61 replies to this topic

[Zero]

Well, the reason God would want to be questioned is because he IS God. He's a teacher, that is his JOB (and almost every holy book describes him as one even if indirectly). Questions show the ability to think for self, the ability to wonder, understand, and to even see alternatives. For a teacher, and let it be proven that MANY students with plenty of GOOD questions do relatively well in that class. So, why would he want us to ask? To doubt? To LEARN, much like we ask questions in a class to LEARN, most especially when we do not understand.

And if you are to follow ANY creation story (I believe almost every religion has something along the line of the tree) then it is present, the tree I mean. The tree, most likely, however, is just a metaphoric example of free will and the defiance that accompanies it. If you DO believe EVERYTHING was created by God, then the tree (or doubt) was created by he as well. That also implies that the tree had a purpose to serve, as seemingly everything God creates has a purpose (this is implied and I believe even said blatantly in the Bibles of ALL churches, that God created everything for a reason and does everything for a reason), and it can only serve ONE purpose, to give the ability to doubt and 'sin.'

When I say fully aware I mean we can understand what is around us and discover it. And I'm only talking about humans because I'm not a wolf so I can't explain things from how they see it or any other examples in the animal world. And yes, we can see ALL that, through the help of machines. And why would God not do it? I don't know, as whatever God you believe in. Maybe it was because it wanted us to have GENUINE wisdom, formed through past experiences. Maybe it just wanted to have fun and play God. Maybe it just wanted to- I don't know! But most likely it wanted humanity to have a path and to see that it was capable of surviving in itself, and therefore it was able to overcome the evils. Who knows, God might even be a descendent of a species who was once like ours, or even a Hive-Mentality of many people.

Well, the Prophets were just an example to believers.

And no, unless God is a Hive-Mentality God with Borg-like senses of assimilation you would not have to merge, I'm talking of the Buhdist-like Enlightment that humanity is actually reaching for even in life through the sciences and philosophy. Maybe hell is an artificial construct of society, or a fake tool of fear to help humanity adapt, after all, except for the ones related to God, the things that get you into hell are unbenificial to human kind's survival, most especially in these days of Nukes and larger idiots than ever before (not to mention a MUCH larger number due to how democratic much of the world has become). There does not have to be only one god, but then again, there is also only one president, so who am I to say that god is not the president of the heavens? Or even king as everything else seems to imply. And I was just using a company for an easy to understand, human example.

YES, it can. PEOPLE can do it. No God would DIRECTLY interfere with humanity, and according to the books this hasn't happened, it's been relatively indirect almost, if not every, time. For example, nukes can weaken humanity and demolish it at a point in history where it is so used to technology that it can die. I know at LEAST 50 people off the top of my head, who could not survive in a world, most especially in the more extreme parts of the world, without technology because we are nowhere near as self-sufficient as we were a few years ago. And who knows, in the next few thousand years, we might see a Death Star, and I would LOVE to see ANYTHING survive THAT So maybe we ARE meant to kill each other, hell, it's Nature's best form of population control, but killing people and not learning a lesson is BAD. For example, at least ONE SMALL lesson arises from every war (don't use this, use that, that is bad, that is good, do this next time, etc.) but say someone who kills a man and lives to die of old age of no regret learns nothing and is a threat to the plan. So yes, maybe God DOES preach controlled killing to make the pieces on the chess board line up.

And yes, individual humans do die. But I'm speaking in a more abstract way. In reality, the way a single human thinks and evolves is not that different as how we think as a species (not as much as personal belief, but things such as thought processes, and whatnot, and a thirst for proof and evidence). Individual humans CAN evolve, but we do so mentally, an example is how a teenager matures, EVERYTHING in his way of thinking changes SO drastically it is not even funny.

I personally dislike Scientology, so I will NEVER admit it as part of any plan, not to forget that Scientology was written by a Sci-Fi writer and, well, look at the E-Meters or whatever the hell they're called and tell me that's real...I've seen and used them, and WOW, waste of time! Okay, so, moving on, because even THEN it will break apart. Religions are institutions created by MAN not GOD. Meaning that God had ABSOLUTELY no influence in them. And even Christianity, the single most sucessful religion of ALL time has broken apart into a COUNTLESS number of sub-theisms, which is why PERSONAL belief counts so much over those of the Religions and what the "leaders" say.

