Religion is a Cattle Drive

[blueback]

I was just wondering if anyone else had noticed that religion is bullshit.

* God planned everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen. . .ever.
* God wants us to chose to love him.

Seriously, how can people hold both those ideas in their head at the same time? Religious types like the first one because it means that God is perfect and they like the second one because it means they have free will. But it can't be both. If God planned everything then he knew what Dick was going to do on December 3, 2017 before the universe even existed. By extension, God knew whether or not Dick was going to chose to love him before he died before the universe even existed. Which means that Dick has only one place to go, Heaven or Hell, based on what God planned before the universe existed. Dick has absolutely no control over his life (or afterlife) because he is unable to suprise God. Dick is simply living out the script God wrote a long time ago. If it is possible for Dick to chose God and therefore go to Heaven instead of Hell then, for it to be a real choice, God has to be unsure of what Dick is going to do before he is born. Which would mean that God doesn't know everything, in fact, doesn't know much. You can pick one, but they are mutually exclusive.


* Cell phones are awesome, those scientist sure know what they're doing.
* Scientists lie about monkeys and try to pretend the world isn't 6000 years old.

Again, two ideas that people have no trouble uttering in the same sentence. People don't think twice about getting on an airplane and flying half way around the globe. The airplane is a product of the scientific method. People get together and agree with each other that we couldn't possibly have evolved because the Bible says we didn't. In fact, I bet there are people on a plane right now talking about how the earth is 6000 years old and there's no such thing as evolution. If the scientific method works, and it does, then it always works. When we can predict and control the laws of the universe enough to build a 747 we've probably figured a lot of other stuff out along the way. How people can take the fruits of the scientific method for granted and at the same time claim that the scientific method is a great lie perpetuated by the agents of Satan is beyond me.

* Prayer works. God listens to prayer and answers it.
* No, someone who had their leg pinched off in an industrial accident isn't going to get a new leg from God no matter how hard we pray.

Just how much wishful thinking does it take to believe both of those ideas? I don't know, because I've never come up with enough. How do people keep a straigh face when they say that they prayed to God to get rid of their cancer, then went on chemotherapy, and God answered their prayers by removing their cancer? I've never heard about anyone praying their missing leg back into existence. The same people who realize intellectually that praying for a new leg isn't going to work will swear on the Bible that God answered their prayers to get that job they wanted.

All those fallacies are perpetuated by organized religion. Mabye people are natuarlly suceptable to making those mistakes, but that's no reason to encourage them. What's worse is that I bet most of the people who write books and give sermons on those subjects do understand the inherent flaws. A teacher can't teach without understanding more than the student.

I don't have a problem with God, or the idea of God, or even the desire for the idea of God. My problem is with people who work really hard to keep other people ignorant and powerless. There are several theories involving God that aren't logically flawed. Why not teach those?

[Tarrick]

You know, it's nice how you want to share your opinion of religion, it really is.

I'm tempted to lock this thread and tell you off, but I won't. I also won't waste my time trying to point out any and all the flaws you make in your "argument". I've made enough posts on that already and no one really wants to properly debate me. If someone ever does, I'll sit down and respond, but I have no inclination to response to baseless opinions.

[INTJohn]

I would like to address Mr. blueback ; Mr. Tarrick:

To Mr blueback:
I invite you to not only read but also study with an open mind the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Upanishads as well as the Greek & Roman myths regarding gods & godesses.
That should take you approximately a year........

To Mr Tarrick:
I invite you to not only read but also study with an open mind Thomas Paines, "Age of Reason"; Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra"; Russel's "Why I'm Not A Christian"; Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" as well as Dawkins' "The God Delusion".
That should take you approximately a year........

Then both of you come back and Rationally discuss what you have both discovered. If you are both INTJ's it should be quite spectacular.

INTJohn

[blueback]

Tarrick
Hey, sorry if I hit a nerve there. It was around midnight and I was feeling frustrated.

To be totally honest, I've stopped caring about what people believe. I used to argue about it at length, and old habits are hard to break, but a few years ago I realized that I didn't find it important anymore. All I care about now is what peopel do; actions. Of course, understanding how someone thinks is a good way to predict, and put into context, their actions. So, sometimes in the course of trying to figure out how someone thinks, I get side-tracked.

As an INTJ I expect everyone to make sense. I realize that is asking a lot, but sometimes frustration with those who don't make sense sneaks up on me.

So, now that I've gotten some sleep, what I should have written was "Religion doesn't make sense."

INTJohn
Why? I've already done that, at least most of it. I've never heard of the Upanishads before. But, since you recommend studying the Greek gods too I imagine you'd recommend The Lord of the Rings and maybe Harry Potter as well. Fiction is fiction, after all.

I don't care how much someone writes about their belief, it's still a belief. At some point, no matter how eloquent they are, they have to say "Just go with me on this." Well, I don't follow anyone simply because they think I should and I don't think anyone else should either.

Or, perhaps I can explain it differently. How many different versions of algebra are currently being taught around the world? The answer is only one because you either get algebra right or you don't. Someone might come at it from a different angle, or use different symbols, but math is still the same no matter who you talk to or where you are. The same can be said for the scientific method. Either your theory works in practice or it doesn't.

Science and math work, religion doesn't. No religion works. People are constantly trying to "prove" it does by claiming that some prophecy or other is true, or that their prayer was answered, but that is never the case. The side effects of religion are very real. It does have a tendency to encourage people to act morally and form stable societies. So, if you want to say that all the puffed up, unnecessary, suspension-of-rationality-requiring aspects of religion are just to get people to get along, then I'm with you. Maybe humans are incapable of getting along without a belief in eternal punishment/reward.

