an ethnicity though, "Hindu" isn't.

So, while I take your point, I don't think it's quite the same - and in any case I am talking purely theologically. If there are Hindu who want to see their religion as polytheistic, unlike the "Imperialist" Muslim and Christian religions (and there are such Hindus), that is their right, but that does not make them theologically coherent.

[Papewaio]

Hinduism is a meta faith. There are sections that are into monotheism, polytheism and others which are atheists.

[The Stranger]

You cannot prove religion. As I said, as is scientific practice, if it can't be measured, it does not exist. This phrase "It does not exist" is a theory, and a theory that is more plausible than it's antithesis. Lack of any evidence of a god is evidence in itself. Picture this as a court scenario. Religion is the prosecutor and the god-deniers are the defendants. Say, that the god-deniers have committed a crime. Obviously, the prosecutors must have some evidence to convict the god-deniers.

WOW... since when did that happen? I never knew that the non-observational entities argument was decided in the favor of the realists... afaik the debate is still going on and if we may base anything on citations it would seem that the constructive empirists are winning.

in any sense it is way to simple to say that if it cannot be measured it does not exist... or the contrary, that if something is measured it automatically "exists" (in reality, not just as an effect of the measurement).



If you so wish, I could improve my points and back them up with reliable sources.

please do

[spankythehippo]

WOW... since when did that happen? I never knew that the non-observational entities argument was decided in the favor of the realists... afaik the debate is still going on and if we may base anything on citations it would seem that the constructive empirists are winning.

in any sense it is way to simple to say that if it cannot be measured it does not exist... or the contrary, that if something is measured it automatically "exists" (in reality, not just as an effect of the measurement).

It's always been the case. The term "measure" is used differently in this context. Measuring something is observing ... well... it's observable properties. I never knew there was a debate on this. I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

I can't see any flaw with that statement, so if you see one, please share.




please do

I could, but it would require more work on my part. So I'll "try" to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always been the case. The term "measure" is used differently in this context. Measuring something is observing ... well... it's observable properties. I never knew there was a debate on this. I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

I can't see any flaw with that statement, so if you see one, please share.

The position is really polemical - the correct statement would be, "If something cannot be measured it cannot be empirically shown to exist.

I.e., we can't prove it.

However, it does not necessarily follow that because you cannot measure it, it does not exist. Indeed, all you are ever measuring is an event, and then you postulate a cause.

I don't know what you have been taught, but it sounds very like scientific method without philosophy of science.

[The Stranger]

It's always been the case. The term "measure" is used differently in this context. Measuring something is observing ... well... it's observable properties. I never knew there was a debate on this. I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

I can't see any flaw with that statement, so if you see one, please share.


measuring something is definitly not observing... there are non-OBSERVATIONAL entities (unless you wish to reduce them to observational data but the logical-constructivists tried this and failed), and they are the entire reason why this debate raging within the scientific world. take the "force" of newton, or the "electro magnetic field" of einstein, no one has ever observed this, yet they have made calculations and predictions according to these assumptions that came true. the entire crux here is that because they are non-observational and you do not know what you are measuring. and it might be something entirely differen which has the same empirical effect (empirical equivalent theories, poincare vs einstein).

i just followed an entire course on this (i didnt know about many of it before either to be honest).

there are alot of problems, some more well known such as what is an accurate definition of truth, what is a good method for scientific research. how do you gain knowledge but also lesser, such as what are the criteria for justification and confirmation. do we go with deduction, induction or abduction. do we take a probabilistic approach or a different one. are we realists, empirist, constructivists. what exactly is an accurate definition of causality. these are all debates that are still going on, some more than others, about what we can say about certain things we observe. though yes, it is more philosophy of science than really science itself, but philosophy of science without science is empty but science without philosophy of science is blind.



I was just taught this from day one, and didn't really see the need to question it.

this does seem awefully lot what religious people are doing and what most ppl blame them for doing wrong... isnt it?