Finally, don't forget that the people who killed everything were of a Religion. Again, religions are INSTITUTIONS OF MAN. And the people who run them can be as bad as the people who run countries, some have been as bad as Hitler/Stalin. So, do not judge a religion (not the institution I'm talking about here, but the system of beliefs) based on what the idiot radicals do (here's an easy way to pick out radicals: If someone believes different radicals will kill and discriminate). Finally let us not forget that humanity is formed of rebellion. America was formed of a country opposing a government and formed its own government. Maybe, in the end, Gods are meant to die, and we are meant to rise, and so will start an endless chain of: Create, Evolve, Die&Replaced.

[Chyros]

IMO the purpose of religion is very very simple.

The good religious guys' purpose of their religion is for their own, personal comfort and solace.
The bad religious guys' purpose of their religion is to (try and) force it and their values on others.
The purpose of religion-criminals' religion is to establish a base of power through their religion by using violence to recruit people and fear of eternal damnation to keep them in line.

Through observation I have concluded that the first group is composed of people who generally don't even speak about their religion, the second group of people who try to convert other people and fundamentalists, and the third group of those in a position of power in their religion (whatever equivalent of priests).

[BeefJeRKy]

 Chyros, on 24 May 2009, 13:13, said:

IMO the purpose of religion is very very simple.

The good religious guys' purpose of their religion is for their own, personal comfort and solace.
The bad religious guys' purpose of their religion is to (try and) force it and their values on others.
The purpose of religion-criminals' religion is to establish a base of power through their religion by using violence to recruit people and fear of eternal damnation to keep them in line.

Through observation I have concluded that the first group is composed of people who generally don't even speak about their religion, the second group of people who try to convert other people and fundamentalists, and the third group of those in a position of power in their religion (whatever equivalent of priests).

The first group will speak of their religion but only in an informative manner usually.

[Zero]

 Scope, on 25 May 2009, 0:39, said:

 Chyros, on 24 May 2009, 13:13, said:

IMO the purpose of religion is very very simple.

The good religious guys' purpose of their religion is for their own, personal comfort and solace.
The bad religious guys' purpose of their religion is to (try and) force it and their values on others.
The purpose of religion-criminals' religion is to establish a base of power through their religion by using violence to recruit people and fear of eternal damnation to keep them in line.

Through observation I have concluded that the first group is composed of people who generally don't even speak about their religion, the second group of people who try to convert other people and fundamentalists, and the third group of those in a position of power in their religion (whatever equivalent of priests).

The first group will speak of their religion but only in an informative manner usually.

-To add to the "good guy"- he doesn't discriminate or look down on others based on their own personal views/religion
-Then, there is the "okay guy"-he doesn't agree with other believes but keeps his mouth shut and doesn't make a fuzz of it and does not try to intice violence/acts against them
-Move #s 2-3 down one to make room for "okay guy"
-Also religion-criminal: will sometimes glorify himself as a God/Prophet/Son of God to make people follow him (The guy who led the racist group Malcom X worked with at first, I believe his name was Elijah-Muhammed or something along those lines)

[Golan]

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

Well, the reason God would want to be questioned is because he IS God. He's a teacher, that is his JOB (and almost every holy book describes him as one even if indirectly). Questions show the ability to think for self, the ability to wonder, understand, and to even see alternatives. For a teacher, and let it be proven that MANY students with plenty of GOOD questions do relatively well in that class. So, why would he want us to ask? To doubt? To LEARN, much like we ask questions in a class to LEARN, most especially when we do not understand.

Again, why should he have any intention of teaching us? Beside the fact that our existences are, compared to God, not any more meaningful than that of a grain of sand, why should he want to teach? You even stated yourself that this is a highly ineffective way of getting a point across for him and as you may well know, "almost every holy book" says that he created us specifically with a plan in mind, so why not simply create us in the way he wants us to be?

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

And if you are to follow ANY creation story (I believe almost every religion has something along the line of the tree) then it is present, the tree I mean. The tree, most likely, however, is just a metaphoric example of free will and the defiance that accompanies it. If you DO believe EVERYTHING was created by God, then the tree (or doubt) was created by he as well. That also implies that the tree had a purpose to serve, as seemingly everything God creates has a purpose (this is implied and I believe even said blatantly in the Bibles of ALL churches, that God created everything for a reason and does everything for a reason), and it can only serve ONE purpose, to give the ability to doubt and 'sin.'

