NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it just me? Does this Iakeokeo guy's posts make sense to anyone here? Maybe it's just me.

The answer Garak is because most religions, especially Christian and Moslem, beleive that it's their duty to convert the world to their brand of belief. They want it in the schools, in the government, everywhere. Most Atheists don't give a damn about religion, except that religion wants to rule our society.

I don't care what believers do in their own homes, or in their churches. But when their belief controls and rules our schools, our courts, our entertainment, and our freedom, I take a personal interest. If I go before a judge who has the ten commandments on the wall behind him, how do I know if I'm going to be judged fairly? Why should our children are forced to recite a prayer in school, regardless of their beliefs. Why can't I buy a beer or a certain kind of music in some places because some religous group claims that it's "immoral."

That is what Atheists are fighting against.

You don't have to be an athiest to fight against that impulse, old bud..! :)

That's the market of interests that we call "LIFE".

Using your energy to promote your "agenda" is what we call "LIVING".

Have fun, or not, at the Kazbah..! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Is it just me? Does this Iakeokeo guy's posts make sense to anyone here? Maybe it's just me.

What is your question..?

What doesn't make sense..?

Do you speak english..?

:)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Something defined AS *THE* (singular) absolute is by definition not redefinable, and therefore redefining it on a personal whim is embracing a logical contradiction as a logical non-contradiction.
Newsflash: not everybody uses your unintelligable definition of God. Details at 11.

God might exist, or he might not. Certain people may have an imperfect understanding of the world that causes them to believe in one or the other. When their understanding improves or changes, they may change their belief.

As childish as it gets actually.
No, THIS is childish: *whacks Iakeokeo on the head with a hammer*

Is it just me? Does this Iakeokeo guy's posts make sense to anyone here? Maybe it's just me.
The sense to his posts "just is". You do not need to "understand" it for it to be "true".[/sarcasm]

What is your question..?

What doesn't make sense..?

Do you speak english..?

:)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"
1 English is my native tongue
2 I said that I beleived god existed. You seemed to be saying that once you beleive something that beleif can never be changed. It seemed that you were also saying that you had more insight into the workings of my mind than I did because you stated that I never really beleived. (I find that rather insulting) I was questioning whether I was really getting your point because those statements seem rather absurd to me.

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

Proof for the Big-Bang:

1. Expansion of the Universe. Galaxies that are further away seem to recede at a faster rate from us, while those closer seem to do it slower, just like if galaxies were dots in a balloon being inflated.

2. Background cosmic radiation. The Universe is not totally cold, but at something like 3 degrees kelvin, no matter were you point your radiotelescope you will be able to hear this radiation. It is the leftover of the biggest explosion ever.

3. It fits very well with current relativity, thermodynamic and quantum theories. Ok, this is not proof by itself, but at least observations of the current working of the universe doesn't contradict it.

Proof for God:

1. Erm... mmh... some people who say some book says there is one...

My statement is simple, to prove God doesn't exist is like proving the world is flat. Why do people rationalise so fast without knowing all the facts? The answers do sit all over history. How many people know of the war Constantine had PX "in this name conquer" or how everything the bible spoke of has been happening. History tells us one thing, there was never a time God stopped showing us he existed, and he always let our free will reign. If you believe otherwise, well then, I'd love to have a history debate with you. Ps. the bible repeats numbers such as 7, 49, 70 times 7 over and over, if God were to really explain how the world was created he would have had to make a million books, and the early christians probibly would have shot themselves for seeing the amount of data there was, the bible never says anything about creation, although there are alot in the west that say otherwise, they don't know alot and just because the big bang happened doesn't mean that God didn't start it, how much percent was there for a big bang to occur? 1 in a million? what about bacteria growing humans? 1 in a million?

The sense to his posts "just is". You do not need to "understand" it for it to be "true".[/sarcasm]

Milostein doth speaketh the truth..!

:)

By the way,... "just is" is an ENTIRELY different deity, as should be obvious to anyone with the requisite "Deities of the Lost Mind" textbook.

Now class......


"it is" = absolute singular thingy that simply is

I now personally believe that "it is" exists for me.

(3 seconds later, that same day...)

I now personally believe that "it is" does not exist for me.

Why did this belief change?

What could change my belief?

..Class..? Class..? Beuller..? Beuller..?


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

how much percent was there for a big bang to occur? 1 in a million? what about bacteria growing humans? 1 in a million?
(Wow. Hope you don't mind I cut up your run-on sentence.)

I think the chance is much less than one in a million. However, that is irrelevant.

Throw a die. The chance that you get a six is one in 6 - about 17%. Now throw a die ten times. The chance that one of them is a six is now more like 84%. Now throw the die a thousand times. The chance that one of them is a six is now almost 100%.

The chances of life occuring and evolving into a sentient species are very small, but that is not important, because they had billions of years to try.

Milostein doth speaketh the truth..!
*whacks Iakeokeo with a hard-cover dictionary* Do you know what sarcasm is?

"it is" = absolute singular thingy that simply is

I now personally believe that "it is" exists for me.

(3 seconds later, that same day...)

I now personally believe that "it is" does not exist for me.

Why did this belief change?

What could change my belief?
Because you decided that is ridiculous for any single entity to be absolute, let alone that such an absolute singular thingy is sentient, personally interested in you, and guiding you.

chill out people....i thought this thread was about religion not god?....personally i hate religion...and i have nt made up my mind about god/allah yet....

The answer to the original question in the thread is obviously 'no' because there are different ones, and even within each one people disagree....may be the Qu'ran is right as this has (i believe) a clause that does not allow it to be interperated or translated etc... unlike the bible which appears in different versions, edited by 'normal' people...


the basic idea that religion is !#^?....seems to me the strongest evidence that their might be a god.

sorry if i offend

1 English is my native tongue
2 I said that I beleived god existed. You seemed to be saying that once you beleive something that beleif can never be changed. It seemed that you were also saying that you had more insight into the workings of my mind than I did because you stated that I never really beleived. (I find that rather insulting) I was questioning whether I was really getting your point because those statements seem rather absurd to me.

There are many things that we might find "insulting" that are merely insulting because we take them to be insulting to us. A bug on the windshield comes to mind. But then,... see it from the bug's perspective.

I am not saying that once you believe in "SOMETHING" that your belief can never change.

I am saying that when you believe in "it is", it is impossible to change your belief because it is impossible, by definition, to NOT believe in "it is".

Actually, I'm also saying that we all, inherently, know that what MUST be believed in (the most extreme form of the obvious) MUST BE BELIEVED IN, and all embellishments (anything more than the simple truth that "it is") are expendable, which makes us wary (rightly!) of the trappings of "religion" and causes the inherent anxiety that everyone feels about anything religious.

At least athiests realize that the trappings are expendable.

What they fail to do is to see anything BUT the trappings.

No one can "see into" other's minds.

I'm merely stating that the tree is not the leaves, they fall,.. the tree is not the branches, they break,.. the tree is not the trunk, it burns,... the tree is not even "the tree", it can totally go away in substance,... the tree is "it is"...!

Abstract enough for ya'..! :)

I'm not meaning to pick on anyone. Just to explain a pespective that seems annoying, and therefore probably of interest, to a few folks.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

*whacks Iakeokeo with a hard-cover dictionary* Do you know what sarcasm is?


Because you decided that is ridiculous for any single entity to be absolute, let alone that such an absolute singular thingy is sentient, personally interested in you, and guiding you.

Hmmmm,... I do not think "it is" is sentient, personally interested in me (or my dog), and it only guides me by being there,.. which is pretty much ALL that it can actually DO..! :)

The concept of "the absolute" is, by definition, based in faith, as no "thing" (other than "it is") can possibly perceive it.

And "it is" doesn't CARE to perceive itself, as it's only job is to be "it is"..! :)

Thus,... the basis of faith. Accepting the absolute.

And one of the lovely things about "it is" is that it fragments so nicely into what we see around us, as well as what we don't see, and gives us many MANY things to do with our time.

So,... my essential answer to the question posed by this thread: Religion (as I define it for myself which is the only meaningful definition I can have) is supremely true, constant, and actually helpful.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

chill out people....i thought this thread was about religion not god?....personally i hate religion...and i have nt made up my mind about god/allah yet....

The answer to the original question in the thread is obviously 'no' because there are different ones, and even within each one people disagree....may be the Qu'ran is right as this has (i believe) a clause that does not allow it to be interperated or translated etc... unlike the bible which appears in different versions, edited by 'normal' people...


the basic idea that religion is !#^?....seems to me the strongest evidence that their might be a god.

sorry if i offend

I find it funny that you would differentiate god from allah. :)

What is religion if not a "dealing with the question of god"..?

Do have fun with the complexities of life, old pal. You seem to be confusing religion with various social institutions, which will feed right into what the evil mullahs and evil crusaders want to do with your person.

How do you say "martyr belt"...?


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Hmmmm,... I do not think "it is" is sentient, personally interested in me (or my dog), and it only guides me by being there,.. which is pretty much ALL that it can actually DO..! :)
So, how has it guided you? What has "it is" ever done to change what you intend to do?

My statement is simple, to prove God doesn't exist is like proving the world is flat. Why do people rationalise so fast without knowing all the facts?


So is trying to prove God does exist. Scientifically, I mean. Because you can make the philosophical/moral case for the existence of God, but since science limits itself only to measurable observable phenomena the whole area of God or Gods falls beyond its reach.

That's why I find it annoying when people want to disprove science to prove God, or find God through science.


The answers do sit all over history. How many people know of the war Constantine had PX "in this name conquer" or how everything the bible spoke of has been happening. History tells us one thing, there was never a time God stopped showing us he existed, and he always let our free will reign.


Yes, but how do we know if God really made the cross in the sky for Constantine to see and it simply wasn't an illusion, meteorite, dellusion, made it up or was simple added later as part of a legend or myth. Much is open to interpretation, since many times little physical and direct evidence is left. Plus, what of the other religions, then? Sacred books like the Bhaghavad Gita, the Quran, and the Popol Vuh are also full of prophecies and miracles and divine presences. What are we to make of them?


If you believe otherwise, well then, I'd love to have a history debate with you.


Sure, go ahead. But try to organize your ideas and write them more clearly. It's really difficult to follow your arguments if you write like this. Also, try not to rant, but present logically tied arguments. And check your facts.


know alot and just because the big bang happened doesn't mean that God didn't start it, how much percent was there for a big bang to occur? 1 in a million? what about bacteria growing humans? 1 in a million?

Yes, but however small the probability was for the Big Bang to occur and for a world to evolve life, we are dealing with staggering amounts of time and space, so it's almost certain that even very improbable things will happen.

Edit: Some problem with the quote-unquote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Hmmmm,... I do not think "it is" is sentient, personally interested in me (or my dog), and it only guides me by being there,.. which is pretty much ALL that it can actually DO..!


So, how has it guided you? What has "it is" ever done to change what you intend to do?

I have thanked "it is" many times for stop signs.

:)

Seriously,.. the world is a marvelous place to explore and learn-into, as it were.

Have you ever surfed? You must take your cues about what you CAN do from what is happening at each moment, then you try to guide that which is guiding you to accomplish something that you want to do.

Observation of "it is" is the very basis of science.

It's also the very basis of doing ANYTHING in the world. Admitting that you are not capable of understanding everything, yet allowing the knowledge that the world (IT) is (IS) built for you to work within, because you are a part of it, and not some alien non-world accident, is energizing and comforting.

Among other great emotions,.. like inspiring and astounding and tired. :)

Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha nui loa..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Is it just me? Does this Iakeokeo guy's posts make sense to anyone here? Maybe it's just me.
he's just one of those who try to show God exists by making "God" so abstract that there is no basis for discussion. as he put it, for him God is the statement "it is."

it's much like people who define God as "love." i don't see any point to it, personally, but i also don't really care.