[Papewaio]

"Philosophy is what you do on your tea break, Science is what you do on your job."

I do not believe science is blind without philosophy. It just isn't as well rounded.

Since science isn't about absolutes that kind of weights it towards using probabilities less than 100% certainty.
Also deduction would be more common in some areas say theortical physics than say observational astronomy.

I understand the arguement that just because it hasn't been observed does not mean it does not exist. Europeans believed that only white swans existed and that a black swan was a made up fallacy. Then they found Australia and had a fit when well black swans were swanning around. I'm sure that if that gave them entity envy they must have thought that platypus were taking the joke too far.

Not entirely sure when you say no one has directly observed newtons force? Are you saying the label itself or the effect? After all we have inbuilt into ourselves motion detectors that feel force from gut to inner ear to muscle flex. You can deduce somethings mass by the force with which it compresses a spring or a fluid.

As for electromagnetic waves postulated by Maxwell (Einstein's relativity is a partial aoutput of EM theory not the cornerstone of it). I'm puzzled at what point observation is if seeing is not believing after all sight relies on light as do lasers, magnets use electromagnetic waves and radio and microwaves. I understand that our eyes only register when approximately seven or more photons excite our eyes. I understand we do not see electromagnetic waves but we can make predictions that we measure with a very high level of certainty. We can measure EM waves and we use them to measure with all the time from laser rangefinders to radar to GPS.

[The Stranger]

Not entirely sure when you say no one has directly observed newtons force? Are you saying the label itself or the effect? After all we have inbuilt into ourselves motion detectors that feel force from gut to inner ear to muscle flex. You can deduce somethings mass by the force with which it compresses a spring or a fluid.

you can observe the effect, and you can draw conclusions from that, but there is no cause to be observed so you are basically in the blind there. then you have a theory which makes certain predictions, newton's laws being one of such, these predictions match the effects you have observed and thus you assume that this force being postulated in newtons laws exist, but you cannot actually observe it. does it refer to something real in reality or are they just theoretic approaches to something we can never meaningfully talk about etc etc

[Papewaio]

Sorry not sure if your definition of observation is too rigorous and therefore discounts all our senses or I'm missing a subtle context of this approach.

Can you define observation?

After all if I ride an elevator I can feel-observe changes in force. If I jump I feel force and observe a cause.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry not sure if your definition of observation is too rigorous and therefore discounts all our senses or I'm missing a subtle context of this approach.

Can you define observation?

After all if I ride an elevator I can feel-observe changes in force. If I jump I feel force and observe a cause.

Not quite, the force is gravity, what you observe is that in jumping you push up and get pulled down, but whether gravity is pushing you or pulling you is not immidiately apparent.

To take your "coffee break" quote to task, sorry:

Philosophy of science is about aprreciating adn internalising the formal nature of the scientific method and it's reliance on metaphysical, and unprovable assumptions.

The key assumptions are that:

1. We can observe accurately.

2. The world is ordered and operates on cause and effect.

[The Stranger]

it is nothing of me personal, im just putting forward some things i have just recently learned.

and from that, there are few different definitions, Van Fraassen says something is only observational if it is observed or can be observed with the bare eye by a normal individual. even if we broaden this to sound and touch, imo this is too rigorous.

observing is something that can only be done with the senses i guess, and the difference between what can be observed and what not is gradual. we can see a rock, we can't see an atom and there are things such as germs which we can see only with microscopes. in history many people have spoken of atoms but they have given it all different kinds of properties. are they still talking about the same thing? or are they talking about different things. you cannot really know because you cannot observe it. you can only infer its existence.

we can use all kinds of technology to measure certain things but we can rightfully wonder how much these results actually say about what really exists. i guess its a delicate balance and not interesting for daily life and perhaps not even that interesting for daily scientific practice.

PVC already answered your elevator question.

[Papewaio]

If you are limited not only to senses but to a subset of them it ain't science. You've just ruled out all measuring devices from rulers to scales to speedometers. Human sight does not record speed with much accuracy nor can it measure weight with ease.

