You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 08:49:07 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Religion- Oh no not that again  (Read 24690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DeMalachine

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #325 on: May 25, 2012, 09:52:58 AM »
Well, you've certainly told me! :-D

Next time someone asks me what my beliefs are, I'll be sure to include such things as:

My belief pertaining to the non-existence of blue Oompa-Loompas making nuclear weapons at the bottom of my garden;

My belief pertaining to the non-existence of giant invisible space jellyfish that produce clouds by wanking alien gas into the atmosphere;

My belief pertaining to the non-existence of the biblical god;

My belief pertaining to the non-existence of an unfeasiably large cock (poultry - I'm talking poultry here, you understand) being attached to my body;

And so on and so forth.

Alas, it looks like it'll be a pretty long list...


Offline DeMalachine

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #326 on: May 25, 2012, 10:11:40 AM »
The difference between willful ignorance and faith is that the faithful will always seek to understand more.

Generalised blanket statement; thoroughly disproved by those Christians who refuse to understand anything more when it comes to the Theory of Evolution for instance, or the moral right of homosexuals to marry - and so on and so forth.

Not all Christians remained so blinkered about such things, true - but plenty do. And if understanding is a requisite for getting closer to their god, then de facto limits are already in place, if the observed facts contradict the devices which establish belief in that god.

Offline Exelion

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #327 on: May 25, 2012, 11:31:28 AM »
Generalised blanket statement; thoroughly disproved by those Christians who refuse to understand anything more when it comes to the Theory of Evolution for instance, or the moral right of homosexuals to marry - and so on and so forth.

Not all Christians remained so blinkered about such things, true - but plenty do. And if understanding is a requisite for getting closer to their god, then de facto limits are already in place, if the observed facts contradict the devices which establish belief in that god.

I'd have to disagree. I'm agnostic myself...or as I like to put it "I don't give a damn whether there's a god or not, I'm just going to do what I think is right and they can judge me if they like."

However, I have yet to see ANY scientific proof that denies the possibility of a deity. Can you disprove certain events happened the way x scripture says they did? Certainly. doesn't mean it's not impossible for there to be SOME sort of omnipotent being.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #328 on: May 25, 2012, 12:53:06 PM »
Generalised blanket statement; thoroughly disproved by those Christians who refuse to understand anything more when it comes to the Theory of Evolution for instance, or the moral right of homosexuals to marry - and so on and so forth.

Not all Christians remained so blinkered about such things, true - but plenty do. And if understanding is a requisite for getting closer to their god, then de facto limits are already in place, if the observed facts contradict the devices which establish belief in that god.

I woukd be more than happybto discuss my views with you once you have finished reading the entire post, at which point you will realize that your response is to a point taken out of context. :)

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #329 on: May 25, 2012, 02:10:31 PM »
@ Trieste

The Einstein quote was amazing and very interesting.  :)  I have some questions to make sure I understand this point:

Quote
Quote
Christianity claims that all humans are broken to such an extent that they are not capable of seeing the ultimate truth about reality using their senses, no matter how hard they try to develop the sophistication and accuracy of those senses.

This earlier statement from rick really struck me because you have essentially the same concept in basic science principles. The only difference is that scientists don't generally feel they are broken... just that they haven't built a powerful enough microscope yet.

Forgive me if this question is poorly phrased; my science background is not very good.  The "ultimate truth about reality" that you're thinking of is something having to do with physics, I'm assuming, so that would be ...?  Here are my off-the-top-of-my-head guesses:  the qualities and functions of the tiniest subatomic particles suspected to exist; the method of the creation/formation/conversion of energy or matter; the forces at work between subatomic particles.  I hope those weren't incredibly stupid guesses.  Anyway I'd love to hear you talk a little more about what you meant in the above statement; it's probably related to what I meant, but we're probably thinking of the same phrases in slightly different ways.

@ Vekseid

I find it awfully funny to imagine a newcomer to Elliquiy having a look at one of the religion threads and seeing that God Himself has voiced his opinions.  :)  Anyway.

I'd like to ask about this:
Quote
For the 'lord' so feared a United Humanity that he confounded Us with Our differences. What shall he do, then, when We overcome them?

This is an interesting and provocative statement, but its meaning is not fully obvious even after looking at Genesis 11, not for me at least.  (I'm familiar with the Tower of Babel story.)  I can think of several things you might be suggesting about the nature of any diety or about the capabilities and potential of collective humanity.  Some elaboration would be appreciated.