You kind of have to wonder though, a force of 3,000 against a force of 50,000 . . . how did the 3 win? Before i continue i'd just like to say even Aethiesm is a religion, look how hard they try to disprove that God doesn't exist. Did you ever watch a kid play peekaboo with his mother? Look how fast he forgets his mother is by him as soon as he covers his eyes. . . Well, apparently thats how i see aethiests . . . Cover your eyes for a second and you forget. Back to the war thingy, he predicted that he was going to win, he stated to his troops before he fought about the outcome, and he barely lost any troops. . . . I think if i am still correct the American army this year with iraq lost more men than Constantines troops, and the opposing army of Constantine lost 3/4 of their army. .. . Like my point was before, if you cover your eyes for a second, don't forget who's next to you. . . . Unless you think it would be cool to make mommy dissapear forever . . . .

and don't you think that eternal bliss would get boring after a while?
You're assuming bliss (or the afterlife, for that matter) comes with consciousness.

You kind of have to wonder though, a force of 3,000 against a force of 50,000 . . . how did the 3 win?
It depends...seriously. I do not think it is completely unfeasable idea. You'd have to question the skill of the generals in charge, as well as chance/luck. You'd also have to take into account the geography of the battlefield. You can't just look at numbers and said God did it.

Well the battle was done against a highly advanced army, the battlefield was in their country, and the odds were against them, . . . did i leave anything out? hmm, i think i've been reading too many history books :-D

Well the battle was done against a highly advanced army, the battlefield was in their country, and the odds were against them, . . . did i leave anything out? hmm, i think i've been reading too many history books :-D
Yea. You left essentially everything out. I don't want to debate this because I don't know where to find this info and you can't give an unbiased opinion of it (no one can).

Everyone generally has a system of beliefs....call it a "religion." Even if it is literally that there is no esoteric force at work, only the manifest things we see around us....that is still a cosmology of sorts. The fact is that there are a plethora of systems of beliefs out there. Who knows what is truth?

The simplest expanation for me is to reduce humans to their form...that is the form of an Animal. As animals, we are born and we die. The difference is that humans possess an unparalleled conscious thought process, so we question our existence. The fact that we can ask ourselves "Why are we here?" or "What is our purpose?" is the reason why we believe in ( or have developed) these "religions." Likely it is the insecurity of the human being not knowing the answer to the question of our existence that brings cosmologies about. From my vantage point, I do not think that a dog, cat, bird etc. develop these intricate religious doctrines....likely because they dont question their existence...their level of consiousness is less than that of a human.

My "religion." We die and our biological components biodegrate and are amalgamated into the earth. Our electric or energies that are present are merely allowed to flow back into the atmosphere.

What controls all of this, or governs it? It is beyond human comprehension in my view. We may be smart animals, but there are forces at work that we are absolutely unable to comprehend.

You kind of have to wonder though, a force of 3,000 against a force of 50,000 . . .


I think the greeks were even more outnumbered in Marathon. A great number of factor could have influenced the result: terrain, tactics, strategy, logistics. And of course, confidence, since their leader had told them he had just had a vision from God, telling them they were going to win. Of course, what else was he going to say? Plus, had he lost how would history had recorded it?

So, a lot more context and background is needed before we can accept this one.


how did the 3 win? Before i continue i'd just like to say even Aethiesm is a religion, look how hard they try to disprove that God doesn't exist. Did you ever watch a kid play peekaboo with his mother? Look how fast he forgets his mother is by him as soon as he covers his eyes. . .


Yes, some atheists are stupid trying to prove God dosn't exist, in the same way that some theists are stupid trying to prove the opposite.

What you call proof is often a matter of interpretation, though. One side is no blinder than the other.

What priests? I am not Catholic, and have no priest. I am not Catholic because I belive that particular faith has strayed and become too secular. My God IS a loving God. However, there will always be consequences for your actions. If you know, in your life, that there may be a God, and you decide not to act on that knowledge, than you cannot ask for forgiveness AFTER you find out the truth. God will not wait until it is convenient for YOU to believe in him. If you do not recognize him, then he will not recognize you. It will be exactly as if he had disowned you.

Right... so if God is sooo loving and forgiving, and you decide you do believe in him after you find out he exists and you ask for forgiveness he would gladly turn his back on you and disown you? So he can forgive a rapist or a murderer and let them into heaven, but he can't forgive someone who just doesn't believe in him? Hmm, he sounds real fair to me. More like he's just in a huff cos no one wants to believe he's true.

My statement is simple, to prove God doesn't exist is like proving the world is flat. Why do people rationalise so fast without knowing all the facts? The answers do sit all over history. How many people know of the war Constantine had PX "in this name conquer" or how everything the bible spoke of has been happening. History tells us one thing, there was never a time God stopped showing us he existed, and he always let our free will reign. If you believe otherwise, well then, I'd love to have a history debate with you. Ps. the bible repeats numbers such as 7, 49, 70 times 7 over and over, if God were to really explain how the world was created he would have had to make a million books, and the early christians probibly would have shot themselves for seeing the amount of data there was, the bible never says anything about creation, although there are alot in the west that say otherwise, they don't know alot and just because the big bang happened doesn't mean that God didn't start it, how much percent was there for a big bang to occur? 1 in a million? what about bacteria growing humans? 1 in a million?
show me one specific prophecy from the bible that came true. Note that I said specific. I want names, dates, places and events. Not some vague statement that almost any event at almost any time in almost any place could satisfy.

You kind of have to wonder though, a force of 3,000 against a force of 50,000 . . . how did the 3 win? Before i continue i'd just like to say even Aethiesm is a religion, look how hard they try to disprove that God doesn't exist. Did you ever watch a kid play peekaboo with his mother? Look how fast he forgets his mother is by him as soon as he covers his eyes. . . Well, apparently thats how i see aethiests . . . Cover your eyes for a second and you forget. Back to the war thingy, he predicted that he was going to win, he stated to his troops before he fought about the outcome, and he barely lost any troops. . . . I think if i am still correct the American army this year with iraq lost more men than Constantines troops, and the opposing army of Constantine lost 3/4 of their army. .. . Like my point was before, if you cover your eyes for a second, don't forget who's next to you. . . . Unless you think it would be cool to make mommy dissapear forever . . . .
1 Atheism is not a religion. It's the beleif that there is no god.
2 I'll prove god doesn't exist when you prove my pet dragon doesn't exist.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.

meh, i'm hoping the hindhus are right. then we all go where we deserve to go rather than go somewhere based on what we believe in.

----"I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?"

Exactly, religion is suppose to be about a thing called faith (trust), either you have it or you dont.

People use faith in some form everyday and don't even think of it, we all believe in faith in our fellow man/woman in numerous ways. From the dude that manufactured the parts to your car or the assembler in the production line, all the way down to the people making the roadways and bridges. We even have faith in the dumbass speeding our way down our local 2 lane roads.

When we knock someone for having faith we also knock ourselves.

----"I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?"

Exactly, religion is suppose to be about a thing called faith (trust), either you have it or you dont.

People use faith in a some sort of form everyday and don't even think of it, we all believe in faith in our fellow man/woman in numerous ways. From the dude that manufactured the parts to your car or the assembler in the production line, all the way down to the people making the roadways and bridges. We even have faith in the dumbass speeding our way down our local 2 lane roads.

When we knock someone for having faith we also knock ourselves.
Is there no difference in having faith in an invisible guy who lives in the sky, had no beginning, has no end, and is somehow able to manufacture universes and living beings and having faith in the guy who assembles your car? At least we have a precedent to go on with the car guy. Most cars hold together fairly well. There's no real evidence for a creator.

how? anything you say could be explained by "the elves did it." to prove it was my finger that moved the pencil you would have to assume that by bringing my finger into contact with a pencil and exerting a force i will cause the pencil to move...that is an assumption of cause and effect.
Actually, that's a proof, not an assumption. "Assumption" is the process used to create the hypothesis. Then imagination and learning provide a demonstratable theory. "Proof" occurs when a theory is tested and supported by the evidence. The theory of cause-and-effect is tested here, and supported, hence "proven". If your theory is that the invisible elves moved the pencil, then this must be demonstratable, and that means without interference by you (since it could be you moving the pencil). So it must first be proven that there are invisible elves. If this can't be proven, then the cause-and-effect theory is the better theory to explain the situation.

But Atheists who believe in a short life, and that everything has a begining from chaos and an ending from chaos, how do you live your life? How do you go on knowing that everything you do is in vain, that anything you do in this world will be forgotten? I can't seem to understand this and doubt my faith.
Nothing we do is in vain. We live, we love, we die, and we are not forgotten by those who love us, by those whose lives we touched. Odd to think it's othewise.

----"Is there no difference in having faith in an invisible guy who lives in the sky, had no beginning, has no end, and is somehow able to manufacture universes and living beings and having faith in the guy who assembles your car? At least we have a precedent to go on with the car guy. Most cars hold together fairly well. There's no real evidence for a creator."

Hey, that's your perrogative to have more faith in your fellow man than God. You I and anyone else in a free country can have more faith in our gold fish if thats what we wanted to do.

I personally have very little faith in man, Iv'e had a part on my jeep fail the day I bought it new, another part fall off that day and Iv'e been in a head on collision due to some dumbass speeding my way. So you keep your faith in man, and I'll keep mine in God. I care not one bit of any other mans (nor should anyone else) belief since faith is the one common denominator we all use in one form or another. I am a Christian, and I also have a no solicitor sign that says "No Marketing pitches of any kind, Including your God"

Now I do not ever press my opinion on another so don't press your's about how great imperfect man is. :)

----"Is there no difference in having faith in an invisible guy who lives in the sky, had no beginning, has no end, and is somehow able to manufacture universes and living beings and having faith in the guy who assembles your car? At least we have a precedent to go on with the car guy. Most cars hold together fairly well. There's no real evidence for a creator."

Hey, that's your perrogative to have more faith in your fellow man than God. You I and anyone else in a free country can have more faith in our gold fish if thats what we wanted to do.

I personally have very little faith in man, Iv'e had a part on my jeep fail the day I bought it new, another part fall off that day and Iv'e been in a head on collision due to some dumbass speeding my way. So you keep your faith in man, and I'll keep mine in God. I care not one bit of any other mans (nor should anyone else) belief since faith is the one common denominator we all use in one form or another. I am a Christian, and I also have a no solicitor sign that says "No Marketing pitches of any kind, Including your God"

Now I do not ever press my opinion on another so don't press your's about how great imperfect man is. :)
I've seen cars that work. I haven't seen deities. Without evidence to support their existance why is it rational to beleive in them?

LMAO! I guess thats for you to find out buddy, since we both know there are things out there that can not be explained but we know exists, your part way there. If you would ask any Christian (any person from any religion I bet)
if there was proof that God exists, they would tell you unequivically Yes.
It is not my job to show you around by holding your hand in this world, so I advise you to find out the truth for yourself. ;)

"Right... so if God is sooo loving and forgiving, and you decide you do believe in him after you find out he exists and you ask for forgiveness he would gladly turn his back on you and disown you? So he can forgive a rapist or a murderer and let them into heaven, but he can't forgive someone who just doesn't believe in him? Hmm, he sounds real fair to me. More like he's just in a huff cos no one wants to believe he's true." ~Blacktyde



I would just like to say that this is the smartest sentiment I've come across today. I'm NOT an atheist, but I'd like to think that any God(dess) worthy of admiration is a lot more loving than many religions suggest.

and don't you think that eternal bliss would get boring after a while?


"Eternal bliss" by its very definition could never "get boring". If you are blissful, you are not bored. It's unconditional. It's like saying "always being happy would make me sad". If you're always happy, you can't be sad... because you are always happy. Simple.

----"Right... so if God is sooo loving and forgiving, and you decide you do believe in him after you find out he exists and you ask for forgiveness he would gladly turn his back on you and disown you? So he can forgive a rapist or a murderer and let them into heaven, but he can't forgive someone who just doesn't believe in him? Hmm, he sounds real fair to me. More like he's just in a huff cos no one wants to believe he's true." ~Blacktyde

-----"I would just like to say that this is the smartest sentiment I've come across today. I'm NOT an atheist, but I'd like to think that any God(dess) worthy of admiration is a lot more loving than many religions suggest."