Fraassen farts obviously aren't observable to a blind person who without sight is not capable of observation? Does he discount the whiff test in chemistry? The reason humans sense things is so we can make a viable reaction to our environment. We smell flatulence because the hydrogen sulfide is a potentially lethal gas. You don't need to see a fart to know its there. A philosophy that can't even deal with flatulence how viable is that?

Add to that our memory corrupts what we observe. That what you see as blue you cannot guarantee that others see the same blue. Means that vision is not some sort of superior sense above all other ones.

=][=

Science is not absolute therefore it cannot be 100% accurate. We assign error to all our measurements. Most model have fairly strict boundary conditions. And the models range from highly predictive theories to rules of thumb. Still the predictions come with probabilities that the prediction will come true or not.

The basic assumption is that for every effect there is a cause because that is the simplest explanation. Afterall scientists don't attribute a cause for the Big Bang.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you are limited not only to senses but to a subset of them it ain't science. You've just ruled out all measuring devices from rulers to scales to speedometers. Human sight does not record speed with much accuracy nor can it measure weight with ease.

Right yes, your eyes can't accurately measure speed - they also can't accurately measure your instruments, and even if they could your brain can't interpret them without bias.

So, basically, all your "hard" science is still built on mushy humanity.

Philosophy of #science is all about appreciating that.

[The Stranger]

If you are limited not only to senses but to a subset of them it ain't science. You've just ruled out all measuring devices from rulers to scales to speedometers. Human sight does not record speed with much accuracy nor can it measure weight with ease.

Fraassen farts obviously aren't observable to a blind person who without sight is not capable of observation? Does he discount the whiff test in chemistry? The reason humans sense things is so we can make a viable reaction to our environment. We smell flatulence because the hydrogen sulfide is a potentially lethal gas. You don't need to see a fart to know its there. A philosophy that can't even deal with flatulence how viable is that?

Add to that our memory corrupts what we observe. That what you see as blue you cannot guarantee that others see the same blue. Means that vision is not some sort of superior sense above all other ones.

=][=

Science is not absolute therefore it cannot be 100% accurate. We assign error to all our measurements. Most model have fairly strict boundary conditions. And the models range from highly predictive theories to rules of thumb. Still the predictions come with probabilities that the prediction will come true or not.

The basic assumption is that for every effect there is a cause because that is the simplest explanation. Afterall scientists don't attribute a cause for the Big Bang.

well like i said, it is not my definition. i am just putting forward some issues and problems i've recently been introduced with. What i have just proposed is from van Fraassen, one of the leading Philosopher of Science at this moment. and yes it is very limited, and yes the point of this argument is that indeed we cannot really "trust" the results we get from these intstruments in the sense that they say something about things truly existing in our world. according to this view the instruments create results and do not find them. ofcourse it is hard to maintain in certain situations, there is a counterexample of someone drawing something on a piece of paper, then the piece of paper gets decreased in size until it cannot be seen with the bare eye (so it should be non-observational). then you put the paper under the microscope and you will see the same drawing (now this is assumed, i dont think anyone has ever done this), if you do see the same drawing it would be kind of odd that the microscope created exactly the same result as that has been drawn on the paper. and thus they do not create results but accurately portray reality.

but this is the grey zone... atoms, quarks, electrons there is where it gets really murky.

i think i can explain why he has confined himself to sight, if i am not mistaken it is because he is mostly talking about astronomy and physics, not about chemistry and biology etc. but like i said, you can expand the same philosophy to include the other senses, as long as you put more or less the same restrictions. anyway you cannot dismiss it so fast just because it is limited. all tho i do agree with you that it is too restricting.

and yes our senses can fail us, in fact, our senses might be fooling us all the time (skepticism) yet we do not believe this (one of the fundamental notions of science, as PVC has pointed out already). the instruments can fail us too, they might be fooling us at all times and even worse even if the instruments do not fail us, we might not be able to accurately interpret the instrument, which makes using instruments possibly even less reliable then using your senses. yet we would trust our life easier to a computer these days (i think) than to a human being (atleast in some cases).