I'm an agnostic. The little bit of believes I hold don't match any of the "established" religions' creation stories.
And again, theoretically assuming that God would theoretically have created The Tree, this doesn't make your argument any less plausible. You are justifying your assumption that he wants us to question him on the assumption that he created The Tree with a purpose in mind.

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

When I say fully aware I mean we can understand what is around us and discover it. And I'm only talking about humans because I'm not a wolf so I can't explain things from how they see it or any other examples in the animal world. And yes, we can see ALL that, through the help of machines. And why would God not do it? I don't know, as whatever God you believe in. Maybe it was because it wanted us to have GENUINE wisdom, formed through past experiences. Maybe it just wanted to have fun and play God. Maybe it just wanted to- I don't know! But most likely it wanted humanity to have a path and to see that it was capable of surviving in itself, and therefore it was able to overcome the evils. Who knows, God might even be a descendent of a species who was once like ours, or even a Hive-Mentality of many people.

Well, you aren't me either, so how can you know that I work the way you do? For that matter, how can you know that any other human works the way you do? If you feel that you can't speak for animals as you don't know how they function, well, you can't speak for humanity either.
And using devices to observe what I listed is far from actually perceiving it ourselfs. Seeing a flowchart of a Photon's attributes isn't even remotely comparable to observing a photon. Besides, the Uncertainty Principle basically states that it's impossible to be fully aware of what's surrounding us.
God created us and this world exactly as he wanted. He's omniscient. He doesn't have to test us - he knows every single outcome of every single test possible already.
If he wanted us to have genuine wisdom, he could give it to us. Seeing that our lifespans are limited, we as a whole can't learn very much from past experiences anyways.
If you feel that God is nothing but a sufficiently advanced alien, then we have nothing left to discuss. This wouldn't be God, just a good impostor.

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

Well, the Prophets were just an example to believers.

You might want to give an example for non-believers then, no?

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

And no, unless God is a Hive-Mentality God with Borg-like senses of assimilation you would not have to merge, I'm talking of the Buhdist-like Enlightment that humanity is actually reaching for even in life through the sciences and philosophy. Maybe hell is an artificial construct of society, or a fake tool of fear to help humanity adapt, after all, except for the ones related to God, the things that get you into hell are unbenificial to human kind's survival, most especially in these days of Nukes and larger idiots than ever before (not to mention a MUCH larger number due to how democratic much of the world has become). There does not have to be only one god, but then again, there is also only one president, so who am I to say that god is not the president of the heavens? Or even king as everything else seems to imply. And I was just using a company for an easy to understand, human example.

God is omnipotent. If there were a second God, then there would be two omnipotent beings and one could limit the other, which would mean that neither of them is God. The only way for them "both" (as little value as this word would hold then) to become God is for both of them being him, effectively merging.

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

YES, it can. PEOPLE can do it. No God would DIRECTLY interfere with humanity, and according to the books this hasn't happened, it's been relatively indirect almost, if not every, time. For example, nukes can weaken humanity and demolish it at a point in history where it is so used to technology that it can die. I know at LEAST 50 people off the top of my head, who could not survive in a world, most especially in the more extreme parts of the world, without technology because we are nowhere near as self-sufficient as we were a few years ago. And who knows, in the next few thousand years, we might see a Death Star, and I would LOVE to see ANYTHING survive THAT So maybe we ARE meant to kill each other, hell, it's Nature's best form of population control, but killing people and not learning a lesson is BAD. For example, at least ONE SMALL lesson arises from every war (don't use this, use that, that is bad, that is good, do this next time, etc.) but say someone who kills a man and lives to die of old age of no regret learns nothing and is a threat to the plan. So yes, maybe God DOES preach controlled killing to make the pieces on the chess board line up.

First, why shouldn't God interfere with us? Because some obscure book says so? He supposedly already interfered by our very creation, he supposedly created this very world we life in and he has the power to know every result this causes - how isn't this interference? Being set up for a predetermined match of chess doesn't leave much choice.
What's so bad about not learning a lesson from killing another human? Most people don't even understand death, how should they understand bringing it about others willingly? One can learn wrong things too if one is bent on learning from everything.