[biased]

You are a prime example of why people view atheists as bitter.


You cannot "logically" put people into labels such as "sheep" and following the herd because each person is an individual with their own beliefs whether or not they voice them publically is another issue. People really aren't as stupid as you are making them out to be.

"religion"/spirituality is NOT naturalistic. science will never "prove" or "disprove" it because they are different disciplines entirely. it's like trying to use mathematics to prove English is real.

[INTJohn]

Mr. blueback..........

You are preaching to the choir in your words to me - go read my intro - its quite clear where I stand.

Mr. Tarrick , however is a "big boy" with a mind of his own and I am confident that in time as he learns and studies the workings of the "world" he too will, like I did years ago and many other Free & Rational Thinkers (Paine and Darwin while younger studied to become "men of God") who began as ardent believers "repented" (changed their minds)........

You obviously neeed to channel your philsophy and thinking into a more positively influencing manner..........that , I think, Mr. blueback is something you are more than capable of - I have that confidence in you (even if you don't in your self) because you think Rationally.

INTJohn

[blueback]

You are a prime example of why people view atheists as bitter.

I'm not an atheist. I never said that God doesn't make sense, just that religion doesn't. In fact, at the end of my first post I said as much.

So I'll lay out some logical theories that include God.

1) God created everything 6000 years ago in such a way that the universe would appear to be much much older.
- This theory is perfectly logical. If God can create an entire universe he can do anything he wants with that universe.

2) God created everything by setting of the Big Bang a long time ago and setting in motion rules that would produce his chosen creatures.
- Perfectly logical. Again, if God can create the universe he can make it do whatever he wants.

There are more theories that don't include God actually creating everything, but I don't think those fully capture the spirit of God (pun intended). The difference between those two theories and organized religion is that they don't require God to interact with us. I don't even have a problem with the idea of an afterlife because I'm sure if God can create the universe he can pluck us out of it and do whatever he wants with us.

One of the problems I have with religion is that it encourages people to have an external locus of control. Basically, that people aren't in control of their own lives. Religion does this by pretending that God will personally answer prayers. Praying to "the one true God" is no different than praying to the clouds for rain. It has never worked and pretending it has is [many unflattering adjectives]. Prayer, unlike all the other aspects of faith in God, is falsifiable. Just set up a controlled study and you will quickly prove it.

I'm an agnostic and I'm not bitter, just frustrated.

People, on average, are so desperate to escape reality that they indulge in all sorts of unproductive behovior. Drug use, extreme sports, and reading books about how the Bible is literally true in all respects. Just imagine how much could be accomplished if people could be happy in the real world.

[blueback]

You obviously neeed to channel your philsophy and thinking into a more positively influencing manner


Like what? As a couple INTJs you know that if you can suggest something practical I will be more than willing to do it.

[biased]

People, on average, are so desperate to escape reality that they indulge in all sorts of unproductive behovior. Drug use, extreme sports, and reading books about how the Bible is literally true in all respects. Just imagine how much could be accomplished if people could be happy in the real world.


My mistake on calling you an atheist. Sorry :)

I actually enjoy drugs and they were a decent part of my life for several years (note: i've always used responsibly and have gotten gc/ms printouts of whatever i was using to assure myself of the quality, etc.) and "extreme" sports like skydiving and for you too say they aren't "productive" is laughable. It's like saying masturbation isn't productive. They are FUN, they are fulfilling that human need to relax or be able to do what you enjoy. I've read books about the bible and many other philosophies which is quite similar to someone reading that the bible is "literally true" in as far as they are the same activity (reading someone's philosophy). Theology is actually really interesting if you look into it especially the more obscure sects and the past schisms Catholicism had with them.

The activities you listed above make people happy and the more happy people the better. I personally find if I am around people's whose mood is happy it rubs off. I see it as a good thing.

[matthew]

I've never heard of the Upanishads before.


It is good advice, generally.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Chapter II

1 The teacher said: If you think: "I know Brahman well," then surely you know but little of Its form; you know only Its form as conditioned by man or by the gods. Therefore Brahman, even now, is worthy of your inquiry."

There are several Upanishads.


But, since you recommend studying the Greek gods too I imagine you'd recommend The Lord of the Rings and maybe Harry Potter as well. Fiction is fiction, after all.


words nonsense order meaning inflects not -
reading seeing knowing power precision observe.

Either the content of what is written matters, according to its patterns, or there is no meaning in mind.
A study of the stories of Ovid and Homer, at least, are worthwhile to understanding mind, and themes.
Culture preserved has a richness, that lends depth of appreciation to one's perspective.

Harry Potter is twaddle.


I don't care how much someone writes about their belief, it's still a belief. At some point, no matter how eloquent they are, they have to say "Just go with me on this." Well, I don't follow anyone simply because they think I should and I don't think anyone else should either.

Until each of us discovers the fundamental ground on our own, we might as well all remain silent.
After each of us discovers the fundamental ground on our own, we might as well all remain silent.

Oh wait, this isn't the place for Ch'an or Zen. Pardon me. :)


Or, perhaps I can explain it differently. How many different versions of algebra are currently being taught around the world? The answer is only one because you either get algebra right or you don't. Someone might come at it from a different angle, or use different symbols, but math is still the same no matter who you talk to or where you are. The same can be said for the scientific method. Either your theory works in practice or it doesn't.