Well first it was a man that obviously told you that God would disown you, forgive or not forgive you if your a rapist or murderer. So whats God got to do with it?

I think the greeks were even more outnumbered in Marathon. A great number of factor could have influenced the result: terrain, tactics, strategy, logistics. And of course, confidence, since their leader had told them he had just had a vision from God, telling them they were going to win. Of course, what else was he going to say? Plus, had he lost how would history had recorded it?


I'll just point out that the vast majority of what we know about the Persian Wars come from Herodotus who is universally renowned for his tendencies toward hyperbole.

"Right... so if God is sooo loving and forgiving, and you decide you do believe in him after you find out he exists and you ask for forgiveness he would gladly turn his back on you and disown you? So he can forgive a rapist or a murderer and let them into heaven, but he can't forgive someone who just doesn't believe in him? Hmm, he sounds real fair to me. More like he's just in a huff cos no one wants to believe he's true." ~Blacktyde


I would just like to say that this is the smartest sentiment I've come across today. I'm NOT an atheist, but I'd like to think that any God(dess) worthy of admiration is a lot more loving than many religions suggest.


Yet another person confusing the word "god" with the concept of god.

Yet another silly mind stuck on words.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Actually, that's a proof, not an assumption. "Assumption" is the process used to create the hypothesis. Then imagination and learning provide a demonstratable theory. "Proof" occurs when a theory is tested and supported by the evidence. The theory of cause-and-effect is tested here, and supported, hence "proven". If your theory is that the invisible elves moved the pencil, then this must be demonstratable, and that means without interference by you (since it could be you moving the pencil). So it must first be proven that there are invisible elves. If this can't be proven, then the cause-and-effect theory is the better theory to explain the situation.
wrong. the pencil moving when my finger touches it supports my hypothesis that the elves will move the pencil whenever i bring my finger to bear upon the pencil. your crazy theory that my finger is moving the pencil is not supported, it is the elves who are clearly and demonstratably at work.

the only way cause-and-effect is the better theory is if you assume it is. there is no way for you to prove it is the case without assuming it. seriously, you need to try to take cause-and-effect out of your mind for a second to look at this, because you are just repeating the same assumption over and over.

wrong. the pencil moving when my finger touches it supports my hypothesis that the elves will move the pencil whenever i bring my finger to bear upon the pencil. your crazy theory that my finger is moving the pencil is not supported, it is the elves who are clearly and demonstratably at work.
If the elves are going to move the pencil whenever your finger touches it, then your finger touching the pencil causes them to move it which causes it to move. Indirectly, we still have that your finger causes the pencil to move.

That the pencil moves whenever you push it, is a demonstratable fact. WHY this happens (elves?) is a completely different question, fortunately it is completely irrelevant for the purpose trying to move your pencil. Whether there are elves in the equation or not, you can still push your pencil all the same. If, someday, you push your pencil and it doesn't move, you may need to expand your theory - though personally I'd look for things like glue or obstacles before deciding that the elves hate me.

LMAO! I guess thats for you to find out buddy, since we both know there are things out there that can not be explained but we know exists, your part way there. If you would ask any Christian (any person from any religion I bet)
if there was proof that God exists, they would tell you unequivically Yes.
It is not my job to show you around by holding your hand in this world, so I advise you to find out the truth for yourself. ;)
I looked, but didn't find it. If there is a god, it's pretty good at hiding.

If the elves are going to move the pencil whenever your finger touches it, then your finger touching the pencil causes them to move it which causes it to move. Indirectly, we still have that your finger causes the pencil to move.

That the pencil moves whenever you push it, is a demonstratable fact. WHY this happens (elves?) is a completely different question, fortunately it is completely irrelevant for the purpose trying to move your pencil. Whether there are elves in the equation or not, you can still push your pencil all the same. If, someday, you push your pencil and it doesn't move, you may need to expand your theory - though personally I'd look for things like glue or obstacles before deciding that the elves hate me.
no, you are still clinging to your assumption. the elves are going to move the pencil each time i bring my finger to touch the pencil, but they might not...just because they have done so every time we check doesn't mean they will in the future, nor does it mean that they aren't moving the pencil at other times as well.

you are still assuming cause and effect, which makes it impossible to discuss this with you. as you say, "If, someday, you push your pencil and it doesn't move, you may need to expand your theory" but that is AGAIN an assumption; the assumption that just because something has happened in the past it will necessarily happen in the future, or that the thing that brought it about in the past will be the thing that brings it about in all future cases. all of that is pure assumption, and can only be "proven" if the assumption is held.

we're just going to go around in circles until you can let go of the assumption, so i think we should let it drop...agreed?

no, you are still clinging to your assumption. the elves are going to move the pencil each time i bring my finger to touch the pencil, but they might not...just because they have done so every time we check doesn't mean they will in the future, nor does it mean that they aren't moving the pencil at other times as well.
True. HOWEVER, all evidence so far points to that you pushing the pencil is immediately followed by it moving. This is not a guarantee that this will always be so, however, it is the best bet we can make.

you are still assuming cause and effect, which makes it impossible to discuss this with you. as you say, "If, someday, you push your pencil and it doesn't move, you may need to expand your theory" but that is AGAIN an assumption; the assumption that just because something has happened in the past it will necessarily happen in the future, or that the thing that brought it about in the past will be the thing that brings it about in all future cases. all of that is pure assumption, and can only be "proven" if the assumption is held.
I see no assumption. I have a theory, stating "whenever you push the pencil, it will move". All evidence seen so far matches this theory (all times you pushed your pencil, so far, it moved), making me think it is correct. However, I am willing to change this theory, if ever in the future I am provided with evidence to the contrary. Where am I assuming anything?

True. HOWEVER, all evidence so far points to that you pushing the pencil is immediately followed by it moving. This is not a guarantee that this will always be so, however, it is the best bet we can make.


I see no assumption. I have a theory, stating "whenever you push the pencil, it will move". All evidence seen so far matches this theory (all times you pushed your pencil, so far, it moved), making me think it is correct. However, I am willing to change this theory, if ever in the future I am provided with evidence to the contrary. Where am I assuming anything?

you said it yourself: you believe in your theory until somebody proves otherwise to you. YOU ASSUME CAUSE AND EFFECT UNTIL OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED. that is an assumption, not a proven fact, but you assume it until you have reason to doubt it. don't worry, we all do that (even me) because it is the only way we can maintain sanity and feed ourselves and so forth, but it is still an UNPROVEN ASSUMPTION.

really, now, let's just let this go, okay? i don't want to hijack this thread any more than we have already.

Does it matter though if peoples religeous beliefs are true or not? A religeon is a set of morals which gives us a start point to develop our own views on the world, and at root level these morals are often the same.

Whether someone believes the universe was created in 7 days, or sneezed out of a giant goat is immaterial. It is how people live, and what helps them comprehend how, though the universe is near infinatly big, we will only ever see so little of it, and that when, if we are still around, that the sun dies or an appocolypse comes, our species will be gone forever, that is important, and if a religeon helps them with this, then it is a good thing, but if sheer stoicism works too, so be it.

Perhaps when we die there is a heaven, perhaps not... and if so, we will be incapable of caring if there is or isnt, as I think a Roman poet put it... (Can't remember his name, he was in Cambridge Latin Course set Texts, under Spring and thoughts of immortality).

Whatever happens, we arein no hurry to see it. Lets leave it a surprise, and all have a jolly good laugh over it when we get there?

A religeon is a set of morals which gives us a start point to develop our own views on the world, and at root level these morals are often the same.
Well, let's see. The bible permits slavery and polygamy. It does not permit wearing clothes with mixed fabric. Even the most basic commandment, don't kill, may be violated to smite unbelievers (and repeatedly is, in both biblical and modern times).

Yep, at root, that's the same morals as me.

wrong. the pencil moving when my finger touches it supports my hypothesis that the elves will move the pencil whenever i bring my finger to bear upon the pencil. your crazy theory that my finger is moving the pencil is not supported, it is the elves who are clearly and demonstratably at work.

the only way cause-and-effect is the better theory is if you assume it is. there is no way for you to prove it is the case without assuming it. seriously, you need to try to take cause-and-effect out of your mind for a second to look at this, because you are just repeating the same assumption over and over.
What is proof in your universe? Scientific proof is nothing more than demonstration, observable by the human mind. You have not demonstrated any elves.

What is proof in your universe? Scientific proof is nothing more than demonstration, observable by the human mind. You have not demonstrated any elves.
as i have said several times, i don't want to hijack this thread any further with this discussion. if you want to continue discussing it then feel free to start a fresh thread, and i will pop in to chat, but let's not continue here.

as i have said several times, i don't want to hijack this thread any further with this discussion. if you want to continue discussing it then feel free to start a fresh thread, and i will pop in to chat, but let's not continue here.
I need to continue because it's directly related to God and religion. Please indulge me.

(PS the thread was too long to wade through, I only made it to page 11. However, I can explain God to non-believers if they can grasp the concepts we are discussing.)

I need to continue because it's directly related to God and religion. Please indulge me.

(PS the thread was too long to wade through, I only made it to page 11. However, I can explain God to non-believers if they can grasp the concepts we are discussing.)

Sure you can EXPLAIN god... I can EXPLAIN god... but you can't PROVE god.

And, until you can, all you have is speculation and blind faith.

I looked, but didn't find it. If there is a god, it's pretty good at hiding.

ha ha, i dont understand this looking for god concept, is he lost??? and if ur having such a hard time finding him, maybe he doesnt want to be found. Religion is right only if u believe it... who cares what others think if u believe, i dont, but who cares, right? Its a personal thing, stop askin what other ppl think! NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
:sniper: :headbang:

I seem to have come in rather late, however to answer Eru God

Christianity is considered a FAITH. Science as a religion does not work because nothing is allowed to be taken on faith. Yet that is exactly what one must do to ignore all the inherent problems with evolution and the Big Bang. Here are a few problems: The problem of where the matter came from, why it suddenly decided, with no outside force, to explode, why is there more matter than anti matter (in conditions such as the big bang EXACTLY half of substance produced is anti matter.) How evolution explains symbiosis (such classic examples as the Blue Streaked Wrasse and Oriental Sweetlips, ) the random creation of proteins with thousands of amino acids that have to appear out of this "chemical soup" at the exact same time, place, sequence.Even then that protein is only one of millions of proteins required to make the simplest organism. The odds of this are so astronomical that scientists invent an infinity of universes so that maybe we just got "lucky"

(pardon my lack of puctuation)

"Sure you can EXPLAIN god... I can EXPLAIN god... but you can't PROVE god."

That's right, I cannot prove God, but "proof" and the existence of God are mutally exclusive. As different as night and day --or subjective and objective things.

"Proof" is for determining things objectively, in the physical world. God is a subjective experience --an experience of the mind, a concept grasped internally. He touches us inside, where science cannot venture. Experience of God is entirely subjective, but no less real than things in the physical world that can be measured, prodded and seen.

"And, until you can, all you have is speculation and blind faith."

Yes, and no. We can speculate about God, but that's not all we have. Subjective things are no less real than things you can touch and see: an idea, a feeling, a mathematical construct. Take, for instance, a broken heart from a failed relationship. You cannot reach into yourself, pull out your "broken heart" and display it to the world, yet no one would deny that it exists. Oh sure, you can demonstrate your loss with tears and behaviours --you can show people your chemical work-ups and medical x-rays that prove a disrupted emotional state --but your experience of your broken heart is none of those things. It's a feeling that rips you from inside, like a knife in the chest. It's not sadness or depression or any simple emotion. And it's not speculative --it is quite real! Science and medicine can do nothing; only time and forgetting will "heal" it.