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

And yes, individual humans do die. But I'm speaking in a more abstract way. In reality, the way a single human thinks and evolves is not that different as how we think as a species (not as much as personal belief, but things such as thought processes, and whatnot, and a thirst for proof and evidence). Individual humans CAN evolve, but we do so mentally, an example is how a teenager matures, EVERYTHING in his way of thinking changes SO drastically it is not even funny.

Well it's nice that you are speaking in an abstract way, but it doesn't match reality. We as a species have very little drive for knowledge, learning, evolving. Most people are still kinda busy surviving to see the next day.

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

I personally dislike Scientology, so I will NEVER admit it as part of any plan, not to forget that Scientology was written by a Sci-Fi writer and, well, look at the E-Meters or whatever the hell they're called and tell me that's real...I've seen and used them, and WOW, waste of time! Okay, so, moving on, because even THEN it will break apart. Religions are institutions created by MAN not GOD. Meaning that God had ABSOLUTELY no influence in them. And even Christianity, the single most sucessful religion of ALL time has broken apart into a COUNTLESS number of sub-theisms, which is why PERSONAL belief counts so much over those of the Religions and what the "leaders" say.

If you don't admit Scientology being part of the plan, then I don't admit any kind of religion being part of the plan. That doesn't get us anywhere.
Again, God created men. He also created, like, everything else. He is omniscient. He knew that by creating us the way he did, we'd do what we already did and what we will do. He had every bit of influence possible on us.

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 14:47, said:

Finally, don't forget that the people who killed everything were of a Religion. Again, religions are INSTITUTIONS OF MAN. And the people who run them can be as bad as the people who run countries, some have been as bad as Hitler/Stalin. So, do not judge a religion (not the institution I'm talking about here, but the system of beliefs) based on what the idiot radicals do (here's an easy way to pick out radicals: If someone believes different radicals will kill and discriminate). Finally let us not forget that humanity is formed of rebellion. America was formed of a country opposing a government and formed its own government. Maybe, in the end, Gods are meant to die, and we are meant to rise, and so will start an endless chain of: Create, Evolve, Die&Replaced.

Many religious wrongdoers still were believers. Many tortured, raped, murdered in the believe of doing it in the name of God. Sure it was organized religion that sparked many wars, but deep down it was each individuals' believe that made them comply.
And, seriously now, why shouldn't we judge a religion and its followers by the radical dipshits it brings forth? They are part of said religion. They are directly influenced by its teachings. All other followers know full well that those idiots claim affiliation to the same idea. So why isn't that religion openly speaking out against them? Why aren't it's followers out there to stop such a missue of their believes?
*avoids a response to the America issue due to "no politics" rules*

Edited by Golan, 25 May 2009 - 09:12.

[Zero]

So if we judge religion by its radicals which is fault of the institution and not the belief, then we should also blame medicine for the evil things its done and the massacres it's helped commit so willingly, hell, we should ban medicine too! And maybe biology! You can't judge something as such for the radicals it creates for things ranging from government to science have seen zealots. The only reason religion is so common a scapegoat is because it is a band which unifies many people, there are more Muslims in the world than there are people Afghanistan, so why not reach out to people all over the world to form a terror network.

I will not argue with you further dude on those other things because I'll just get angry that you keep referring to uneeding technicalities.

[Golan]

 Zero, on 25 May 2009, 11:58, said:

So if we judge religion by its radicals which is fault of the institution and not the belief, then we should also blame medicine for the evil things its done and the massacres it's helped commit so willingly, hell, we should ban medicine too! And maybe biology! You can't judge something as such for the radicals it creates for things ranging from government to science have seen zealots. The only reason religion is so common a scapegoat is because it is a band which unifies many people, there are more Muslims in the world than there are people Afghanistan, so why not reach out to people all over the world to form a terror network.

Medicine as well as Science aren't organisations. However, you can be damn sure that if I'd know of a doctor in a hospital doing a sloppy job, endangering his patients, I'd sure as hell judge the whole hospital as negative if it wouldn't use every possibility it has available to get rid of him. Once an organisation claims controle over a group of people, it's responsible for their wrongdoings as well.

 Zero, on 25 May 2009, 11:58, said:

I will not argue with you further dude on those other things because I'll just get angry that you keep referring to uneeding technicalities.