Talk to a theoretical physicist about bending mathematics.


Science and math work, religion doesn't. No religion works. People are constantly trying to "prove" it does by claiming that some prophecy or other is true, or that their prayer was answered, but that is never the case. The side effects of religion are very real. It does have a tendency to encourage people to act morally and form stable societies. So, if you want to say that all the puffed up, unnecessary, suspension-of-rationality-requiring aspects of religion are just to get people to get along, then I'm with you. Maybe humans are incapable of getting along without a belief in eternal punishment/reward.

Your complaints do have some merit.

But rationality, explored or unexplored in its qualities, is neither the beginning nor the end of mind.

[blueback]

Maybe you can help me out with the Upanishad you pointed me towards. What is it saying?

The thing you wrote, just above "Harry Potter is twaddle" isn't making any sense either.

If we all remain silent, what's the point of living? If you were the last person on Earth would you dedicate yourself to meditation?

Yeah, that's why I used algebra for the example. The analogy sort of breaks down when you move into the realm of theoretical mathematics. I think I made the point well, though. There's this Far Side cartoon where a mathematician has written a proof on the blackboard and one of the steps is "Then, a miracle happend." I'm not convinced there aren't a couple miracles happening at the level below electrons.

Very true. I concede the point that there might be something bigger out there. But I still say that everyone deserves to be appealed to in such a way as to lift them out of ignorance, not encourage them to cling to ignorance.

[Evalis]

Well I for one really liked your analogy of prayer that only works on things that can't be absolutely proven. I'm going to use that in my next religious debate. Thanks =D

[matthew]

Maybe you can help me out with the Upanishad you pointed me towards. What is it saying?

Well I am no Brahmin scholar to make clear all the intricacies of such scriptures, and honestly it's bad enough that they're being approached intellectually instead of experientially (which in my mind should come both first and last), but in general, what you can take from the Kena Upanishad is that Brahman is a gnoseological problem outside of the categories you're attempting to encounter it within. It should not be a surprise that if a strawman category is posited, it is seen to not contain the object which it is supposed to. Study the approaches for yourself; you'll get no learning accomplished if I give it to you. Just try to ignore the badly informed. Things can genuinely dwell where they are, without the immediate representatives of such things being at all competent at their representation. So much is approximated according to understanding.


The thing you wrote, just above "Harry Potter is twaddle" isn't making any sense either.


The point was that a statement that "Fiction = Fiction" is a meaningless tautology. There are varieties within any given category that you could mention, to the point of individuation and beyond. Those who do not draw distinctions according to qualities both external and internal to a category will end up interacting with them inappropriately.


If we all remain silent, what's the point of living? If you were the last person on Earth would you dedicate yourself to meditation?


The Zen was a paraphrase of what you were essentially saying, in the bit that I quoted above the Zen.
If you find flaws of logic in that paraphrase, good, because you were meant to.
It was also hoped, however, that you would catch onto its mirroring function.


Yeah, that's why I used algebra for the example. The analogy sort of breaks down when you move into the realm of theoretical mathematics.

I wrote "theoretical physicist" actually. Theoretical physics only sometimes uses theoretical mathematics, which is only incidentally applicable to any applied field, and in fact uses conventional algebraic formulations and functions more often than you might suppose. The point being that there is a lot of bendy-twisty stuff going on within these functions, nevertheless.


I think I made the point well, though. There's this Far Side cartoon where a mathematician has written a proof on the blackboard and one of the steps is "Then, a miracle happened." I'm not convinced there aren't a couple miracles happening at the level below electrons.

One fundamental presumption that's being made is that the universe is quantitative.
I don't know that this is accurate.

The question being asked, overall, is whether the quantitative and qualitative can be mixed effectively.
The answer is yes - but only with the recognition that there is no actual quantity or absolute measure of quantity involved.
All integrals are ad hoc and imposed.

By setting up 'end-points' to a continuum one cannot derive a fully accurate representation of that continuum - only an approximation.


Very true. I concede the point that there might be something bigger out there. But I still say that everyone deserves to be appealed to in such a way as to lift them out of ignorance, not encourage them to cling to ignorance.

Definitely. Keep doing what we do. ;)

[AntimonyLegault]

They may be a cattle drive, and yet they are neccasary to seperate the populus from the people; as such we are all but chameleons in a field of ideas.
When we leave our own reality and step into anothers we will realize we were in fact wrong, and yet nobody is ever truly right. To do so would be the ingnominy that is human ingeuine thought.

[Jennywocky]

When we leave our own reality and step into anothers we will realize we were in fact wrong, and yet nobody is ever truly right. To do so would be the ingnominy that is human ingeuine thought.

True. At some level we cannot step outside reality long enough to "judge" all of these ideas objectively and see which one is [most] accurate. We forced to exist inside the fishbowl and have... faith (!) in the one that seems most reasonable.

The OP seems a prime example of Western non-contradictory thought. So... the question is, is paradox (two seemingly incongruent ideas) possible? Eastern thought has long thought it is. So this is one more box -- the logical Western process -- to step outside of.

And it's true that often faith is self-fulfilling. If someone has cancer and they are healed after prayer, the prayer means God exists and was listening. If they die, it means God must have had "some reason" for the person to die. On one hand, this is offensive to intellectual sensibilities (it's just self-justifying); on the other hand, to some degree, religious belief is faith in what one prioritizes in Life, which makes sense as well since we can never step so fully out of things to know the truth.