Quote
It's only in the past half-year or so that my view on this has begun to settle into an actual, unified philosophy, complete with moral code. I've debated on writing it out but I don't know if there would be any interest, or if it would just be a conceit.

I'm sure there would be interest around here, and not just from me, but I wouldn't ask you to go to any trouble you didn't want to go to.  Personally I'm extremely interested in any thoughtful responses to Christianity, including criticisms of it, both of the personal or philosophical variety, and the more detailed the better.  I might even like to ask questions about certain things if you're amenable to polite discussion/debate over the things you say.  Your call of course.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 02:19:04 PM by rick957 »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #330 on: May 25, 2012, 02:28:52 PM »
I think the critical bit about that story (at least, the bit that makes me go Hmmm) is the fact that a united mankind put their collective mind towards doing something that would bring them on a level with God - even if only in vertical coordinates.  God decided 'this won't do', and created division.  The question is, why would God decide that?  Mankind was demonstrating cooperation, and God made it so that they couldn't cooperate, or even communicate.  Lack of communication leads to misunderstandings and conflict - did God want conflict?

Why?

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #331 on: May 25, 2012, 02:51:52 PM »
I'm hardly a Bible scholar, but most Christians I've encountered consider the Babel story to be not very significant -- a confusing curiosity more than anything else.  The didactic lesson typically extracted from it is that people are foolish to aspire to equality with God; the builders are considered guilty of the sin of vanity/pride; their collaborative efforts are seen as negative because their goal was both morally inappropriate and unattainable.  This is not my personal view, just the one I think is most common in religious circles. 

It's also a rare example of a Biblical story so exotic-sounding that even the most extreme fundamentalist Christians have a very hard time taking all of it literally ... though it doesn't stop them from trying.  :)
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 02:53:29 PM by rick957 »

Offline Exelion

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #332 on: May 25, 2012, 02:54:05 PM »
I think the critical bit about that story (at least, the bit that makes me go Hmmm) is the fact that a united mankind put their collective mind towards doing something that would bring them on a level with God - even if only in vertical coordinates.  God decided 'this won't do', and created division.  The question is, why would God decide that?  Mankind was demonstrating cooperation, and God made it so that they couldn't cooperate, or even communicate.  Lack of communication leads to misunderstandings and conflict - did God want conflict?

Why?

I believe it's supposed to be a story about humility.

Mankind decided it was so great it could rival God, God delivered the smackdown to prove He was greater.

Bear in mind it's an old testament story...I AM WHO IS had an annoying tendency of being a bit of a jealous boyfriend in those stories.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #333 on: May 25, 2012, 03:42:16 PM »
‘People are foolish to aspire to equality with God’

There is a belief that we all hold a piece of the divine within us. We all hold the power of creation (aka words have power, be careful what you speak because you speak things into being). The bible states that we are made in his image does it not? Why is it wrong to believe that we could stand face to face with God and speak with him as we speak to each other? Is it God that believes we are not worthy of speaking to him face to face? Or is it some human that wrote the story down thousands upon thousands of years ago that believes we are not worthy?

Now, the Tower of Babel…

In all honesty, I tend to believe the Tower of Babel is nothing more than an etiology. A story to explain a phenomenon. A group of people found other groups of people who did not speak the same and they did not know why they could not understand each other. Without any reason they could come up with, they attributed it to their God. According to the Jews, it was a punishment for pride, for having too much freedom to do as they wished.

As an interesting note - the bible is not the only source for this story. It is mentioned in Sumerian myths and the Qur’an.

@Exelon - interesting way of putting it about Yahweh. Here is another interesting tidbit. Yahweh was/is the Hebrew God of War. (Not surprising) At some point the Jews decided to abandon the pantheon and focus solely on Yahweh, thus becoming monotheistic. Yahweh promised them the land of milk and honey, to deliver them from their enemies and, as the Old Testament shows, the Israelites were the only people he really cared about. It explains why the Old Testament states he is a vengeful god - that would be a positive trait for a God of War.

Offline DeMalachine

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #334 on: May 25, 2012, 04:11:22 PM »
I'd have to disagree. I'm agnostic myself...or as I like to put it "I don't give a damn whether there's a god or not, I'm just going to do what I think is right and they can judge me if they like."

However, I have yet to see ANY scientific proof that denies the possibility of a deity. Can you disprove certain events happened the way x scripture says they did? Certainly. doesn't mean it's not impossible for there to be SOME sort of omnipotent being.