Ya, logic's a bitch. A real shame though.

[Zero]

You mean like the medical "research" done by the Nazis and Japanese during the Second World War? Medicine and Science are established institutions that follow rules and creeds (such as The Hypocratic Oath) and in that respect it IS an organization, one of research (not worship or profit, but one nonetheless). So, yes, you HAVE to count them as an institution.

It's not as much logic as much as the complete death grip you set over it. I'm really too lazy to start a never-ending back-and-forth argument I can actually SEE is coming. In the end, it'll be a battle of who's more stubborn, and I care too little to bother about it.

[General]

Again some people seems like missed the ' point ', or probably I didn't make it clear enough because my language is not that good.
What I am trying to say simply is : There is a creator yes, but it is not the creator that holy books talking about, some religions inspired by him and some make up by men ( such as scientology ) but all is for make us ' higher ', one must understand there is nothing in this universe, atleast in this world, without an ' opposite pole ', we will be happy, yet we will sad, we will be angry, yet we will cool down, we will take pleasure, yet we will suffer etc...

[Golan]

 Zero, on 25 May 2009, 15:16, said:

You mean like the medical "research" done by the Nazis and Japanese during the Second World War? Medicine and Science are established institutions that follow rules and creeds (such as The Hypocratic Oath) and in that respect it IS an organization, one of research (not worship or profit, but one nonetheless). So, yes, you HAVE to count them as an institution.

There's no organization claiming full responsibility and control over medicine or science.

"Mirriam Webster" said:

Main Entry:
1or·ga·ni·za·tion
[...]
1 a: the act or process of organizing or of being organized b: the condition or manner of being organized
2 a: association, society <charitable organizations> b: an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party) ; also : the personnel of such a structure

 Zero, on 25 May 2009, 15:16, said:

It's not as much logic as much as the complete death grip you set over it. I'm really too lazy to start a never-ending back-and-forth argument I can actually SEE is coming. In the end, it'll be a battle of who's more stubborn, and I care too little to bother about it.

Isn't this statement pretty much the same?

[nip]

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 16:47, said:

Religions are institutions created by MAN not GOD. Meaning that God had ABSOLUTELY no influence in them...I personally dislike Scientology, so I will NEVER admit it as part of any plan, not to forget that Scientology was written by a Sci-Fi writer and, well, look at the E-Meters or whatever the hell they're called and tell me that's real...

 Zero, on 24 May 2009, 1:34, said:

God created a multitude of religions to appeal to a BROAD number of people, and not just a select few that will follow it. Instead, we try to spread OUR OWN PERSONAL belief by the tip of the blade (or the tip of a bullet as things are now) insted of accepting beliefs that are so fundamentally the same that only a FEW indiscretions are what seperate them. The truth of the matter is that having MANY religions is a GOOD thing because it can apply to many people (I'm, of course, only talking about more-or-less reasonable religions, unlike Scientology which I believe to be COMPLETELY bloody insane) and it means that it causes more diversity in people which God seems to enjoy, and it is also a diversity that would help such a plan.

If any points don't make any sense, please let me know so I can elaborate.

Who created who and why is Scientology insane? The Christian hell is as intelligent as an E-Meter and my problem with your so-called 'good' religious diversity is: it'll always clash with every single religion's claim to sole representation, with all the well-known consequences.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Zero, on 25 May 2009, 12:58, said:

So if we judge religion by its radicals which is fault of the institution and not the belief, then we should also blame medicine for the evil things its done and the massacres it's helped commit so willingly, hell, we should ban medicine too! And maybe biology! You can't judge something as such for the radicals it creates for things ranging from government to science have seen zealots. The only reason religion is so common a scapegoat is because it is a band which unifies many people, there are more Muslims in the world than there are people Afghanistan, so why not reach out to people all over the world to form a terror network.

I will not argue with you further dude on those other things because I'll just get angry that you keep referring to uneeding technicalities.

At loss of words so quick?

Comparing religion with medicine is comparing apples and oranges. Both, quality and quantity of religious and medical crimes cannot be compared. Religion has ruled Europe for millennia with one of the consequences being that European soil is the most (human)blood-soaked soil on earth while medicine was and is abused on a total different scale. And yes, belief is to blame for religious extremism and religion to be judged by its extremists. Every religion produces religious extremists and their radical beliefs are based on the religion they're developed out of. They aren't something exotic, they do not depend on religious institutions and they aren't told or controlled by them. Their only word is the word of 'God'. Religious extremists do belief they're doing right, they are a product of their beliefs. Nothing else.