How does a person balance faith and reason? very carefully, it seems...

[matthew]

The OP seems a prime example of Western non-contradictory thought. So... the question is, is paradox (two seemingly incongruent ideas) possible? Eastern thought has long thought it is. So this is one more box -- the logical Western process -- to step outside of.


This comes down to mental object-relations.

A thought is not a rock which can be banged against an opposite rock.

It is a thing with dangly bits that can be taken apart and switched out at whim.
The interesting part being what the consequences of such switches are. Much like chemistry.

[deicruxified]

* Prayer works. God listens to prayer and answers it.
* No, someone who had their leg pinched off in an industrial accident isn't going to get a new leg from God no matter how hard we pray.

Just how much wishful thinking does it take to believe both of those ideas? I don't know, because I've never come up with enough. How do people keep a straigh face when they say that they prayed to God to get rid of their cancer, then went on chemotherapy, and God answered their prayers by removing their cancer? I've never heard about anyone praying their missing leg back into existence. The same people who realize intellectually that praying for a new leg isn't going to work will swear on the Bible that God answered their prayers to get that job they wanted.
hmm...how should i start? ...let's have this thought experiment:

a 6-year-old girl never knew who her father was 'til the time she got the opportunity to see him (let's not elaborate on details as to how they met or why she hasn't seen her). she then lives at her father's house and being the generous man that he is, buys all the toys the girl wants. she was happy being with her father and loved him very much. then one night, her father sneaked into her room and raped her.

the question would be how will she go on with her life? why would a compassionate, all knowing, ever present and uber mighty god allow a spectacle like this to happen - let a pure innocent child be violated by her father? and if, for instance, that girl prays at night for proctection while she sleeps, why did god allow this to happen?

if we talk about the judeo-christian-islamic type of religion wherein people live only one life, let's just say it's god's test as everyone claims. i do admit that buying this concept kinda puzzles me because it's portraying that god is an evil god that you still have to pray just to get what you want and if you don't pray that hard, he won't give you what you want. however, viewing it from another perspective, by the word "test" as we all know it from school, we get pop quizzes from time to time. whatever the result would be we have to study again for a better result in the next exam. i do think it's tantamount with life. god gives people certain tests to make them better individuals. in the little girl's life for instance, she will have a lot of realizations. one possible realization would be that her father can never trusted and he should not be loved, ergo she has to be independent or she could still forgive her father and love him still etc... i'm thinking of mutual paedophillia but it could also be possible. whether the realization of the child is "right" or "wrong" based on "morals" on thing that is certain is that she learned. now, having learned something from that experience, the girl crafts her set of ideals, moralities, beliefs etc... based on certain experiences gained. whatever the outcome of the girl after she dies will then be evaluated or "judged".

another perspective this issue would be viewed is via karma and reincarnation. have you ever wondered why some peopel are born drop dead poor, legless, blind or autistic or peopel who have been good all their lives had the worst luck in the world (house burned and got fired in the span of 8 hours)? karma and reincarnation explains why. it is possible than in one of the girl's past lives she was a male and raped someone and is now reaping the consequences of her past action. in this life time, she has to learn the experience of being raped so as for her to feel what's it like being raped so that he won't do it again. however it does not stop there. it is also possible that she could pay it for more than one life regardless of what gender her soul would be... worst if when she grew up, she also rapes boys.

to tie things up whether reincarnation is true or not, it only boils to one idea... learning. god wants us to learn as the way i see it. hmm...

All those fallacies are perpetuated by organized religion. Mabye people are natuarlly suceptable to making those mistakes, but that's no reason to encourage them. What's worse is that I bet most of the people who write books and give sermons on those subjects do understand the inherent flaws. A teacher can't teach without understanding more than the student.

I don't have a problem with God, or the idea of God, or even the desire for the idea of God. My problem is with people who work really hard to keep other people ignorant and powerless. There are several theories involving God that aren't logically flawed. Why not teach those?

hmmm i often see this from some people i mingle with. common thing i found is that they have a strong faith based on their grandeur idea of what a supreme being is based on their understanding of scriptures most often relayed by religious authorities. then when the an experience comes that is gravely contrary to their idea of god, they question or hate god for it. i do think that for people to better understand what god is is to let go of their pre-conceived notions and undergo a gestalt shift on their ideas and accept what reality is with a god. life's a dice and everything can happen and that we cannot escape. not all priests, rabbi can give an answer to all our experiences as what you've pointed out. and as what you've also said, most are aware of this flaws however, due to their preconceived notions, they would tend to skew the scriptures so as to save "their idea of religion or god" just to keep people; thus, what you were pointing out, herding. we cannot deny "herding" as part of religion. what i do understand about religion is a way to organize people based on a belief of a certain god. on another light, it could be helpful because it gives it's believers a guide on how to face things in life but then we cannot deny self-righteous and solipsistic individuals...

hmmm...(3rd hmm hehehe) i don't see something bad with religion per se or supreme being per se. it's the people relaying to people their interpretations for something incomprehensible... which i think is tantamount to another thread on overreading wherein people set a certain standard on interpreting a certain text. to give an analogy, we are just blind people touching an elephant and we're trying to speculate about the "thing"...