I have actually seen the evidence which completely and utterly refutes any possibility of a god. However, owing to the nature of this evidence, to disclose even an iota of it would mean divulging clues to its precise location - and given the fact that certain parties might wish to destroy this evidence, I'm afraid I have to keep it a secret.

But honestly, you can trust me on this. I've seen the evidence. And if you can't disprove it, well...you'll just have to take my word for it, won't you. ;-p

Offline Exelion

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #335 on: May 25, 2012, 04:20:24 PM »
I have actually seen the evidence which completely and utterly refutes any possibility of a god. However, owing to the nature of this evidence, to disclose even an iota of it would mean divulging clues to its precise location - and given the fact that certain parties might wish to destroy this evidence, I'm afraid I have to keep it a secret.

But honestly, you can trust me on this. I've seen the evidence. And if you can't disprove it, well...you'll just have to take my word for it, won't you. ;-p

I got halfway through that post thinking you were a proud member of the tinfoil hat brigade. Well done! But I do in fact see what you did there.

There's no concrete evidence for or against, so it's irrelevant. Believe what you think is right, do what you think is right, and it'll all sort itself out. That's what I say.

Personally, if there IS a deity, and it decides to subject me to some hypothetical unending plane of torment after death because I didn't show up at the right building on the right day and say the right phrases...He's a moron, so to Hell with him! I figure if  there's really a God they are a lot more relaxed than all that. I think one would HAVE to be.

Offline DeMalachine

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #336 on: May 25, 2012, 04:24:12 PM »
I got halfway through that post thinking you were a proud member of the tinfoil hat brigade. Well done! But I do in fact see what you did there.

There's no concrete evidence for or against, so it's irrelevant. Believe what you think is right, do what you think is right, and it'll all sort itself out. That's what I say.

Personally, if there IS a deity, and it decides to subject me to some hypothetical unending plane of torment after death because I didn't show up at the right building on the right day and say the right phrases...He's a moron, so to Hell with him! I figure if  there's really a God they are a lot more relaxed than all that. I think one would HAVE to be.

There is concrete evidence. I've seen it. Why would you presume that I'd would be a member of the tinfoil hat brigade for saying this? Don't you think that's a bit insulting to all those people who make similarly non-disprovable claims?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #337 on: May 25, 2012, 05:27:03 PM »
@ Trieste

The Einstein quote was amazing and very interesting.  :)  I have some questions to make sure I understand this point:

This earlier statement from rick really struck me because you have essentially the same concept in basic science principles. The only difference is that scientists don't generally feel they are broken... just that they haven't built a powerful enough microscope yet.

Forgive me if this question is poorly phrased; my science background is not very good.  The "ultimate truth about reality" that you're thinking of is something having to do with physics, I'm assuming, so that would be ...?  Here are my off-the-top-of-my-head guesses:  the qualities and functions of the tiniest subatomic particles suspected to exist; the method of the creation/formation/conversion of energy or matter; the forces at work between subatomic particles.  I hope those weren't incredibly stupid guesses.  Anyway I'd love to hear you talk a little more about what you meant in the above statement; it's probably related to what I meant, but we're probably thinking of the same phrases in slightly different ways.

Not necessarily just physics. The nifty thing about the sciences is that once you get far enough into them, they are all so intertwined that they sort of merge into one discipline, or at least require an understanding across the disciplines. Chemistry, biochemistry, biology, physics, physical chemistry, engineering, even mathematics are, at their base, built on the same physical reality in which we live. So for me as a scientist, when I think about the "ultimate truth about reality", I think about all of the things we don't yet know and may never know about, well, everything. Biology, for example, doesn't have a very good definition for the words "life" or "species". But it is the study of life and deals heavily in speciation. Those basic concepts are just so huge that first we have to understand the details (how a cell works, what goes on in respiration, how reproduction works) before we can really go back to the basics and understand them. It's something I'm not sure will ever be settled, honestly. And that, to me, has quite a few parallels to religion.

There is another fantastic quote, I think it's also an Einstein quote but it might be Sagan or someone, that talks about how a dedicated scientist cannot help but feel that there is something more. How, the more we study, the more we get a sense of awe and that there is a greater pattern to what we do. There is not necessarily a rush to ascribe it to God - or to anything, really, since many good scientists are very adept at observing without necessarily having to classify - but there is a sense of awe there. A feeling that there is a fundamental and sensical layout to the mechanisms of life, the universe, and everything. In my experience, the people who deny that tend to be, well, dabblers. >.>

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #338 on: May 25, 2012, 05:33:54 PM »
@ Iniquitous Opheliac

I saw that you responded to something I wrote above, which is fine, I just wanted to make sure you saw that the viewpoint I was explaining was not my own.