[Zero]

And there is no one organization that controls religion either !

And religious diversity does not clash, on about 95-99% of the stuff in all three major Abrahamic Religions coincide and almost EVERY religion preaches the same good morals and the same bad sins.

I guess it is, but I like to stay in good moods now, most especially around my friends, I don't want to get mad. Also, like I said, I don't want to waste time starting what will be a never ending chain.

 General, on 25 May 2009, 18:52, said:

Again some people seems like missed the ' point ', or probably I didn't make it clear enough because my language is not that good.
What I am trying to say simply is : There is a creator yes, but it is not the creator that holy books talking about, some religions inspired by him and some make up by men ( such as scientology ) but all is for make us ' higher ', one must understand there is nothing in this universe, atleast in this world, without an ' opposite pole ', we will be happy, yet we will sad, we will be angry, yet we will cool down, we will take pleasure, yet we will suffer etc...

Exactly. The books were written by men (and to top it off, were passed down for dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of generations, before they were FINALLY written down). THAT much is known, and no Church denies it. And so they should not be taken too literally (that's why, for example, I used the tree as a metaphor of doubt/greed)

And yes, any GOOD God would wish to push his creation to a state of enlightment and equality, at least I believe so. And maybe the reason why God could not create someone equal to he to begin with is because he is UNABLE to (simple alchemy! (Actually, based on one of the Laws of Thermal Dynamics I believe, either that or some Law of Physics, to lazy to look it up): equivalent exchange, you can't create something from nothing, nor can you create something with more mass than what you started with. In other words, even an all-powerful being cannot create an all-powerful being equal to he (would mean he would have to double what he is made of, mass AND energy), even the all-powerful must adhere to SOME laws.

Although it COULD be that the thing we call God is simply the last, dying, survivor of a dying species which is trying to create a successor. Man being the successor, it needs to evolve us to the point where we won't abuse power...reminds me of my book actually.....

And I remember my friend telling me that the E-Meters are just like the things they used to measure something about skin (something resistance of the skin) at a hospital.

[General]

 Zero, on 25 May 2009, 21:11, said:

Exactly. The books were written by men (and to top it off, were passed down for dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of generations, before they were FINALLY written down). THAT much is known, and no Church denies it. And so they should not be taken too literally (that's why, for example, I used the tree as a metaphor of doubt/greed)

And yes, any GOOD God would wish to push his creation to a state of enlightment and equality, at least I believe so. And maybe the reason why God could not create someone equal to he to begin with is because he is UNABLE to (simple alchemy! (Actually, based on one of the Laws of Thermal Dynamics I believe, either that or some Law of Physics, to lazy to look it up): equivalent exchange, you can't create something from nothing, nor can you create something with more mass than what you started with. In other words, even an all-powerful being cannot create an all-powerful being equal to he (would mean he would have to double what he is made of, mass AND energy), even the all-powerful must adhere to SOME laws.

Although it COULD be that the thing we call God is simply the last, dying, survivor of a dying species which is trying to create a successor. Man being the successor, it needs to evolve us to the point where we won't abuse power...reminds me of my book actually.....

And I remember my friend telling me that the E-Meters are just like the things they used to measure something about skin (something resistance of the skin) at a hospital.

I did not mean a dying species but anyways it is still an interesting perspective to look at, similiar to those ufo creation stories though

[Zero]

But let's be honest, an alien creator is just as probable as a god

But, personally, Scientology takes that concept and twists it around, and they defame the name of Science...I dislike that....

[General]

 Zero, on 27 May 2009, 0:07, said:

But let's be honest, an alien creator is just as probable as a god

But, personally, Scientology takes that concept and twists it around, and they defame the name of Science...I dislike that....

Yes it is probable, we maybe someone else's God a few centuries later in a distant planet who knows

But I shouldn't rely much on scientology, I don't know much about it but I even heard its founder make up it after an argument in a bar, probably to prove how easy to create a religion and make others follow it and make a lot of money, looks like he succeeded

Edited by General, 27 May 2009 - 15:29.