to end stuff... a sufi tale:

once a upon a time there lived a religious man in a holy land. the locals respect him as god's steward of their land hence making him a holy man. one day, the holy man's son claimed his inheritance to start his own life in another land. carrying a sack load of his belongings and a donkey as his own companion, he left his home. the son travelled for agonizing weeks under the scorching heat of the sun. eventually his donkey died. worrying what would his destiny would be in the desert after his donkey died, he became depressed and mourned for days... til his donkey rotted. to his surprise, he saw people around him, chanting their prayers and singing songs, among the crowd was his father who approached him. the son, eager to see his father, hugged him and asked him what the people are doing. his father said, "they think you are a holy man and for them this is a holy," he was shocked and replied discreetly, "i'm not praying... my donkey died here!" his father smiled and whispered, "don't worry my son, i am not a holy man too. my camel died where our home, the holy land, stands."
fixed broken quote tags

[blueback]

Study the approaches for yourself; you'll get no learning accomplished if I give it to you. Just try to ignore the badly informed. Things can genuinely dwell where they are, without the immediate representatives of such things being at all competent at their representation. So much is approximated according to understanding.


Soooo. . .you don't know what it means either? *It sounds like more "go with me on this" and I already said that I don't do that. *I'm an INTJ; if something doesn't lead to actionable information it is not important. *Maybe an INTP would be interested, someone who wants to explore ideas just for the heck of it.


Those who do not draw distinctions according to qualities both external and internal to a category will end up interacting with them inappropriately.


You can split hairs all you want, but fiction is still fiction. *Sure, some of it might be more inspired by actual events than other bits of it, but as long as any piece of it is made up it is still fiction. *Anything which the author must admit they made up is in the category of fiction. *Anything which the author can back up with actual events is outside the category of fiction. *Now, when it comes to the question of how much proof one needs to elevate their work from fiction to non-fiction you have yourself a debate.


The Zen was a paraphrase of what you were essentially saying, in the bit that I quoted above the Zen.
If you find flaws of logic in that paraphrase, good, because you were meant to.
It was also hoped, however, that you would catch onto its mirroring function.


Yeah, I got the heebie-jeebies when I read it. *Come on. *Anyone can write down two sentences that sound really similar but reverse the subject. *That doesn't mean they have anything special to say. *Besides, if you take them literally no one should be saying anything. *Since you could divide the population up into two groups, those who have "fundamental ground" and those who don't, and both of those groups should remain silent, the whole population should be silent. *which means the guy who wrote that is full of it because by his own logic he shouldn't be saying anything at all. *Are you going to listen to someone who doesn't even listen to themselves?


One fundamental presumption that's being made is that the universe is quantitative.
I don't know that this is accurate.

The question being asked, overall, is whether the quantitative and qualitative can be mixed effectively.
The answer is yes - but only with the recognition that there is no actual quantity or absolute measure of quantity involved.
All integrals are ad hoc and imposed.

By setting up 'end-points' to a continuum one cannot derive a fully accurate representation of that continuum - only an approximation.


I don't recall every saying that the universe is quantitative, but I'll take the bait. *Technically, the universe is quantifiable. *With enough numbers you can measure anything in relation to anything else. *That is the key: all measurements are relationships. *So yes, it is accurate to say the universe is quantitative simply because you can predict the behavior of the system by relating one piece of it to another. *Now, you can't always get a good prediction (uncertanty, chaos theory, etc) but it's still better than a wild-ass-guess. *Math works; you can't argue with that.

Besides, to understand the whole "continuum" you would have to understand infinity. *Since no one ever has I can only speculate, but I speculate that you would have to be infinite yourself (or bigger than that) to understand. *So it's moot to talk about actually fully understanding the whole "continuum". *We work with what we have in the place we are, and the simple fact that we have limits only justifies our continued efforts to overcome them.

[blueback]

i do admit that buying this concept kinda puzzles me because it's portraying that god is an evil god that you still have to pray just to get what you want and if you don't pray that hard, he won't give you what you want. however, viewing it from another perspective, by the word "test" as we all know it from school, we get pop quizzes from time to time.

whatever the result would be we have to study again for a better result in the next exam. i do think it's tantamount with life. god gives people certain tests to make them better individuals.

to tie things up whether reincarnation is true or not, it only boils to one idea... learning. god wants us to learn as the way i see it. hmm...


I pulled out the few things you said about prayer, since that was the subject of my "thought experiment". I'm not sure why you wandered into subjects like testing and reincarnation, but I do get the impression you are agreeing with me that prayer doesn't have any effect. Since, if it did, you would have talked about it a bit more.


i do think that for people to better understand what god is is to let go of their pre-conceived notions and undergo a gestalt shift on their ideas and accept what reality is with a god. life's a dice and everything can happen and that we cannot escape.

not all priests, rabbi can give an answer to all our experiences as what you've pointed out. and as what you've also said, most are aware of this flaws however, due to their preconceived notions, they would tend to skew the scriptures so as to save "their idea of religion or god" just to keep people; thus, what you were pointing out, herding.

we cannot deny "herding" as part of religion. what i do understand about religion is a way to organize people based on a belief of a certain god. on another light, it could be helpful because it gives it's believers a guide on how to face things in life but then we cannot deny self-righteous and solipsistic individuals...

hmmm...(3rd hmm hehehe) i don't see something bad with religion per se

we are just blind people touching an elephant and we're trying to speculate about the "thing"...


If life is dice then where is God? If faith alone has no effect on reality then it shouldn't matter at all.