@ DeMalachine

I'm going to try to say this without sounding disrespectful, because my intention is the exact opposite:  to show you the respect that you're properly due.  I think it's incredibly hard to criticize someone's behavior without disrespecting them in some way.  I'm going to try to do that now, and if I fail, someone can tell me, and I will apologize.

I got the impression before that you had put enough thinking into your philosophical positions to form serious ones -- meaning, ones you take seriously yourself, and ones you expect others to take seriously.  The rhetorical strategy you're employing at the moment would suggest otherwise. 

Assuming that you're addressing an audience of mature adults, sarcastically mocking sincere counter-arguments only damages your credibility and discredits your positions.  I think you're smart enough to know that.

I wouldn't bother pointing this out in this way if I didn't already respect your viewpoint and disapprove of its being maligned by your current tactic.  My suggestion would be that you cool off somewhere and come back with something more valuable to say, something that's worthy of a person with your intellect, rather than something that only scores points with less mature people.

Exelion, in case you read all of that closely, you may have noticed that I just intimated that you lack maturity.  I may be wrong about that; I hope I am.  But this line in your post displays rudeness and immaturity, so I don't see any reason not to point that out in a respectful manner:

Quote
Personally, if there IS a deity, and it decides to subject me to some hypothetical unending plane of torment after death because I didn't show up at the right building on the right day and say the right phrases...He's a moron, so to Hell with him! I figure if  there's really a God they are a lot more relaxed than all that. I think one would HAVE to be.

I'll bet if you took the effort, you could come up with a much more intelligent way of basically saying the same things, without showing such flagrant insensitivity towards those with views different from yours.  It's not your perspective that I think is immature but the way you chose to express it there.  I hope you'll give that some thought and won't take offense at my remarks, because none is intended.

I'm very hesitant to post this post because I'm worried that people will think I'm looking down on DeMalachine or Exelion, when in fact my intention is just the opposite.  I hope I made that sufficiently clear, because it's very important to me.  If I made an immature remark or employed a self-defeating rhetorical strategy, I would hope that someone would attempt to respectfully inform me of my misjudgment, so that I could perhaps learn something from the exchange.  I hope that we're all here for just that reason.

Let me know if that pissed anybody off, okay?  :)  Hope not.

Offline Exelion

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #339 on: May 25, 2012, 05:43:26 PM »
Exelion, in case you read all of that closely, you may have noticed that I just intimated that you lack maturity.  I may be wrong about that; I hope I am.  But this line in your post displays rudeness and immaturity, so I don't see any reason not to point that out in a respectful manner:

I'll bet if you took the effort, you could come up with a much more intelligent way of basically saying the same things, without showing such flagrant insensitivity towards those with views different from yours.  It's not your perspective that I think is immature but the way you chose to express it there.  I hope you'll give that some thought and won't take offense at my remarks, because none is intended.

I'm very hesitant to post this post because I'm worried that people will think I'm looking down on DeMalachine or Exelion, when in fact my intention is just the opposite.  I hope I made that sufficiently clear, because it's very important to me.  If I made an immature remark or employed a self-defeating rhetorical strategy, I would hope that someone would attempt to respectfully inform me of my misjudgment, so that I could perhaps learn something from the exchange.  I hope that we're all here for just that reason.

Let me know if that pissed anybody off, okay?  :)  Hope not.

No offense taken. And I wasn't trying to be immature, so much as irreverent. If I erred, the apology is mine.

I tend to have a very lighthearted approach to religion and faith. I think that too many religious organizations focus on minutiae like whether it's OK to be gay, or whether or not Jesus was the son of god, and don't worry about the bigger picture of how we as human beings treat each other. I have a great deal of respect for the faithful; I was raised catholic and can count priests, nuns, and a few monks as sources of admiration growing up. But I think many religious communities, especially in the western world, forgot the messages their own prophets tried (and usually died) to deliver.

Again though, my comments were meant as tongue-in-cheek humor, but I apologize for any offense given.

Offline DeMalachine

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #340 on: May 25, 2012, 05:45:53 PM »
Don't feel too bad, Rick - your post didn't piss me off at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. :-)

In any case, that's going to have to be my last word as per this particular debate, owing to the fact that today is my day for goodbyes, as regards E. So to one and all, believer and non-believer alike, I bid you adieu, and in the words of the immortal and thoroughly non-religious comedian Dave Allen: May your god go with you.