Science is not absolute therefore it cannot be 100% accurate. We assign error to all our measurements. Most model have fairly strict boundary conditions. And the models range from highly predictive theories to rules of thumb. Still the predictions come with probabilities that the prediction will come true or not.

The basic assumption is that for every effect there is a cause because that is the simplest explanation. Afterall scientists don't attribute a cause for the Big Bang.

i do not really understand where this comes from. there are a whole lot of different problems with this but i dont see how they directly relate to what we were talking about earlier.

also i've never understood why it is a virtue for a theory to be simpler than the other, why do we assume that we universe is simple or that when it is simple on one occasion that it will always be simple. or that even if we have found a simple theory which can make the same predictions that a complicated theory can make with the same empirical results that the simple one is a better theory than the complicated one and what this has to do with any of them being true of close to the truth.

the point of these non-observational entities is not that we make predictions which are not accurate, it is that we make theories about certain things of which we do not know if and how they actually exist.


how is the big bang not a cause. (ive always found this rather odd, and i've seen even hawkings fall pray to this in some discovery channel documentary. he had no problem explaining why it was pointless to ask whether there was a cause for the big bang or if there was time before the big bang. and since there was no time before the big bang, there was no before the big bang and thus you cannot speak of a cause for the big bang because a cause and effect happens in time. yet then he goes back to religion and says i never understood how there could be a god, who has created this god? in fact he is asking, what is the cause for god? but why not apply the same logic there, god exists out of time, there was no time before god created time and since cause and effect can only exist in time, god had no cause, there is no point asking who or what is the cause of god... needless to say i find the answer unsatisfactionary in both cases)

[Papewaio]

Repling on a phone at 6 in the morning Pre :coffeenews: so excuse the puny post in comparison.

The microscope experiment is easily duplicated by changing the lens configuration to be a telescope. Draw on the piece of paper then put it hang it up. Walk away until you can no longer observe the drawing with the naked eye. Now take out the telescope and see if you observe the same drawing.

Same as using a printing press or taking a photograph and comparing the orginal with a copy side by side (machine calibration works on this too with scanners). I'm sure you've snapped a picture and checked that it captured tabs you were pointing it out. Now later when looking at that facsimile you will notice details your naked human eye didn't notice. Years to come you may come to rely on your photos to describe events to your friends and to aid your own memory. So what does that say about us? Trust our senses, our brains or our instruments?

Now with a photo you instinctively know it has boundary conditions. It's typically 2D has the incorrect date attached to older ones and doesn't capture the ambiance of the situation. 3D and video give more information but you don't normally get temperature, humidity and how it smelt. Now smell is one of the most under rated senses. Have a blocked nose and most foods will be reduced to sweet, sour, tart etc a very limits taste range. Smell is also a wonderful way to invoke old memories and strong reactions.

Instruments screw up all the time. That is why both an error is assigned to measurements and multiple measurements are made. Trust yes but wih limits.

As for models. Some do make predictions about the world before we encounter the phenomena. One of the more famous ones would be the curvature of light due to gravity predicted by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

Other models are know for their ability to be increased in complexity to deal with different environmental factors. Schrodingers equations and it's paradigms. For instance by taking into account magnetism you can predict why sodium light has the doublet... The bright yellow sodium lights when seen as a spectrum have a pair of very close (doublet) emission lines which if you use the equation and don't factor in magnetics you won predicted. Add in magnetism and the model predicts the doublet.

Big Bang, mix in how fast the early universe was cooling from sub atomic particles and how fast neutrons and protons decay and you can figure out the ratio of neutrons to protons in the cooler universe.

Yes they are all models. Don't trust in them absolutely, get used to a healthy level of skeptism and the need to tear apart cherished theories and start again.