So, if religion is a "guide" and we're all just trying to figure out what this "thing" is that we're touching then why does religion encourage people towards faith and away from rationality? We're composing guides, we're drawing objective evidence through our senses, that sounds like science to me. I propose a different parable, this one hasn't been written yet: Instead of a bunch of blind guys feeling an actual elephant what you have is a bunch of blind guys going mad from sensory depravation and describing the thing they imagine they are touching. After all, when it comes down to it "we" are just lumps of tissue locked up in a box. All our information about the world gets piped into the box through chemical and electrical signals which we translate. If you've ever seen the jibberish that opening a document in the wrong program can generate than you understand that "we" can go very wrong without ever realizing it.

That suggests to me that we should treat everything new like a blind man. We should gather as much information as possible and analyze it based on past experience. Blind people who make regular "leaps of faith" don't live very long.

[matthew]

Soooo. . .you don't know what it means either? It sounds like more "go with me on this" and I already said that I don't do that. I'm an INTJ; if something doesn't lead to actionable information it is not important. Maybe an INTP would be interested, someone who wants to explore ideas just for the heck of it.
In general, what you can take from the Kena Upanishad is that Brahman is a gnoseological problem outside of the categories you're attempting to encounter it within. It should not be a surprise that if a strawman category is posited, it is seen to not contain the object which it is supposed to. Strangely enough, you have repeated this exact same mistake twice now, by ignoring the actual content of my sub-response in favour of the direction advised subsequently. If you continue to do this, I'm simply not going to bother responding to you, as you will have demonstrated yourself to be useless to converse with.

If you wish to make the determination that the subject is itself not "actionable" then you are well advised to forget any sort of criticism of religion generally - it is you who raised the topic, and thus you who are presumably motivated to acquire responses. If you wish to simply "tilt at the wheel" there are other places to troll.

If you want a more detailed investigation of the Kena Upanishad particularly, make a thread for it, and have an opinion within that thread. I am no Brahmin priest, to teach Vedantic doxologies. I am also not going to simply impose an opinion upon you, although I am willing (at the moment) to show you the flaws in your thought. Finding these flaws, you may be directed toward a coherent personal opinion of your own - or not, as you choose.


You can split hairs all you want, but fiction is still fiction.

If you're willing to cede the point that fiction is just as capable of communicating wisdom as any given set of facts, then I don't care what you call it frankly. I am a Buddhist, I don't primarily care how you define your piece of the illusion - it's more about the extent to which it causes you and others to suffer.


which means the guy who wrote that is full of it because by his own logic he shouldn't be saying anything at all. Are you going to listen to someone who doesn't even listen to themselves?
"I don't care how much someone writes about their belief, it's still a belief. At some point, no matter how eloquent they are, they have to say "Just go with me on this." Well, I don't follow anyone simply because they think I should and I don't think anyone else should either."

The problem is that this is the consequence of what you've expressed, in the quote I've given you again. Underpinnings of epistemological relativism as well, which is rather unfortunate, but one thing at a time.


I don't recall every saying that the universe is quantitative, but I'll take the bait. Technically, the universe is quantifiable. With enough numbers you can measure anything in relation to anything else. That is the key: all measurements are relationships. So yes, it is accurate to say the universe is quantitative simply because you can predict the behavior of the system by relating one piece of it to another. Now, you can't always get a good prediction (uncertainty, chaos theory, etc) but it's still better than a wild-ass-guess. Math works; you can't argue with that.

Besides, to understand the whole "continuum" you would have to understand infinity. Since no one ever has I can only speculate, but I speculate that you would have to be infinite yourself (or bigger than that) to understand. So it's moot to talk about actually fully understanding the whole "continuum". We work with what we have in the place we are, and the simple fact that we have limits only justifies our continued efforts to overcome them.

You seem to have ceded this sub-argument.

You've inserted a few corollary assumptions of your own, but that's provisionally fine.
You seem to get the basic point here.

[blueback]

Strangely enough, you have repeated this exact same mistake twice now, by ignoring the actual content of my sub-response in favour of the direction advised subsequently.


No, I didn't. I read the text you sent me to and had no idea where to start interpreting it. I asked you to give me some context and you replied that you weren't going to help me because then I wouldn't learn anything. Then you said that it describes a problem that is outside of the area I'm trying to interpret it in, but you didn't tell me what area it IS in. I don't see why you keep trying to "explain" an idea you think will help me by telling me I'm just too dense to get it on my own. If it's a good idea, with a bunch of wisdom in it, it must be encoded in some sort of pattern. Give me a hint, show me how to unpack the data with an example and I'll be able to understand the rest on my own.


If you wish to make the determination that the subject is itself not "actionable" then you are well advised to forget any sort of criticism of religion generally - it is you who raised the topic, and thus you who are presumably motivated to acquire responses. If you wish to simply "tilt at the wheel" there are other places to troll.


The goal of this discussion, at least my goal, is to see if we can come to some sort of consensus on the topic of religion. My thesis is that religion encourages people to be less rational and that that is a bad thing. I presented theories to support my thesis. If my theories are solid then we (or I) can move forward to a new discussion of how to fix the problem. If my theories are not solid, then it would be nice for the discussion to lead to either better theories or new theories. The thing you pointed me towards is not actionable because it is a dead end, at least it is until you explain how to unpack the meaning in it.


If you want a more detailed investigation of the Kena Upanishad particularly, make a thread for it, and have an opinion within that thread. I am no Brahmin priest, to teach Vedantic doxologies. I am also not going to simply impose an opinion upon you, although I am willing (at the moment) to show you the flaws in your thought. Finding these flaws, you may be directed toward a coherent personal opinion of your own - or not, as you choose.