A broken heart is an internal abstract, a concept of feeling. God is as real as that. God is an abstract of mind and feeling and soul, and "he" is quite real. Some will abstract God into the real world and look for in vain for "him" there; I think that's unnecessary --the only place we need look for God is within.

"Sure you can EXPLAIN god... I can EXPLAIN god... but you can't PROVE god."

That's right, I cannot prove God, but "proof" and the existence of God are mutally exclusive. As different as night and day --or subjective and objective things.

"Proof" is for determining things objectively, in the physical world. God is a subjective experience --an experience of the mind, a concept grasped internally. He touches us inside, where science cannot venture. Experience of God is entirely subjective, but no less real than things in the physical world that can be measured, prodded and seen.

"And, until you can, all you have is speculation and blind faith."

Yes, and no. We can speculate about God, but that's not all we have. Subjective things are no less real than things you can touch and see: an idea, a feeling, a mathematical construct. Take, for instance, a broken heart from a failed relationship. You cannot reach into yourself, pull out your "broken heart" and display it to the world, yet no one would deny that it exists. Oh sure, you can demonstrate your loss with tears and behaviours --you can show people your chemical work-ups and medical x-rays that prove a disrupted emotional state --but your experience of your broken heart is none of those things. It's a feeling that rips you from inside, like a knife in the chest. It's not sadness or depression or any simple emotion. And it's not speculative --it is quite real! Science and medicine can do nothing; only time and forgetting will "heal" it.

A broken heart is an internal abstract, a concept of feeling. God is as real as that. God is an abstract of mind and feeling and soul, and "he" is quite real. Some will abstract God into the real world and look for in vain for "him" there; I think that's unnecessary --the only place we need look for God is within.
The first point is not necessarily true. Most theists declare that god is an objective reality, not a subjective feeling. They claim that a being created all that there is, not a feeling or emotion.
As for the second point, you _can_ see a broken heart in a way. One can do a functional MRI on the brain and see which regions are active. One can monitor brain chemistry. Sadness has a basis in brain chemistry and organic function. The religious experience seems to have a basis in brain function as well. Electromagnetic stimulation of certain parts of the brain can cause such experiences.

where the matter came from
Where did God come from?

why it suddenly decided, with no outside force, to explode
Because the laws of physics did not permit it to stay together.

why is there more matter than anti matter (in conditions such as the big bang EXACTLY half of substance produced is anti matter.)
Matter and antimatter disappear if they come into contact. Therefore every place can contain only one or the other. I'll bet there's also a world made only of antimatter somewhere very far away from here.

How evolution explains symbiosis (such classic examples as the Blue Streaked Wrasse and Oriental Sweetlips, )
If one species can evolve, then why can't two species evolve together?

On the other hand, according to the bible, the two member of a symbiotic relationship were mostly created on different "days" from each other, meaning that the one which was created earlier wouldn't be able to survive.

the random creation of proteins with thousands of amino acids that have to appear out of this "chemical soup" at the exact same time, place, sequence.
Once created, the amino acids stay around for a while, giving them time to mix up.

Even then that protein is only one of millions of proteins required to make the simplest organism.
See above. Also, as argued by other posters, it is possible that self-reproducing proteins appeared and spread for a while before bacteria came into play.

The odds of this are so astronomical that scientists invent an infinity of universes so that maybe we just got "lucky"
The Earth has existed for 4.55 billion years and has an ocean surface of 362 million square kilometers. And that's just this one little insignificant planet in the much larger universe. You do the math.

The first point is not necessarily true. Most theists declare that god is an objective reality, not a subjective feeling. They claim that a being created all that there is, not a feeling or emotion.
As for the second point, you _can_ see a broken heart in a way. One can do a functional MRI on the brain and see which regions are active. One can monitor brain chemistry. Sadness has a basis in brain chemistry and organic function. The religious experience seems to have a basis in brain function as well. Electromagnetic stimulation of certain parts of the brain can cause such experiences.
I can't dispute your claim that "most theists" claim a real god, but I sincerely doubt it. Protestantism it is that takes the Bible literally and proposes that God is a real being. Most religions I have read (through a study of mythology) recognize the metaphorical meaning behind their texts --Catholicism is especially good at this.
The physical evidence does not tell the person viewing it what the person who experienced it went through. It is the experience of it that is subjective.

I do not recall ever experiencing either a broken heart or God. However, I do know of a scenario when one might experience a broken heart - when someone you love doesn't return the love. So tell me, when does one experience God? What are the conditions?

Joey P: It seems to me that Willamena is saying that faith in God requires no objective proof just as a broken heart does not require an MRI in order to be felt. Not sure why you mentioned what theists think.. they cannot prove God's existence any more than you or I could.
But to reiterate; Faith in God is just that. It is belief in the absence of proof and, as far as I know, forms part of the basis of religion. I understand that alot of Christian fundamentalists and Creationists these days seek to justify to others the importance of their faith by seeking physical proof of God, Jesus etc thereby removing the need for faith in the first place. I tend to take this as a crisis of confidence in their faith and a deep lack of understanding for what it really means to believe in God. I'd go so far as to say that these people are more interested in power and influence than they are religion.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Hope I wasn't too liberal in my interpretation of what you typed Willamena.

I do not recall ever experiencing either a broken heart or God. However, I do know of a scenario when one might experience a broken heart - when someone you love doesn't return the love. So tell me, when does one experience God? What are the conditions?
The simple answer is, when they need it. When they need it, people will look for and "find" God. And "he" will be there, because (as an internal concept) there is no real escape from "him". And no two people will seek or find it in the same manner, down the same path. This is why we have organized religion --to provide us with a means to an end. To provide us with footsteps to follow. (I don't subscribe to a religion. Following in others footsteps is not for me. I tred my own path.)

The simple answer is, when they need it. When they need it, people will look for and "find" God. And "he" will be there, because (as an internal concept) there is no real escape from "him". And no two people will seek or find it in the same manner, down the same path. This is why we have organized religion --to provide us with a means to an end. To provide us with footsteps to follow. (I don't subscribe to a religion. Following in others footsteps is not for me. I tred my own path.)
When do you need God?

When you feel helpless about something, maybe? Thinking that praying to God will help you can make you feel better in such situations, even if doesn't actually do anything to solve your problem. But I see this as nothing more than cowardice.

So, according to you, when?

Milostein: Perhaps I misunderstand you here but it seems to me that if one were to seek guidance or help in the form of a prayer.. in full knowledge that no concrete or physically tangible assistance would come of it... one would not be cowardly in doing so. When someone prays in such a situation you could say that person seeks help of a different quality and quantity than that provided by the material world; be it by other people or by institutions such as hospitals or law. How is this an act of cowardice when one could simply put ones hand out and beg to be relieved of lifes pressures.
Whether it be seeking help for ones troubles or any other myriad reasons one might pray, one does it to find oneself. To pray for help is to remind a person of the moral, ethical and spiritual foundations of that persons life, thereby drawing strength and reassurance to hopefully make the right decisions.

When do you need God?

When you feel helpless about something, maybe? Thinking that praying to God will help you can make you feel better in such situations, even if doesn't actually do anything to solve your problem. But I see this as nothing more than cowardice.

So, according to you, when?
Cowardice is fear, as of danger. Praying is used to relieve fears, not enhance them. Praying would make one more calm and able to control oneself in the situation. One does not pray to God to do for oneself what one can do for oneself. One prays for the strength of heart and for resolve, and then (as a subjective process) God answers those prayers. It's the opposite of cowardice; it is self-empowering.

A possible scenario in which one might need God: standing on a city street corner, looking up at a perfect summer sky of clear blue canvas painted with puffy white clouds high-lited pink by a rising sun, revelling in the perfection of nature and wondering what created it all.

For me, at least, it happened when I was at my most content.

LMAO! I guess thats for you to find out buddy, since we both know there are things out there that can not be explained but we know exists, your part way there. If you would ask any Christian (any person from any religion I bet)
if there was proof that God exists, they would tell you unequivically Yes.
It is not my job to show you around by holding your hand in this world, so I advise you to find out the truth for yourself. ;)

Like what? What can you prove exists... but can't explain?

A thought just occured to me.. I'm just about the least religious person you could meet and yet when I'm involved in debates like this I always find myself defending religion and the idea of faith. I guess religion is a worthwhile intellectual pursuit, regardless of ones own views.

A thought just occured to me.. I'm just about the least religious person you could meet and yet when I'm involved in debates like this I always find myself defending religion and the idea of faith. I guess religion is a worthwhile intellectual pursuit, regardless of ones own views.

I totally agree - religion is a worthwhile pursuit, and worth defending.

However, it is not the ONLY pursuit, and certainly should not be taught as (or instead of) science.

Like what? What can you prove exists... but can't explain?
Evil

Evil

Show me. How much 'evil' do you have? Is it in it's purified state, or is it an alloy?

Show me 'evil'.

You cannot prove that a 'thing' called evil exists...

and I can explain what you call 'evil' as the predations of an animalistic nature.

Unless you mean something different by evil... hard to tell with one word answers.

Evil is our common definition of what is evil... if you get my drift. Just think for a second, Grave_n_Idle, of the great multitude of ideas, concepts, abstractions and theorys put forward by the human race thus far.
Now try to imagine how many would exist and have utility if we were incapable of applying a common definition to them.
The sky is blue... it is no other colour and blue most certainly exists because we all agree that does. Evil exists and is given legitimacy in much the same way.

Show me. How much 'evil' do you have? Is it in it's purified state, or is it an alloy?

Show me 'evil'.

You cannot prove that a 'thing' called evil exists...

and I can explain what you call 'evil' as the predations of an animalistic nature.

Unless you mean something different by evil... hard to tell with one word answers.
I "have" no evil at all, personally. It's another one of those subjective concepts, and one I've never quite grasped. I accept God as an aspect of love and a concept of mind/heart/soul; and lack of God would be nothing, just as lack of emotion is calm. There is no negative-God concept that makes any sense to me.

"Good" is that which is supportive of, nurturing of, and beneficial to life. "Bad" is the opposite, things that are inimical to life. Evil doesn't jive with me.

I can, however, point to evil demonstrated in the physical world, because, as Apostrio said, other people have defined it quite clearly: "Axis of Evil", evil criminals, evil IRS, etc. It's all quite objectively provable.

If there's no evil, what is the Coalition of the Willing doing in Iraq? I, for one, would like to know...

Obler's paradox rules. Visit Chickenring!

Evil is our common definition of what is evil... if you get my drift. Just think for a second, Grave_n_Idle, of the great multitude of ideas, concepts, abstractions and theorys put forward by the human race thus far.
Now try to imagine how many would exist and have utility if we were incapable of applying a common definition to them.
The sky is blue... it is no other colour and blue most certainly exists because we all agree that does. Evil exists and is given legitimacy in much the same way.

So you are saying that 'evil' is just a concept... how exactly does one prove a 'concept'? Answer... you can't.

And I disagree with your blue sky. My best friend is colour-blind, and I have no way at all of rpoving that he perceives anything like what I perceive... what I perceive as green or red, he cannot differentiate - who is to say I am right?

(And let's not get into frequencies and wavelengths - my point is that 'blue' is just the name we give to 'blue' light, and that is because we perceive it as 'blue'. But you might be seeing a colour I would call 'red' - but we would still both call it 'blue' - because that is the convention).

I don't think evil exists. I do not agree. So, by your argument, that definition is now not legitimate.

I "have" no evil at all, personally. It's another one of those subjective concepts, and one I've never quite grasped. I accept God as an aspect of love and a concept of mind/heart/soul; and lack of God would be nothing, just as lack of emotion is calm. There is no negative-God concept that makes any sense to me.

"Good" is that which is supportive of, nurturing of, and beneficial to life. "Bad" is the opposite, things that are inimical to life. Evil doesn't jive with me.

I can, however, point to evil demonstrated in the physical world, because, as Apostrio said, other people have defined it quite clearly: "Axis of Evil", evil criminals, evil IRS, etc. It's all quite objectively provable.