[Zero]

Well, to be honest religions are not too hard to create.

If you want a quite realistic view of religions and how they can be propagated read the DUNE series (actually, you only need to read the first one). Pretty much you need a desperate, unsure group of people, and charisma. It has always been so and shall always be so.

Yes, L. Ron Hubbard....truly one of the greatest manipulative bastards of all time. I should note, however, that he is so wonderfully human in his acts that he is a shining example of humanity's cunning and craft.

[General]

 Zero, on 27 May 2009, 20:58, said:

Well, to be honest religions are not too hard to create.

Thats the ' half ' of my point. Religions are easy to create now and its hell a lot ' harder ' to find people to believe them nowadays, that means we started to advance on our path which we will not need someone to scare us in future. If it is just possible for every single human on the planet to be ' sane ' than everything will be just better and will be better and better on time, but before that, what ' curbs ' the wild animals ( ignorant humanity ) is discipline ( religion )

[Zero]

 General, on 27 May 2009, 21:15, said:

 Zero, on 27 May 2009, 20:58, said:

Well, to be honest religions are not too hard to create.

Thats the ' half ' of my point. Religions are easy to create now and its hell a lot ' harder ' to find people to believe them nowadays, that means we started to advance on our path which we will not need someone to scare us in future. If it is just possible for every single human on the planet to be ' sane ' than everything will be just better and will be better and better on time, but before that, what ' curbs ' the wild animals ( ignorant humanity ) is discipline ( religion )

Again, I concur. It IS harder to find people to believe in religions and the stigma of being an aethist that existed in even the 80s and 90s is now SO much less apparent. And anyone finds it hard to believe, about 40% of France (Wiki) and about 15% of Americans are aethists.

And religion really is a limiter in society. It is meant to control people and attempt to civilize them in that they do not kill each other and harm each other. If you look at it, ALL of the 7 Commandments of the 10 Commandments that don't have to do with God are actually instinctual. Those 7 are something that seems common sense and benefits human survival.

It might be true, religion might just be a tool with which humanity is to become civilized with, and trained, much like a collar. And when the feral animal that is humanity is finally able to walk we might see that we do not religion and its all encompassing moral views because we have already reached such a level, at least for the majority. It might be that day that of Enlightment that humanity is freed of the leash of religion and FINALLY develops its own civilized identity.

And I leave with this: Humanity is not civilized. The most feral dog on the street is more civilized than we. It is through religion that we attempt to develop civility, through religion, philosophy, and other such fields and it is not something even Science can do. So, to all my fellow members of the animal that is humanity, I say....change....because goddamn it I want to get my Warp Drive!

[Z_mann]

I'm too lazy to read what all of you have written before, but all I can do is ask:

If any organized religion has its bad sides - is it really so bad it MUST be abolished. I mean, there are people I know that actually have benefit from it.

[Golan]

(Almost) anything means a benefit to someone. You will have a hard time finding things that are entirely "evil", so it seems prudent to make a compromise when things are evil enough, no?

Edited by Golan, 31 May 2009 - 20:55.

[Zero]

 Golan, on 31 May 2009, 21:42, said:

(Almost) anything means a benefit to someone. You will have a hard time finding things that are entirely "evil", so it seems prudent to make a compromise when things are evil enough, no?

But this is based on the opinion that some things are, regardless, at least a LITTLE evil.

Good and evil are solely objective and dependent more on bias and prejudice as it is on fact. For example, take the Nazis (or their common personifications): Anti-Jewish, in other words, the Jewish were evil. Do WE think the Jewish are evil? No, of course not (at least not anymore). The Nazis believed that what THEY had was freedom and equality, and good, and just. We, however, would disagree with the majority of it, and call them "evil," because our points disagree with them. Good and evil are just like morals, ethics, manners, and enemies (politically speaking), they change infinitely on a MUCH more than daily basis.

 Golan, on 31 May 2009, 21:42, said:

(Almost) anything means a benefit to someone. You will have a hard time finding things that are entirely "evil", so it seems prudent to make a compromise when things are evil enough, no?

But this is based on the opinion that some things are, regardless, at least a LITTLE evil.