You don't have to be an expert. All you have to do is explain how you got meaning out of it. You haven't done that yet. If you, for example, take a specific passage and "translate" it then I might be able to see the pattern and translate the rest of them on my own. THEN you can show me the flaws in my thought. I haven't thought anything about the Upanishads yet because they are gibberish to me. If the meaning within them can be translated then it should be, if it can't be then why are you referencing them?


If you're willing to cede the point that fiction is just as capable of communicating wisdom as any given set of facts, then I don't care what you call it frankly. I am a Buddhist, I don't primarily care how you define your piece of the illusion - it's more about the extent to which it causes you and others to suffer.


No, I don't concede that point. Facts don't communicate wisdom. Actually, wisdom is pretty much outside the definition of facts. Fiction, on the other hand, can communicate wisdom because humans only learn through experience. We have to actually do something before we truly understand it and fiction provides a sort of "simulation" of possible events that allows us to test and develop theories. Its our imagination, after all, that allows us to think abstractly.

However, that is off-topic. The reason we started talking about fiction is that I said fiction doesn't convey facts. Just like wisdom is outside of facts, facts are outside of fiction. To write fiction you have to imagine possible facts and then write them down. Therefore, ficiton is not something you should reference when you're backing up your view of the world. That is why I put the Bible and Harry Potter on equal ground in regards to their factual content. Perhaps I should have choosen a work of historical fiction, maybe something by Michael Crichton, instead of pure fantasy. Never the less, the vast majority of the words in the Bible describe imaginary events. Since the Bible is a work of historical fiction it should be studied as such. It should not be lent an air of authority it does not deserve.

The Bible is the way a certain group of people "defined their piece of the illusion." But at least they tried. They put their theories out there and said "Hey world. This is what we think and we are right." I've read a lot of good things in Buddhism that are very straight forward and easy to apply in the real world. Why not reference those? If you're going to point me towards a source of information that is coded in such a way that the interpretation isn't immediately obvious then you should at least give me a hint as to how to interpret it.

[Tarrick]

Sigh.

1: We won't ever agreed on religion

2: Saying religion encourages people to be less rational is about as correct as saying the universe spontaneously appeared with no conceivable cause.

3: Saying the bible is about as accurate as Harry Potter with no basis other then claiming it's impossible just tells me you want to pick a fight instead of discussing the possibility of God and religion.

[Rei]

Sigh.

1: We won't ever agreed on religion

2: Saying religion encourages people to be less rational is about as correct as saying the universe spontaneously appeared with no conceivable cause.

3: Saying the bible is about as accurate as Harry Potter with no basis other then claiming it's impossible just tells me you want to pick a fight instead of discussing the possibility of God and religion.
And the Tarrick has formed a come back.

[blueback]

Sigh.


Non-verbal communication is hard to do on the internet. *


1: We won't ever agreed on religion


What exactly is the point of a discussion board where everyone agrees? *


2: Saying religion encourages people to be less rational is about as correct as saying the universe spontaneously appeared with no conceivable cause.


So. . .you dropped out of the discussion a long time ago because you couldn't come up with answers to my specific questions and now you're back with your super heroes StrawMan and the Red Herring? *Seriously dude, the board you moderate is full of text and you couldn't find one quote to respond to. *You just took weeks of discussion, scanned it for a phrase, and dismissed the phrase as absurd. *

Lets play with some definitions. *
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Rational: "Consistent with or based on reason/logic."
Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"
Logic: "The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events"
Discourage: "To try to prevent by expressing disapproval or raising objections"

Okay, those are the definitions of the words I'm using when I say that faith discourages rationality. *Because religion specifically and regularly tells people that faith is not only good, but vitally necessary, it discourages them from rationality. *Rationality is based on the the logical relationship between things which is different from faith which is based on itself. *So, even in the hypothetical world of definitions we can see that faith discourages rationality, let alone in the real world.

Your little quip about by statement being as absurd as making an absurd claim about the origin of the universe is off base on pretty much every point. *Not only is what I said about faith accurate, I never claimed the universe spontaneously appeared so putting that in the same sentence with something I did say is blatantly misleading.



3: Saying the bible is about as accurate as Harry Potter with no basis other then claiming it's impossible just tells me you want to pick a fight instead of discussing the possibility of God and religion.


I'm going to answer these charges in reverse order.

I don't want to discuss the possibility of God or religion. *That would not be a discussion. *You can't debate whether or not God "exists" because you can't produce emperical evidence one way or another. *There is nothing to relate God to so logic doesn't apply to God. *God is inherently outside of any possible framework. *As for religon, it already exists. *I have no interest in talking about whether or not religion exists because the discussion I am interested in is based on the idea that religion already exists.

I don't want to pick a fight. *How could I even do that on the internet, anyway? *Even if we obeyed Goddard's law and compared someone to Hitler we wouldn't be in a fight, just a juvenile argument.

I'm doing my best to ensure that you can't possibly misinterpret the things I'm saying but apparently you are still managing to "be told" something which contradicts what I am attempting to "tell you." *I'll try harder, if you really are interested, or you could go away again.

I never "claimed it was impossible." *I said that the Bible is historical fiction. *I can't go back in time and check to see if any of the things that are written in the Bible actually happened, but neither can you. *Therefore, it must be evaluated according to the same standards of every other literary work. *It's historical because it involves people and events that are corroborated by other sources and it's fictional because it involves magic; unless you want to start in on a seperate debate about whether or not magic exists now or existed a long time ago. *I can't say for sure what is impossible, no one can. *What I can say is that the logical way to interpret the Bible is as a work of historical fiction. . .and if you want to get really specific: historical fantasy. *That interpretation is based on evaluating the Bible according to the same standards you would evaluate any random book you found. *Feel free to argue my logical interpretation, but don't put words in my mouth.