If there's no evil, what is the Coalition of the Willing doing in Iraq? I, for one, would like to know...

I don't mean to be insulting, but this is just plain ridiculous to an absurd degree...

Many Americans say that the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, (when they feel like it) Communist China... are Evil.

Many Muslims would say that America was evil. I'm sure that Saddam is of that opinion.

To any who define themselves as good, their opposite number will be 'evil' - there is absolutely NOTHING objective about that.

Catholics considered the Cathari evil heretics. Cathari believed the Catholic 'church' to be evil heretics. Even in the 'same' religion, there is no agreement on the nature or reality of evil.

Cowardice is fear, as of danger. Praying is used to relieve fears, not enhance them.
You only need to relieve fear if you were afraid in the first place.

Praying would make one more calm and able to control oneself in the situation.
Purely emotional difference. It is possible to be "calm and in control" without asking God.

One does not pray to God to do for oneself what one can do for oneself.
I've always seen prayer as asking God to solve your problems for you. Thus making you feel like you're doing something to help, when in reality you're just wasting your time.

One prays for the strength of heart and for resolve, and then (as a subjective process) God answers those prayers. It's the opposite of cowardice; it is self-empowering.
So basically, you're saying that you gain courage by deluding yourself that God is on your side. That doesn't mean that God is REALLY on your side, and courage isn't going to do much good if you fail anyway.

I like to choose my course of action by rational consideration of the consequences. If I deduce that I can succeed, I do not need God to give me courage. If I deduce that I cannot succed, I do not want to delude myself that I can.

A possible scenario in which one might need God: standing on a city street corner, looking up at a perfect summer sky of clear blue canvas painted with puffy white clouds high-lited pink by a rising sun, revelling in the perfection of nature and wondering what created it all.
And then one of the cloud darkens and it starts to rain. Not so perfect anymore, eh? There are many sights in nature, so I do not consider it miraculous that a couple of them are pretty to our eyes. In fact, I'm surprised that such a simple thing as rain can be so uncomfortable. If there was truly a loving god, would he allow us to be annoyed by such a basic and necessary part of nature? Especially considering the many animals that have no choice but to stay outside, and don't seem to really mind much?

And then one of the cloud darkens and it starts to rain. Not so perfect anymore, eh? There are many sights in nature, so I do not consider it miraculous that a couple of them are pretty to our eyes. In fact, I'm surprised that such a simple thing as rain can be so uncomfortable. If there was truly a loving god, would he allow us to be annoyed by such a basic and necessary part of nature? Especially considering the many animals that have no choice but to stay outside, and don't seem to really mind much?

For me, the rain and the dark clouds would be exquisite... which is an interesting point. Wouldn't god have made us all like the same things? Especially in terms of weather, etc. Why create some people who like rain, and others who like sun? Why create some who love the dark, and others who only like the day?

To any who define themselves as good, their opposite number will be 'evil' - there is absolutely NOTHING objective about that.
Depends on your definition of evil, I suppose. Is a child who steals bread from a corner market because he's starving evil? Not in my book. I agree with you whole-heartedly that no one agrees on a definition of evil. I've been searching for one for many years. And, yes, there's no objective proof of evil. Then there's the whole "no one is evil, they just do evil things" debate.

I have to admit --my first response to your question "What can you prove exists... but can't explain?" was George W. Bush, but my mind made a leap.

Where did God come from?


Because the laws of physics did not permit it to stay together.


Matter and antimatter disappear if they come into contact. Therefore every place can contain only one or the other. I'll bet there's also a world made only of antimatter somewhere very far away from here.


If one species can evolve, then why can't two species evolve together?

On the other hand, according to the bible, the two member of a symbiotic relationship were mostly created on different "days" from each other, meaning that the one which was created earlier wouldn't be able to survive.


Once created, the amino acids stay around for a while, giving them time to mix up.


See above. Also, as argued by other posters, it is possible that self-reproducing proteins appeared and spread for a while before bacteria came into play.


The Earth has existed for 4.55 billion years and has an ocean surface of 362 million square kilometers. And that's just this one little insignificant planet in the much larger universe. You do the math.

We are allowed to take somethings on faith. Science however cannot it must always have an explanation nothing can just be taken as a fact
What law of physics would that be hmm Gravity?
In fact Big Bang theorists say that the laws of physics did not exist until a miniscule amount of time after the big bang. If no physical laws existed why did matter follow any pattern? Why did laws even come about and how or who decided what the laws were?

Symbiosis cannot be explained by evolution see link

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/competitionsymbiosis.htm


Why did all the anti matter go a different direction?


Protein are easily denatured especially by extreme heat.

The size is a vote against all the amino acid would have to come together in the same miniscule place over a large
area

Symbiosis cannot be explained by evolution see link

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/competitionsymbiosis.htm

According to the theory of evolution, all animal life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor. This process has supposedly occurred over an immense time and followed a step-by-step sequence from primitive to advanced forms of life. This would mean plant life first appeared and developed, followed much later by the appearance of animal life.
Wrong. Animals never evolved from plants. Animals and plants both evolved independently from bacteria. Just like birds and mammals evolved independently from reptiles, not birds from mammals or mammals from birds.

However, did the bible not claim that plants were made on the third day and animals on the fifth? Hmm...

Another obstacle to this theory is the interdependent relationships between living things, called symbiosis, in which completely different forms of life depend on each other to exist.

Darwin's theory of biological change was based on competition, or survival of the fittest, among the individuals making up a species.
Incidentally, not all species on Earth are symbiotic with each other. Pairs of symbiotic organisms still compete with all the other creatures.

How can plants that need certain animals to survive have existed before those animals appeared in the first place? And how do animals that need other animals to survive arrive without the other creature already being there?
The first plants evolved spread their seed through the wind or some other natural phenomenon. Then certain animals evolved to eat plants, and in doing so, accidentally helped spread the plants' seed somewhat. The plants then evolved to make use of this, by attracting more animals (growing colorful flowers, etc.) and having seeds more prone to sticking to these animals.

Ultimately, if the many organs of one species can coevolve to function well together, then it makes sense that the many organs of two different species can too.

Protein are easily denatured especially by extreme heat.
I've just had a brilliant flash of insight. What if life started in a place that doesn't have extreme heat?

The size is a vote against all the amino acid would have to come together in the same miniscule place over a large area
Nope. Any one lightning flash would create all its amino acids near each other. The size just means that there are going to be many more lightning flashes, increasing the chance that one of them initiates a process leading to what we call life.

You only need to relieve fear if you were afraid in the first place.
Yes, but I didn't mean to suggest that relieving fear is the only use of prayer.

Purely emotional difference. It is possible to be "calm and in control" without asking God.
Yes, that's true. Praying is not a necessary part of the process.

I've always seen prayer as asking God to solve your problems for you. Thus making you feel like you're doing something to help, when in reality you're just wasting your time.
To the best of my knowledge, that is incorrect. One prays for guidance (thoughts, feelings, concepts), not for magic.

So basically, you're saying that you gain courage by deluding yourself that God is on your side. That doesn't mean that God is REALLY on your side, and courage isn't going to do much good if you fail anyway.
Depends. Are you deluding yourself if you think your mind is on your side? Can you even have "sides" when it comes to dealing with subjective concepts?

I like to choose my course of action by rational consideration of the consequences. If I deduce that I can succeed, I do not need God to give me courage. If I deduce that I cannot succed, I do not want to delude myself that I can.
I like to think there isn't anyone who doesn't choose a course of action by rational consideration of the consequences, coupled with feelings and value judgements. Prayer is not going to "suceed" for us, we do it ourselves.

And then one of the cloud darkens and it starts to rain. Not so perfect anymore, eh?
Actually, I like the rain. Perfection is another discussion. ;-)

There are many sights in nature, so I do not consider it miraculous that a couple of them are pretty to our eyes. In fact, I'm surprised that such a simple thing as rain can be so uncomfortable. If there was truly a loving god, would he allow us to be annoyed by such a basic and necessary part of nature? Especially considering the many animals that have no choice but to stay outside, and don't seem to really mind much?
You are the one who allows yourself to be annoyed. God has nothing to do with that. (*psst* Christians call it Free Will, dude!) God isn't controlling you.

For me, the rain and the dark clouds would be exquisite... which is an interesting point. Wouldn't god have made us all like the same things? Especially in terms of weather, etc. Why create some people who like rain, and others who like sun? Why create some who love the dark, and others who only like the day?
Actually, variety is good. It makes the world less boring. (Not to mention that it is necessary for evolution.)

However, if a kind and loving God made us, I would expect that this variety would not take the form of hating something that you're going to have to be exposed to anyway in order to get from one place to another.

To the best of my knowledge, that is incorrect. One prays for guidance (thoughts, feelings, concepts), not for magic.
What sort of guidance? God telling you what to do? I like deciding that for myself.

You are the one who allows yourself to be annoyed. God has nothing to do with that. (*psst* Christians call it Free Will, dude!) God isn't controlling you.
I try not to mind it - honestly. But soaked clothes induce a bad feeling, whether I want it or not.

And what is free will, anyway?

However, if a kind and loving God made us, I would expect that this variety would not take the form of hating something that you're going to have to be exposed to anyway in order to get from one place to another.
Your mother made you. You're a individual, and God isn't pulling your strings.

No offense meant, but making the mistake of taking the scripture literally is what leads to this whole God debate in the first place. Some people wouldn't know a metaphor if it jumped up and bit them on the nose.

God has been envisioned as a force, as a radiant being, as a personification of the universe, and my own personal favourite, as a concept of the mind/heart/soul, but only a fool would envision a being who manipulates their DNA, their thoughts and their feelings to force them to be a certain way. The thought is abhorrent --puppets on a string. (/rant)

What sort of guidance? God telling you what to do? I like deciding that for myself.
As do I. "Guidance" is assessing the alternatives and listening to the little voice inside that suggests the best course of action. Prayer puts that process into action, inducing it with words. Now I anticipate you saying, I don't need prayer to do that, but some people do, so shut up about it. ;-)

And what is free will, anyway?
Free will is what you're talking about --making up your own mind about things.

As do I. "Guidance" is assessing the alternatives and listening to the little voice inside that suggests the best course of action. Prayer puts that process into action, inducing it with words. Now I anticipate you saying, I don't need prayer to do that, but some people do, so shut up about it. ;-)
No they don't. It's just that they never try, because their religion tells them not to.

Are you unable to talk unless "God" is listening?

Free will is what you're talking about --making up your own mind about things.
But what is "my own mind"? Is it the biochemical processes occuring in my brain? That is not what most people understand under free will, even though I fail to see an alternative.

Doncha jus luv frendlee discushons about religon and politix?

Doncha jus luv frendlee discushons about religon and politix?
Hey, it's better than talking to rocks and trees. (By a tiny margin.)

No they don't. It's just that they never try, because their religion tells them not to.
There's an open mind, for you. :-)

Are you unable to talk unless "God" is listening?
No, I can talk. Free will, remember? I am talking about prayer as a psychological trigger to begin a process of "dialogue" with God as a conceptualized deity; all internally, all subjective. Surely the concept is not so hard to understand?

But what is "my own mind"? Is it the biochemical processes occuring in my brain? That is not what most people understand under free will, even though I fail to see an alternative.
Mind itself is a subjective concept; I don't pretend to know where (or if) it's centered in the brain, but it's undoubtedly a part of our body. I heard a good definition once: Mind is that part of you that recognizes the "I" in "I am" (the "I" itself being ego).

What do "most people understand under free will"?

The simple answer is, when they need it. When they need it, people will look for and "find" God. And "he" will be there, because (as an internal concept) there is no real escape from "him". And no two people will seek or find it in the same manner, down the same path. This is why we have organized religion --to provide us with a means to an end. To provide us with footsteps to follow. (I don't subscribe to a religion. Following in others footsteps is not for me. I tred my own path.)