Cheerio!

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #341 on: May 25, 2012, 06:11:05 PM »
@ Exelion

Cool, I'm glad I didn't piss you off.  I actually love irreverence and throw stuff like that around myself, probably more than I ought to, but mostly in a casual setting with friends, rather than in a politics/religion discussion place.  From your response, though, I can tell that you have no problem with maturity, and in fact you have some views I think are quite intelligent and interesting.  So I'm glad we had the little exchange.  :)

@ DeMalachine

Aw, guess you'll never see this comment then.  Oh well, hope you make it back to E someday maybe?  Or if not, it was fun and interesting talking to you.  Wait, there's no point in my saying that, is there?  Okay I'm stopping now ...  :)

No wait one more thing

@ Trieste

I've heard other people with comparable expertise in the sciences say things along the very same lines as what you said there.  Some other people draw conclusions based on that sort of thinking that I find insupportable -- namely, imagining that the sciences point directly towards the existence of God, which is a view I disagree with.  But the way you talk about it seems both judicious and insightful.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 06:15:21 PM by rick957 »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #342 on: May 25, 2012, 06:14:31 PM »
There are certain things that even mathematicians have to take on 'faith', as well.  No matter what Russell and Whitehead would think.

Offline Hemingway

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #343 on: May 25, 2012, 06:24:53 PM »
There are certain things that even mathematicians have to take on 'faith', as well.  No matter what Russell and Whitehead would think.

I think the fundamental difference is that in science you have ways of testing your assumptions. It's hard to maintain such "faith" when your assumptions fail to provide reliably predictable results. Religious faith fails in that regard because, even if it can be "tested" ( prayer, for instance, would be one such test ), failures tend to be explained with phrases like "god works in mysterious ways". Whenever a test is perceived to "succeed", it strengthens belief, but it takes a lot more to fundamentally shake a belief. Whereas in science, if you get completely unexpected results, you try to find out why.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #344 on: May 25, 2012, 09:29:49 PM »
I'd like to ask about this:
This is an interesting and provocative statement, but its meaning is not fully obvious even after looking at Genesis 11, not for me at least.  (I'm familiar with the Tower of Babel story.)  I can think of several things you might be suggesting about the nature of any diety or about the capabilities and potential of collective humanity.  Some elaboration would be appreciated.

Compare what religion has done for you to what other humans have done for you. Is there any contest? Can you possibly hope to name all of the people responsible for your current standard of living? For even being able to see my reply, here, to your message?

And this goes double if you even begin to entertain the notion that religion is itself a human invention.

Quote
I'm sure there would be interest around here, and not just from me, but I wouldn't ask you to go to any trouble you didn't want to go to.  Personally I'm extremely interested in any thoughtful responses to Christianity, including criticisms of it, both of the personal or philosophical variety, and the more detailed the better.  I might even like to ask questions about certain things if you're amenable to polite discussion/debate over the things you say.  Your call of course.

Up to everyone if they're interested. Just whether it's worth it to take the time to put bits to a machine.

I'm hardly a Bible scholar, but most Christians I've encountered consider the Babel story to be not very significant -- a confusing curiosity more than anything else.  The didactic lesson typically extracted from it is that people are foolish to aspire to equality with God; the builders are considered guilty of the sin of vanity/pride; their collaborative efforts are seen as negative because their goal was both morally inappropriate and unattainable.  This is not my personal view, just the one I think is most common in religious circles. 

It's also a rare example of a Biblical story so exotic-sounding that even the most extreme fundamentalist Christians have a very hard time taking all of it literally ... though it doesn't stop them from trying.  :)

Many feeling-based Christians are far more disturbed by their god admitting to jealousy when discussing the commandments. Though the virgin sacrifice in Deuteronomy and Lot offering up his daughters to be raped also bothers a number of women.

However, in all of the exposition of the Christian god having flaws - and there are many - there are rather few that can be read as simultaneously glorifying humanity, which is why I like the verse. It offers, on its own, an alternative, inspiring view.

There are certain things that even mathematicians have to take on 'faith', as well.  No matter what Russell and Whitehead would think.

This is being somewhat facetious. Axioms are rarely difficult to grasp.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #345 on: May 25, 2012, 09:49:40 PM »
Rarely, but Euclid himself was annoyed at the 5th postulate because it wasn't very concise, and the results of not 'accepting it on faith' were treated as almost heretical.  Gauss actually suppressed the fact that not accepting it didn't cause a contradictory situation.