I actually amended my comparison between the Bible and Harry Potter to one involving something by Michael Crichton because I realized that Harry Potter is pure fantasy, not historical fantasy. *But you missed that, didn't you. *But, beyond that, it doesn't matter what specific book I might use to draw your attention to the idea of fiction. *Only someone who was personally offended by the comparison would go to the trouble of misinterpreting that point. *Did you get the feeling I was attacking you through your allegiance to the Bible? *That's too bad, because I'm not.

Stop turning this logical discussion into an emotional battle. *You did that at the beginning and you're doing it now. *Emotion clouds your rational mind. *I know you're being emotional because you have yet to respond logically to anything I've posted.

[wise]

Sigh.


Non-verbal communication is hard to do on the internet.

In context, this non-verbal communication was clear. Someone of your intelligence surely understood that.

Also, here's a more thorough definition of "faith":

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

In context, this non-verbal communication was clear. Someone of your intelligence surely understood that.


If that was the only thing in my post you had a problem with then. . .thanks!

[wise]

If that was the only thing in my post you had a problem with then. . .thanks!

An expected answer.

[Chainsaw Dundee]

Seriously, how can people hold both those ideas in their head at the same time?

Doublethink!


Another instance of double think that I like is:
God is loving, tolerant, and will forgive you for all your sins no matter what
If you piss god off, you will endure his merciless wrath, and be sent directly to hell(do not pass go, do not collect $200)

and this one:

God is all powerful, and singlehandedly created the Earth, stars, and sliced bread.
God needs your measly monetary donations, because despite his omnipotence and power, he can't conjure up a $2000 suit and Cadillac for the preacher to wear.

I'd have to say hardcore Christianity is the worst, but Im not saying most other religions don't disgust me as well.

Religion is a representation of humanities' gullibility and inability of individuality.

[StJimmy]

after reading this thread i can't help but conclude that the time of such clearly intelligent people would be so much better spent pursuing more tangibly productive lines of thought.

i could write pages and pages of bullshit about how contemptible organized religion has become, but really i find that if one hasn't already come to that conclusion on his/her own they will very seldom be persuaded otherwise by mere words.

[terencec]

Doublethink!


Another instance of double think that I like is:
God is loving, tolerant, and will forgive you for all your sins no matter what
If you piss god off, you will endure his merciless wrath, and be sent directly to hell(do not pass go, do not collect $200)

and this one:

God is all powerful, and singlehandedly created the Earth, stars, and sliced bread.
God needs your measly monetary donations, because despite his omnipotence and power, he can't conjure up a $2000 suit and Cadillac for the preacher to wear.

I'd have to say hardcore Christianity is the worst, but Im not saying most other religions don't disgust me as well.

Religion is a representation of humanities' gullibility and inability of individuality.

Even though I think regilion cannot be absolutely rational, I believe it is much better to have regilion "for the world".

In China, there has no regilion for long time because communist does not want anyone has any regilion (worried regilion will overturn communist). Without any regilion and moral, many people in China make money by any mean, they even use cheap poison chemical as baby food. Most people in China only believe in money and this is very dangerous. On the other hand, India is very poor country and the country is relatively stable because most indian has regilion. The poor Indian believe that the next life will be better as long as they are "good citizen" in present life . It helps Inida to cope with the poverty.

So, I believe it is "rational for the world" to have regilion as long as people still have freedom of speech (not like the dark age) and freedom to believe or not.

I believe regilion brings more good things than bad things for the world. That is what most important. Even if God does not exist, I believe the world should have religion. It is based on the reason above.

[stasis]

What exactly is the point of a discussion board where everyone agrees?
Agreed. Would you say that's an uncommon sentiment for an INTJ to display? A subject upon which people will never agree would produce nothing of substance but the exploration of the subject itself, would it not? I thought you guys hated that kind of exercise. Presumably Tarrick is saying that he doesn't ultimately expect to get anything worthwhile out of this particular exchange, not that he expects everybody to automatically agree. I might be wrong about that though.


Okay, those are the definitions of the words I'm using when I say that faith discourages rationality. Because religion specifically and regularly tells people that faith is not only good, but vitally necessary, it discourages them from rationality.
"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore." - Martin Luther (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Some religious sects certainly discourage rationality. Others (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), not so much. What's interesting about the modern pop-theological debate is its emphasis on the virtue of reason and logic. The rapid and profound material successes of the scientific method have imbued the rational-skeptical dialectic with a cultural inertia that it did not previously enjoy. While I must concur with what another user said about theology and science being distinct and not necessarily conflicting disciplines - reason and faith can readily coexist without conflict or incident - it seems that the philosophy of science has social implications regarding what is considered 'analytical potency' which can readily conflict with a great deal of theology. What I would advocate, then, is to avoid looking at the question as being a boolean "religion vs reason" issue to begin with. I think it depends on the religion and the context of the conflict.



i could write pages and pages of bullshit about how contemptible organized religion has become, but really i find that if one hasn't already come to that conclusion on his/her own they will very seldom be persuaded otherwise by mere words.
That's interesting. By saying so, aren't you saying as such that reason is generally impotent to sway people from one conviction to another? And if so, aren't you establishing that the non-rational argument has some kind of significant value?