So, since I've never needed nor looked for gods (did look at numerous religions once but, never found gods or any "tool" of use that I didn't already have better,) that's why I haven't found god? Considering what I've been through, it's doubtful I'll ever find gods then. Guess I'm just too self-sufficient.

So, since I've never needed nor looked for gods (did look at numerous religions once but, never found gods or any "tool" of use that I didn't already have better,) that's why I haven't found god?
Yes. That's my guess.

Considering what I've been through, it's doubtful I'll ever find gods then. Guess I'm just too self-sufficient.
You never know... I thought I was, too.

No, I can talk. Free will, remember? I am talking about prayer as a psychological trigger to begin a process of "dialogue" with God as a conceptualized deity; all internally, all subjective. Surely the concept is not so hard to understand?
If the concept is easy to understand, then I'm an idiot.

No, wait. I think I got it. It's called schizophrenia, right?

What do "most people understand under free will"?
A lot of people don't like the idea that all their actions are determined by, at core, deterministic (or randomly indeterministic, according to quantum mechanics) rules. The idea that with enough computation power it would be possible to completely predict someone's actions (or calculate a chance chart of possible actions) doesn't sit weel with them. They then come up with a philosophical concept that they call "free will". Unfortunately, I never really understood what free will is other than the negation of determinism and random indeterminism - nobody ever really explains what chooses our actions, other than saying "we decide for ourself", which sounds like a circular argument.

You never know... I thought I was, too.
Is there any particular event in your life that caused you to change your mind and "need God" for the first time? (I hope I'm not prying too much.)

Alright, I just want to give my thoughts about religion, and why I´m about to get a t-shirt with the text: Atheist

First, a cannot assume a god exists based on a book, written 300 years after the "main event", and that contradicts itself, and can be proven to contain scientifically wrong data. As to say, that the earth is around 5000 years old. We can disprove that with a simple Coal-14 test on a random rock. And if facts of such importance are wrong, what else is wrong?

Second, I will not support a reliogion that in any way or method has at any time been responsible for massacres and slaughter. The crusades as a major example, and the history of Christianity spreading into Finland(where I live), where people were converted to Christianity with their heads on a chopping block, and a sword up high, ready to swing away at anyone who dared say "no".

I also want to point out that almost 90% of the western countries have Christianity involved in government affaird, some more, some less. This has to stop. Church and government should be separated, no excuses. Governments should be lead in a fashion that is equal, so that both believers and non-believers can get (some) things like want to.

And what is this about having small children join the church, as they probably are not aware of the choice THEIR PARENTS made, not they. I think this is the nr 1 reason Atheism isn´t more then 18% in the USA, because people are afraid of what someboday might say, or think of them. My parents are not of faith but are part of the church(atleast to my knowledge) and I´ve had my confirmation quite a while ago, and ofcourse I agreed on doing it, so I wouldn´t dissappont my family. But I´ve had enough, and I´m going to write myself out of my church, and use the money I else would have paid, to my own use.


Just some thoughts.

Is there any particular event in your life that caused you to change your mind and "need God" for the first time? (I hope I'm not prying too much.)
Sort of. I've always needed God as far back as I can remember, but I didn't recognize it as such. I grew up in a Protestant family. My mother (an athiest at heart, who tried her best to be Protestant) sent me to Sunday School when I was young, and I remember the instructor telling us God lived on a cloud up in the sky. I thought, that's silly. Even at a young age, I knew that was wrong, but I couldn't explain how it was wrong. When I got older, I decided to just not believe, to exclude God from my life. I didn't think I needed him.

In the late 80's-early 90's I studied the mythology of Neolithic cultures; I learned that god was not always the unattainable, unknowable enigma that modern religions make it out to be. Many thousands of years before Yahweh came along, people worshipped a deity in a religion that was participatory. This deity was embodied in the earth itself, in the moon and the sun, in life-giving-water and in women, whose water brought forth life. Its name has long been lost to memory, as this was before writing was invented, but the key thought here is "participatory". This participation in the deity is not something modern religions would ever allow, could allow. Modern religions are for the masses; they have to put on a show, and this necessitates an objective concept of "God!" (thunderous voice), externalized and held up so that everyone can focus on it. The realization that it wasn't always this way and that god *is* knowable (plus a few other ideas) was enough for me to become open to it.

First, a cannot assume a god exists based on a book, written 300 years after the "main event",

Techically, it wasn't written 300 years after Christ, it was just compiled 300 years after Christ. The actual texts are much older.

If the concept is easy to understand, then I'm an idiot.

No, wait. I think I got it. It's called schizophrenia, right?
LOL! :-)

A lot of people don't like the idea that all their actions are determined by, at core, deterministic (or randomly indeterministic, according to quantum mechanics) rules. The idea that with enough computation power it would be possible to completely predict someone's actions (or calculate a chance chart of possible actions) doesn't sit weel with them.
Well, you're not going to enjoy it when my talk goes off about astrology, then (as it's wont to do). ;-)

They then come up with a philosophical concept that they call "free will". Unfortunately, I never really understood what free will is other than the negation of determinism and random indeterminism - nobody ever really explains what chooses our actions, other than saying "we decide for ourself", which sounds like a circular argument.
I've never met anyone who didn't understand the concept of being able to freely choose your own course and actions (this "freedom" as opposed to God or Fate deciding for you). It is the opposite of predestination.

According to Catholics, God gave mankind free will so that they could choose to be with him or not in the Garden of Eden. That's what the whole tree affair was about, though some insist on regarding it as a "test". He gave mankind the ability to chose to be with him --it's like the old saying, "If you love something, set it free. If it loves you it'll come back to you."

The biggest argument against this idea is that it amounts to emotional blackmail --"If you don't come back, you don't love me." A god should not have to indulge in such petty human "tricks" to prove our love. Then there's the whole, "If you don't come back to me burn in Hell" thing. *grin*

Techically, it wasn't written 300 years after Christ, it was just compiled 300 years after Christ. The actual texts are much older.
Yes, true, but still, 300 years afterwards, they could leave out anything they wanted, and it was later changed, to remove alot of the writings, because they we're contradicting other texts in the bible.

Sort of. I've always needed God as far back as I can remember, but I didn't recognize it as such. I grew up in a Protestant family. My mother (an athiest at heart, who tried her best to be Protestant) sent me to Sunday School when I was young, and I remember the instructor telling us God lived on a cloud up in the sky. I thought, that's silly. Even at a young age, I knew that was wrong, but I couldn't explain how it was wrong. When I got older, I decided to just not believe, to exclude God from my life. I didn't think I needed him.

In the late 80's-early 90's I studied the mythology of Neolithic cultures; I learned that god was not always the unattainable, unknowable enigma that modern religions make it out to be. Many thousands of years before Yahweh came along, people worshipped a deity in a religion that was participatory. This deity was embodied in the earth itself, in the moon and the sun, in life-giving-water and in women, whose water brought forth life. Its name has long been lost to memory, as this was before writing was invented, but the key thought here is "participatory". This participation in the deity is not something modern religions would ever allow, could allow. Modern religions are for the masses; they have to put on a show, and this necessitates an objective concept of "God!" (thunderous voice), externalized and held up so that everyone can focus on it. The realization that it wasn't always this way and that god *is* knowable (plus a few other ideas) was enough for me to become open to it.

So, if you've discovered something that resonates with you as a "good religion" (this "neolithic participatory belief"), do you practice that..?

I had a very similar "evolution" towards my beliefs. I believe in an "it is" entity, that is simply defined as the singular absolute thing that exists, and exhibits itself to us in the infinite phenomena that "is the world and the mind".

It's exactly like believing the statement that 1 = 1, and 1 can have an infinite number of parts.

There is probably a good reason that people confuse "Religion" with "Belief". This most likely has to do with their discovering their own sense of self in the world, and an "adolescent backlash" toward the "authorities" who "lied" to them.

Does that sound about right...? :)

So, if you've discovered something that resonates with you as a "good religion" (this "neolithic participatory belief"), do you practice that..?
Well, yes, in the sense that my religious philosophy informs what I do and think everyday, the choices I make, and the way I treat others. I even visit my "church" everyday *grin* (a website).

I had a very similar "evolution" towards my beliefs. I believe in an "it is" entity, that is simply defined as the singular absolute thing that exists, and exhibits itself to us in the infinite phenomena that "is the world and the mind".

It's exactly like believing the statement that 1 = 1, and 1 can have an infinite number of parts.
Power on. The imagination is boundless.

There is probably a good reason that people confuse "Religion" with "Belief". This most likely has to do with their discovering their own sense of self in the world, and an "adolescent backlash" toward the "authorities" who "lied" to them.

Does that sound about right...? :)
"Belief" has come to mean a lot of things, from equivalent to "faith," to "I believe in (fill in blank)," to "I believe it's your turn to buy dinner, thank you very much; I bought last week!" Thank goodness "religion" is still a word reserved for more special (and specific) experiences. I doubt I could put the experience into words. Whatever others' experience with God, or lack thereof, they'll find their own path, and no two the same way.

"Belief" has come to mean a lot of things, from equivalent to "faith," to "I believe in (fill in blank)," to "I believe it's your turn to buy dinner, thank you very much; I bought last week!" Thank goodness "religion" is still a word reserved for more special (and specific) experiences. I doubt I could put the experience into words. Whatever others' experience with God, or lack thereof, they'll find their own path, and no two the same way.

As Lionel Twain so succinctly put it "Too Twoo,.. Too Twoo..!"

You can assure yourself of what you like. Just as you can believe what you like.

You can NOT assure me, though, that your "transformation" was anything more than a clarification of your disbelief.

The reason you can't is due to my stubborn definition of "belief in god", which is simply belief that "it is".

You can not convince me that if you believed that "it is" is really true, that you were somehow convinced the "it is" is now suddenly untrue.
Your opinion stated here is interesting and although you didn't take it any further, I will supplement it with an "experience of God" or godliness on a subjective level. Like so: we are told by everything around us that God exists (meaning in the physical world, since that is the agreed-upon really-real world of existence). Then we find the evidence lacking. God does not exist, so God is not true. No matter how much religion we read or how much spirituality we listen to, nothing clicks inside. (I was there, done that.) But some have coupled with their belief of God an experience of God inside the self, and that cannot be denied because it happens to self. Belief in God without "knowing" God inside is, I think, akin to believing in Santa Claus, setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't know if it's possible to teach someone how to find this experience of god --in fact, I'm quite sure it's not possible, though Buddhism sounds hopeful. Words fall on deaf ears. I know a few religious people who just "go through the motions", skip church, and talk about "faith", as in "I don't really know God, inside or out, but I trust he's somewhere." That's not religion, in my book. (/opinion)

You know, I've always figured "better safe than sorry". I can live a pretty darn happy life without too much sin, so I'll take my chances on wasting it so that I don't have to spend eternity encased in ice with my eyes ears and mouth frozen shut while satan's four heads gush bloody foam all around me.

I blame the missionaries.

Those who are taught about Christianity yet do not feel able to fully commit themselves to belief are doomed to hell (and, even among the believers, only the truly rightous get to heaven) yet it is often said that the forgiving God gives those who die in ignorance of the Truth (TM) shall be exempt the judgement and be allowed into heaven as long as their character is not completely stained. Thus by preaching the Word, and removing their ignorance of the trrue state of affairs, missionaries condem a significant proportion of their audience to a hell that they were not destined to.

Ok, slightly facetious, but you get the idea... :)

First of all dont react to my screen-name - it was an accident (long story!)

Whats clear to me is that religion - whether wrong, or correct, united - and still unites communities. If it wasnt for religion, we would still have no sence of ownership (because the "God(s)" wouldnt exist to punish you for stealing!)

Religion makes people behave in a civilized manner, and without it, there would be no sense of ownership.

There was quite a famous person - I cant remenber her name, who studied chimps for years and discovers that they have no concept of ownership, and anyone can steal from anyone else, and as sush a community never formed

Whats clear to me is that religion - whether wrong, or correct, united - and still unites communities. If it wasnt for religion, we would still have no sence of ownership (because the "God(s)" wouldnt exist to punish you for stealing!)