Good and evil are solely objective and dependent more on bias and prejudice as it is on fact. For example, take the Nazis (or their common personifications): Anti-Jewish, in other words, the Jewish were evil. Do WE think the Jewish are evil? No, of course not (at least not anymore). The Nazis believed that what THEY had was freedom and equality, and good, and just. We, however, would disagree with the majority of it, and call them "evil," because our points disagree with them. Good and evil are just like morals, ethics, manners, and enemies (politically speaking), they change infinitely on a MUCH more than daily basis.

[SquigPie]

Godwin's Law?


Ahh well, about the point of religion

The point of religion is freedom, as freedom is the choice between Evil and Good, so is freedom the choice between Religion and Atheism, (not that any of the two are evil or good.)

[Golan]

 Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 15:15, said:

 Golan, on 31 May 2009, 21:42, said:

(Almost) anything means a benefit to someone. You will have a hard time finding things that are entirely "evil", so it seems prudent to make a compromise when things are evil enough, no?

But this is based on the opinion that some things are, regardless, at least a LITTLE evil.

Good and evil are solely objective and dependent more on bias and prejudice as it is on fact. For example, take the Nazis (or their common personifications): Anti-Jewish, in other words, the Jewish were evil. Do WE think the Jewish are evil? No, of course not (at least not anymore). The Nazis believed that what THEY had was freedom and equality, and good, and just. We, however, would disagree with the majority of it, and call them "evil," because our points disagree with them. Good and evil are just like morals, ethics, manners, and enemies (politically speaking), they change infinitely on a MUCH more than daily basis.

Thanks for bringing up my country's past, as this was exactly what I had in mind. Nothing is entirely evil even when seen by a bystander who doesn't benefit from it and you will probably always find someone willing to defend it. In the end however, what counts is a person's own viewpoint, not that of his/her opponent. The Third Reich might not have been evil, but still it was wiped out because some people considered it evil enough, and boy, I'm glad for this.

[Zero]

Golan, I'm not sure whethere or not I offended you, and if I did I'm sorry, just meant to use it as a common example anyone else could understand. But we are on even ground here, I agree. Hell, I'm glad too, because I'm Dominican, and if they HADN'T died, I'd be in a pit in the ground right now.

 SquigPie, on 3 Jun 2009, 17:07, said:

Godwin's Law?


Ahh well, about the point of religion

The point of religion is freedom, as freedom is the choice between Evil and Good, so is freedom the choice between Religion and Atheism, (not that any of the two are evil or good.)

But dude, look above at what I posted. There is no definite "good" or "evil." Another example, for me, there are few more beautiful things than oppression, even though I would never want to be oppressed, why? Oppression helps bring progress and change, and hell, look at a history book and you'll see what I mean (American Revolution anyone?). On the other hand, I look at this "equality" that every human seems to seek as evil, because it hinders progress and such, besides, it can lead to extinction and anarchy (and while I have no problem with anarchy, when I say anarchy in reference to this, I mean an anarchy like that during the French Revolution, where it was endless slaughter and not just chaos).

In case you don't see my point, religion is NOT a choice between good and evil. For example, do you think homosexuality is evil, because about 90% of religions that exist do (immoral, evil, same bias, prejudiced thing). True, you do choose, but in reality, all you do, is you choose what someone said is "good" and try to avoid what someone said is "evil."

I've been reading "Stranger in a Strange Land" lately, and my beliefs have been confirmed. Take for example, murder, if you kill someone=bad, same way in EVERY society, EVER. But if it were....ritualistic........well, murder=good. Good and evil are prejudiced morals decided upon by society, and, more often than not, the churches (the people who run them, I mean). And do not forget this, during the Crusades, for all the massacres that took place, and all the atrocities that were done, both sides claimed the other to be evil. Who was wrong in that situation?

What religion TRULY offers in form of choice, is a choice of what THEY believe to be "good" and "evil." Another good example is sex. Sex is looked down upon by many religions when in reference to that used solely for pleasure (i.e. not procreating). But in reality, sex is a way of "growing closer." Sex develops an unique bond between the two, and is an expression of passion that can not be done in words. Sex is the adult equivalent of breast-feeding.

Not sure if you understand it, but do you "grok" what I'm saying.

[Golan]

 Zero, on 3 Jun 2009, 20:38, said:

Golan, I'm not sure whethere or not I offended you

Huh? No, i was just making a point.