Okay, the dig at Russell and Whitehead was maybe a bit facetious - but when someone tries to prove 1+1 = 2 and takes a couple thousand pages to do it, it's begging for a teeny bit of snark.  ;)

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #346 on: May 25, 2012, 11:07:55 PM »
@ Vekseid

I read it all very carefully, several times, but I'm afraid I didn't personally understand very much of your post.  There were parts that made some sense, but I couldn't figure out how each point was relevant to the others, nor could I figure out what the overall point was.  It looked like you left out a lot of info that anyone would need to fully understand what you were trying to say.

There's no need to make any special effort to explain further just for my benefit, but I'd still be interested in hearing your views, if you feel like taking another crack at explaining them.  But don't if you don't want to.  :)

If I could make clear sense of any particular part, then I would just ask about the other parts, but I couldn't really grasp any of it.  Sorry!  I tried.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 11:13:54 PM by rick957 »

Offline Vekseid

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #347 on: May 26, 2012, 01:56:48 AM »
Rarely, but Euclid himself was annoyed at the 5th postulate because it wasn't very concise, and the results of not 'accepting it on faith' were treated as almost heretical.  Gauss actually suppressed the fact that not accepting it didn't cause a contradictory situation.

Okay, the dig at Russell and Whitehead was maybe a bit facetious - but when someone tries to prove 1+1 = 2 and takes a couple thousand pages to do it, it's begging for a teeny bit of snark.  ;)

1+1=2 isn't that long if you already assume a solid definition of the numbers 0 and 1, and have a definition of addition, or are willing to accept a fast one.

Most of it rests on trying to establish very basic concepts that we tend to take for granted, such as the concept of the number 1. That math doesn't have to assume that speaks to our logical development.  : )

@ Vekseid

I read it all very carefully, several times, but I'm afraid I didn't personally understand very much of your post.  There were parts that made some sense, but I couldn't figure out how each point was relevant to the others, nor could I figure out what the overall point was.  It looked like you left out a lot of info that anyone would need to fully understand what you were trying to say.

There's no need to make any special effort to explain further just for my benefit, but I'd still be interested in hearing your views, if you feel like taking another crack at explaining them.  But don't if you don't want to.  :)

If I could make clear sense of any particular part, then I would just ask about the other parts, but I couldn't really grasp any of it.  Sorry!  I tried.

One of them was a direct question, to you.

Has religion had more of a positive impact on your life than the sum total of humanity?

Offline rick957

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #348 on: May 26, 2012, 02:18:16 AM »
Okay, I can answer the question, although I'm still unclear about how this relates to the Tower of Babel story, and how that relates to that stuff I posted way back when that you originally replied to.  But here ya go.  :)

Quote
Has religion had more of a positive impact on your life than the sum total of humanity?

Isn't this a leading question?  Like you're fishing for me to say 'no, of course not'?  I think that's called leading, but I might be wrong.  Okay, so the answer is, the question rests upon an assumption that there's a way to separate a person's relationships from that person's religious beliefs.  I don't compartmentalize in that way; rather, my religion provides a lens through which I understand my entire life, including all my relationships. 

I hope you don't see that as dodging the question; it's an honest answer.  I can tell you that everything that I know about religion was taught to me by people or through human relationships, directly or indirectly, so in that sense, my relationships have informed and helped to form my entire religious perspective.  That's probably still not quite a satisfying response, I suspect.

Okay, now that I've shared, it would be great to get a little more of that explanation about the stuff you said.  :)  If you're willing, that is.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 02:19:34 AM by rick957 »

Offline YaoiRolePlayTopic starter

Re: Religion- Oh no not that again
« Reply #349 on: May 28, 2012, 02:12:44 PM »
I'd have to disagree. I'm agnostic myself...or as I like to put it "I don't give a damn whether there's a god or not, I'm just going to do what I think is right and they can judge me if they like."

However, I have yet to see ANY scientific proof that denies the possibility of a deity. Can you disprove certain events happened the way x scripture says they did? Certainly. doesn't mean it's not impossible for there to be SOME sort of omnipotent being.

Just jumping in real quick here to say that it's not the non-believer's responsibility to disprove what a believer says. A believer has the burden of proof for whatever they believe. It'd be like me saying that you can't prove there aren't invisible fairies holding up my house who live in the walls. You can't prove it's not true, so I can believe it.

This is the way science works. Someone comes up with an explanation and people question it. You don't come up with an explanation and than everyone just accepts it.