Religion makes people behave in a civilized manner, and without it, there would be no sense of ownership.

wow, so you also only refrain from stealing because you either want to be rewarded (heaven) or avoid being punished (hell)? you people have no moral fiber at all, do you?

i don't steal because i believe it is wrong for me to take what is not mine. i would not want somebody to steal from me, and so i act in the way i hope others will act toward me. more importantly, i don't WANT to steal things from other people...i want to make and earn my own things, and i don't have any interest in cheating or stealing to get ahead. if you do, and if you only refrain from doing so because God would be mad, then remind me to watch my pocketbook around you.


There was quite a famous person - I cant remenber her name, who studied chimps for years and discovers that they have no concept of ownership, and anyone can steal from anyone else, and as sush a community never formed
problem: chimps DO have communities, and very extensive ones. the research of the person i think you are referring to (Jane Goodall) was the first source establishing that chimps DO have definite social structure and community, and she detailed the complexities of that community.

and i pity you because if i'm right you will have missed out on living the only life you will ever get. your faith renders you unable to experience the fullness of your only chance at existence, according to my beliefs. given the choice, i would rather risk hell than the alternative.
:cool:
I agree 100%

I follow the way of Kung Fu.

Gods are bullshit. But feel free to believe in them if you want.

Wow, i must say im suprised at the hostility of people on both sides of this argument, personally im not sure whether there is a god, i prefer to think of the universe as a scientific thing, rather than being ruled over by some supreme being, but then again, the fact that so many people still beleve in gods must account for somthing, even if i find it strange, especially battles between religions, in our age this really shouldnt happen, i think the current archbishop of cantebury, Dr Rowen Williams, has the cross-religion thing right when he stated that all religons can get to heaven, it is not a sole christian right

with the 'is religion right or not' i dont think it really matters, if a belief can lead people to lead better lives and help those less fortunate than themselves, i dont think it matters whether its true or not, just that it is working

It isn't. I certainly don't. Studying physics has made me MORE convinced in my belief in God. Not less.

There's a book out called "Quantum Theology." I can't wait to read it.

I hate physics, except for the ultra-big and the ultra-small. Cuz they tie in so neatly with religion, without even trying.

An afterlife? Which shall I choose? So many choices, all equally valid. Good thing I got my "Get out of Hell free" card incase I make a mistake.

Just don't take the mystery box....or you'll get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

NOTHING!

You so STUPID!!! :D ;)

And topic of the truthfulness of religion...there are so many of them, and lots of them are mutually exclusive. There for, they all can't be right. If one is right, then how many thousand are wrong? Seems like a shady bet to me.

I can just live a moral life to the best of my abilities. That should be good enough if there is some "afterlife" or "reincarnation" deal. If I'm screwed because lack of faith...then so be it.

wow, so you also only refrain from stealing because you either want to be rewarded (heaven) or avoid being punished (hell)? you people have no moral fiber at all, do you?

i don't steal because i believe it is wrong for me to take what is not mine. i would not want somebody to steal from me, and so i act in the way i hope others will act toward me. more importantly, i don't WANT to steal things from other people...i want to make and earn my own things, and i don't have any interest in cheating or stealing to get ahead. if you do, and if you only refrain from doing so because God would be mad, then remind me to watch my pocketbook around you.


Thats did not in any way refer to myself or indeed anyone nowerdays

I dont belive in God(s) - but the people in neolithic times - people who resembled and acted more like primates would - really didnt want to be punished forever, and so did not steal, and hence law and order was created. The people who ran the community wanted law and order in their communities, and therefore they created this whole senario of religion.

This does not refer to the monotheism of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or indeed the Polytheism of Hinduism, I refer to the religion(s) of the very early humans.

Of course I dont steal just so I dont go to hell. It is just moraly wrong, as well as being against the law.

with the 'is religion right or not' i dont think it really matters, if a belief can lead people to lead better lives and help those less fortunate than themselves, i dont think it matters whether its true or not, just that it is working

This is exactly what i am saying

Just don't take the mystery box....or you'll get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

NOTHING!

You so STUPID!!! :D ;)

And topic of the truthfulness of religion...there are so many of them, and lots of them are mutually exclusive. There for, they all can't be right. If one is right, then how many thousand are wrong? Seems like a shady bet to me.

I can just live a moral life to the best of my abilities. That should be good enough if there is some "afterlife" or "reincarnation" deal. If I'm screwed because lack of faith...then so be it.

Actually it was just on the news. Turns out the Mormons were right... who'd have thought it.

Thats did not in any way refer to myself or indeed anyone nowerdays

I dont belive in God(s) - but the people in neolithic times - people who resembled and acted more like primates would - really didnt want to be punished forever, and so did not steal, and hence law and order was created. The people who ran the community wanted law and order in their communities, and therefore they created this whole senario of religion.

This does not refer to the monotheism of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or indeed the Polytheism of Hinduism, I refer to the religion of the very early humans.

Of course I dont steal just so I dont go to hell. It is just moraly wrong, as well as being against the law.

I think that religion was less of a deciding factor than you imagine - since, in most primitive religions, gods are anthropomorphic representations of elemental forces, rather than arbiters of justice.

Also - I think the fear of very real physical repurcussion may have been instrumental then, as now.

Add to this the fact that anonymity is the greatest benefit in commiting crimes, then look at the small, close communities that earliest cultures embraced - it is unlikely they had much crime to fear, even without gods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You can assure yourself of what you like. Just as you can believe what you like.

You can NOT assure me, though, that your "transformation" was anything more than a clarification of your disbelief.

The reason you can't is due to my stubborn definition of "belief in god", which is simply belief that "it is".

You can not convince me that if you believed that "it is" is really true, that you were somehow convinced the "it is" is now suddenly untrue.

Your opinion stated here is interesting and although you didn't take it any further, I will supplement it with an "experience of God" or godliness on a subjective level. Like so: we are told by everything around us that God exists (meaning in the physical world, since that is the agreed-upon really-real world of existence). Then we find the evidence lacking. God does not exist, so God is not true. No matter how much religion we read or how much spirituality we listen to, nothing clicks inside. (I was there, done that.) But some have coupled with their belief of God an experience of God inside the self, and that cannot be denied because it happens to self. Belief in God without "knowing" God inside is, I think, akin to believing in Santa Claus, setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't know if it's possible to teach someone how to find this experience of god --in fact, I'm quite sure it's not possible, though Buddhism sounds hopeful. Words fall on deaf ears. I know a few religious people who just "go through the motions", skip church, and talk about "faith", as in "I don't really know God, inside or out, but I trust he's somewhere." That's not religion, in my book. (/opinion)

Dead on..! :)

You are absolutely right. I concur entirely...!

It does have to be a "felt" thing. Religion without the "felt thing" is a social convention that attempts to "move people" into a place where they're more likely to "feel it" personally. (There are other motives for this social convention, of course, many of which are not so nice.)

Of course, what often happens is they get "a" feeling, which is not the actual "the" feeling of (what I call) "it is". One's own personal interpretation of "god" as the absolute.

The agnostic is by definition uncertain, regardless of "the evidence". The believer is by definition certain regardless of "the evidence".

The disbeliever is by definition certain, just like the believer, regardless of "the evidence".

See how utterly irrelevent "the evidence" is in this matter..?

Nobody CARES about the evidence..!

The "evidence" does not sway anyone, or convert anyone to the "feeling".

It's the utterly simple, profoundly basic definition of "god", THE most basic definition of the absolute, internalized, that is the only thing that matters in regards to belief, which is the single foundation of faith and "true religion".

I dont belive in God(s) - but the people in neolithic times - people who resembled and acted more like primates would...
People in neolithic cultures looked and acted just like us, except with less social complexity, fewer problems and certainly less politics, and a lot more experience of regligion than modern man gets at a Billy Graham crusade. 'Neolithic' is the period between the end of the last ice-age, about 10,000 years ago, when the pyramids were built, and approximately 1,500BC (the end of the Neolithic period varies from culture to culture). They were nomadic and agricultural tribe-families, and practiced religions participatory in god and nature.

...since, in most primitive religions, gods are anthropomorphic representations of elemental forces...
A very nice text-book description of a scientists objective view of subjective concepts he has no grasp of. If you really want to know what gods were to primitive religions, you'd do well to read up on mythology (the study of myths, not reading the myths themselves).

Nobody CARES about the evidence..!

The "evidence" does not sway anyone (away from), or convert anyone to the "feeling".

It's the utterly simple, profoundly basic definition of "god", THE most basic definition of the absolute, internalized, that is the only thing that matters in regards to belief, which is the single foundation of faith and "true religion".
Yes, but we should pause here to consider the position this puts science in. The scientist can only examine things in the physical world; that is part of his creed. The way subjective things are brought into the physical world is by voice and hand --the word (the same tool God used to create in the physical world). Once things reside in the physical world, science can examine them, but what science cannot know is true, it cannot trust. Science cannot know that the record of the subjective expression is a "truthful" one, because truth is also defined in the physical world, so it cannot trust anything that has as its source the mind of a human being. (For instance, psychology is not considered by many to be a science --it's essentially a guessing game of deduction.)

This is a complete reversal of the way things were before science and logic changed mankind's thinking. It essentially dehumanizes our view of the world, by taking man’s subjective view out of the "official" picture. Science heralds it as an advancement of mind, exalting the abstracted objective viewpoint, but ignoring the fact humans simply don’t work that way. The average human views the world both as an object, apart from him, and as a subject of the world, participating in it.

Neither the purely scientific approach nor the purely "faith" one is practical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Karl Marx-
I dont belive in God(s) - but the people in neolithic times - people who resembled and acted more like primates would...


People in neolithic cultures looked and acted just like us, except with less social complexity, fewer problems and certainly less politics, and a lot more experience of regligion than modern man gets at a Billy Graham crusade. 'Neolithic' is the period between the end of the last ice-age, about 10,000 years ago, when the pyramids were built, and approximately 1,500BC (the end of the Neolithic period varies from culture to culture). They were nomadic and agricultural tribe-families, and practiced religions participatory in god and nature.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
...since, in most primitive religions, gods are anthropomorphic representations of elemental forces...


A very nice text-book description of a scientists objective view of subjective concepts he has no grasp of. If you really want to know what gods were to primitive religions, you'd do well to read up on mythology (the study of myths, not reading the myths themselves).

My people were "neolithic" until the ??th century.

Society was no less complex for the neolithic, just a trifle less technology bound.

..and no TV or much writing, so people had to actually converse first hand.

We did not have fewer problems.

We did NOT have less politics..! EVERYTHING was politics..! :)

"Like big polynesian family at thanksgiving dinner with WAY too much good beer..!" is how I like to think of it.

BUT,... you knew you were going to die shortly, 'cause everything died shortly, so you took things much more seriously.

When everything is a big deal,... you "GET" religion... :)

People in neolithic cultures looked and acted just like us, except with less social complexity, fewer problems and certainly less politics, and a lot more experience of regligion than modern man gets at a Billy Graham crusade. 'Neolithic' is the period between the end of the last ice-age, about 10,000 years ago, when the pyramids were built, and approximately 1,500BC (the end of the Neolithic period varies from culture to culture). They were nomadic and agricultural tribe-families, and practiced religions participatory in god and nature.


A very nice text-book description of a scientists objective view of subjective concepts he has no grasp of. If you really want to know what gods were to primitive religions, you'd do well to read up on mythology (the study of myths, not reading the myths themselves).

Is this response to me? Are you saying I need to read up on primitive myth, or are you still talking to "god=no crime guy"?

Whats clear to me is that religion - whether wrong, or correct, united - and still unites communities.
No, it divides communities, causing people of different religions (including atheism) to hate each other. The most extreme cases are, of course, holy wars - but it also contributes to many minor cases of discrimination all the time.

Of course, in ancient times, religion often equalled geographic territory, so religions tended not to mix much and the problem stayed fairly small. However, with modern travel and communication technology, this division can no longer be ignored.

If it wasnt for religion, we would still have no sence of ownership (because the "God(s)" wouldnt exist to punish you for stealing!)

Religion makes people behave in a civilized manner, and without it, there would be no sense of ownership.

There was quite a famous person - I cant remenber her name, who studied chimps for years and discovers that they have no concept of ownership, and anyone can steal from anyone else, and as sush a community never formed
What do chimps have to steal? All they really need in their communities is food, which is readily picked off trees. Since everything that chimps need can be obtained so easily, they don't need a concept of owning stuff, but think solely in terms of stuff being there. In a way, that makes sense - if I pick a fruit off a tree but don't eat it, what right do I have to forbid someone else from eating it? It'd just get wasted otherwise, and I can always get another one if I grow hungry myself.

However, humans introduced a new concept: objects that took personal effort to create. Humans use tools for, well, pretty much everything. These tools cannot simply be picked off a tree, or out of the ground, or whatever. They take time to make, and if lost, cannot easily be replaced. It is due to this that people started to keep their tools to themselves. If someone took something you made, it would be far easier to take it back than to make a new one - probably, this led to fights over who could use it. People realized the inherent danger of taking things they didn't make themselves, so slowly, the stopped doing so and thus the concept of property was born, purely by reason self-conservation.

I don't think there was actually someone who came forth and said "From today onward, no one is allowed to steal." And he certainly didn't add "So ordaineth God."

Yes, but we should pause here to consider the position this puts science in. The scientist can only examine things in the physical world; that is part of his creed. The way subjective things are brought into the physical world is by voice and hand --the word (the same tool God used to create in the physical world). Once things reside in the physical world, science can examine them, but what science cannot know is true, it cannot trust. Science cannot know that the record of the subjective expression is a "truthful" one, because truth is also defined in the physical world, so it cannot trust anything that has as its source the mind of a human being. (For instance, psychology is not considered by many to be a science --it's essentially a guessing game of deduction.)

This is a complete reversal of the way things were before science and logic changed mankind's thinking. It essentially dehumanizes our view of the world, by taking man’s subjective view out of the "official" picture. Science heralds it as an advancement of mind, exalting the abstracted objective viewpoint, but ignoring the fact humans simply don’t work that way. The average human views the world both as an object, apart from him, and as a subject of the world, participating in it.

Neither the purely scientific approach nor the purely "faith" one is practical.

You put way too much credence in spiritualistic and metaphysical concepts.

Subjective things are not 'brought' into the world. Subjective interpretation can become objective representation (even if the 'product' is of subjective 'nature', it's existence is objective.

Subjective can never be 'true' - it can approximate 'truth', but it can never equal it, since it will always be affected by subjectivity. This is what makes science the preferred path (in my eyes) to blind-faith - since science can record an objective result, and therefore, can better approximate truth.

"Like big polynesian family at thanksgiving dinner with WAY too much good beer..!" is how I like to think of it.
Hehe. Re the 'fewer problems' I was thinking in terms of other societies intermixing, as there were fewer people to intermix with, and negative impact foreigners would have on the tribe, especially from Western civilization; things like like hunting and fishing rights; pollution from outside impacting air, water and land; and the inevitable impact of the 'missionary' types imposing a new religion on the people.

People in neolithic cultures looked and acted just like us, except with less social complexity, fewer problems and certainly less politics, and a lot more experience of regligion than modern man gets at a Billy Graham crusade. 'Neolithic' is the period between the end of the last ice-age, about 10,000 years ago, when the pyramids were built, and approximately 1,500BC (the end of the Neolithic period varies from culture to culture). They were nomadic and agricultural tribe-families, and practiced religions participatory in god and nature.



Less social complexity how? You are just making this stuff up, now.

You have no basis for half of what you are saying here, apart from maybe a 'faith' that what you say must be right. kind of like a personal Dogmatic Law.

Most Neolithic cultures, by which, one assumes you mean 'ancient' religions probably had almost no knowledge of religion. Try reading some history.

It wasn't until the hunter-gatherer societies became irrigator/herders that they could feed whole communities for the smaller amount of labour that would free up individuals to pursue specific occupations - mostly aftificers of some kind, but, also to specialise in religion.

Most of what would be considered 'gods' by modern day religionists were NOT considered gods by those primitive cultures. More akin, perhaps, to western belief in faeries - elemental creatures that coexisted with humanity.

The 'true' religions didn't really start until the settlement of the fertile areas of the middle east, where individual communities coalesced myths into codified histories - establishing the 'gods' as seperate and superior to humans, usually by virtue of a creation myth.

Also - there are still Neolithic communities today. Do some research.

Also - the pyramids weren't built 10,000 years ago. Do some research.

It is scary the stuff people will just 'say', with no evidence to back it up.

You put way too much credence in spiritualistic and metaphysical concepts.

Subjective things are not 'brought' into the world.
Oh? Then how did these thoughts get from your head onto my monitor?

Subjective interpretation can become objective representation (even if the 'product' is of subjective 'nature', it's existence is objective.
"Can become" is the same as "is brought" into the physical world, i.e. you are expressing something from a source within you. Subjective: "a) Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision." It's existence is not scientifically, objectively provable unless it is expressed; if it is never pronounced, no one would even know it exists except the individual. And that leads us to subjective: "b) Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience."

Subjective can never be 'true' - it can approximate 'truth', but it can never equal it, since it will always be affected by subjectivity. This is what makes science the preferred path (in my eyes) to blind-faith - since science can record an objective result, and therefore, can better approximate truth.

Subjective truth can never be true in an objective sense, i.e. for everyone. It can be true for the individual, and that's all that's required of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Karl Marx-
Whats clear to me is that religion - whether wrong, or correct, united - and still unites communities.


No, it divides communities, causing people of different religions (including atheism) to hate each other. The most extreme cases are, of course, holy wars - but it also contributes to many minor cases of discrimination all the time.



Originally Posted by -Karl Marx-
Of course, in ancient times, religion often equalled geographic territory, so religions tended not to mix much and the problem stayed fairly small. However, with modern travel and communication technology, this division can no longer be ignored.

If it wasnt for religion, we would still have no sence of ownership (because the "God(s)" wouldnt exist to punish you for stealing!)

Religion makes people behave in a civilized manner, and without it, there would be no sense of ownership.

There was quite a famous person - I cant remenber her name, who studied chimps for years and discovers that they have no concept of ownership, and anyone can steal from anyone else, and as sush a community never formed


What do chimps have to steal? All they really need in their communities is food, which is readily picked off trees. Since everything that chimps need can be obtained so easily, they don't need a concept of owning stuff, but think solely in terms of stuff being there. In a way, that makes sense - if I pick a fruit off a tree but don't eat it, what right do I have to forbid someone else from eating it? It'd just get wasted otherwise, and I can always get another one if I grow hungry myself.

However, humans introduced a new concept: objects that took personal effort to create. Humans use tools for, well, pretty much everything. These tools cannot simply be picked off a tree, or out of the ground, or whatever. They take time to make, and if lost, cannot easily be replaced. It is due to this that people started to keep their tools to themselves. If someone took something you made, it would be far easier to take it back than to make a new one - probably, this led to fights over who could use it. People realized the inherent danger of taking things they didn't make themselves, so slowly, the stopped doing so and thus the concept of property was born, purely by reason self-conservation.

I don't think there was actually someone who came forth and said "From today onward, no one is allowed to steal." And he certainly didn't add "So ordaineth God."

Milo, Milo, Milo.... blanket statements... think a bit before making them.

Religion DOES unite communities. It ALSO divides them. So what's your REAL point..?

Perhaps that because "religion" HAS been used to divide people, that it should be completely scrapped as part of human nature..?

And *I* get accused of being "black-and-white" in my thinking..!

CHIMPS have lots of things to steal. Food,.. mates,.. babies,.. choice real estate,.. among other things.

You obviously have never watched territorial animals of any kind in action.

Chimps have been known to steal babies from each other to raise. If this isn't "stealing something that took effort to produce" I don't know what is.

Therefore, stealing has always been a criminal offense, because it pisses someone off, and that is dangerous to the "normal functioning" of the group.

But since the "urge to steal" as well as the "urge to punish criminals" came long before any VERBAL "law", it tends to be ascribed to "god".

This is what makes science the preferred path (in my eyes) to blind-faith - since science can record an objective result, and therefore, can better approximate truth.
Religion, or "true" religion as Iakeokeo calls it, is not required to be true for everyone, just for the individual. That people feel they have to believe what others believe is a failing, in my opinion, of the respective religious organizations that promote the idea.

Is this response to me? Are you saying I need to read up on primitive myth, or are you still talking to "god=no crime guy"?
It was two responses in one post, yes.

Oh? Then how did these thoughts get from your head onto my monitor?

Subjective truth can never be true in an objective sense, i.e. for everyone. It can be true for the individual, and that's all that's required of it.

Subjective response moderated through objective action to give an objective response, which you view objectively, then process subjectively.

Subjective 'truth' is not truth. If it is ONLY true for an individual, it is not true.

Re: The mentally divergent character in Twelve Monkeys. He lvies in an elaborately crafted fantasy world. It is 'TRUE' to him. But, that doesn't make it 'true' in reality.

Religion, or "true" religion as Iakeokeo calls it, is not required to be true for everyone, just for the individual. That people feel they have to believe what others believe is a failing, in my opinion, of the respective religious organizations that promote the idea.

And I have great respect for this definition of religion, since it admits that religion is a delusion.

So long as you are happy in your head, I'm happy for you.

What offends me is when people push their religion as the 'only true' religion, or try to push it on others by preaching or 'witnessing'.

It was two responses in one post, yes.

So you were implying that I needed to review primitive myth?

Why, pray tell, would that be?

I have knowledge, not only of the study of myths, but also of the content and context of those myths... what is it you would like to see me 'learn' from my reading?

I think you were trying to offer some degree of insult - perhaps imply that I was fundamentally misunderstanding ancient religion. Maybe you think I lack historical knowledge.

And then, one response later, you're found saying that the pyramids are 10,000 years old...

Although i am currently agnostic there is mathmatical proof tha is is better to belive in god than not.
Let us assume for the purposes of the arigument that heaven is infinatly good hare after Henven = infinity and of course it balence i Hell = Negitive Inffinity. And TO keep it still balenced rotting in your grave and doing nothing after dreath = 0. Tehat youi are a god beliveing person then at death you will get infinity though at the opther end if you are not AND god exists then you will get negitive infinity.
GOd Exits Example : God not Exist Example:
Belif = infinity, Nonbelif= Negitive infinity Belif = 0 Nonbelif = 0
Hereafter it is logigicaly provibe that is is wiser to belive in god even from a mathmactial standpoint

Although i am currently agnostic there is mathmatical proof tha is is better to belive in god than not.
Let us assume for the purposes of the arigument that heaven is infinatly good hare after Henven = infinity and of course it balence i Hell = Negitive Inffinity. And TO keep it still balenced rotting in your grave and doing nothing after dreath = 0. Tehat youi are a god beliveing person then at death you will get infinity though at the opther end if you are not AND god exists then you will get negitive infinity.
GOd Exits Example : God not Exist Example:
Belif = infinity, Nonbelif= Negitive infinity Belif = 0 Nonbelif = 0
Hereafter it is logigicaly provibe that is is wiser to belive in god even from a mathmactial standpoint

Commence laughter.

Although i am currently agnostic there is mathmatical proof tha is is better to belive in god than not.
Let us assume for the purposes of the arigument that heaven is infinatly good hare after Henven = infinity and of course it balence i Hell = Negitive Inffinity. And TO keep it still balenced rotting in your grave and doing nothing after dreath = 0. Tehat youi are a god beliveing person then at death you will get infinity though at the opther end if you are not AND god exists then you will get negitive infinity.
GOd Exits Example : God not Exist Example:
Belif = infinity, Nonbelif= Negitive infinity Belif = 0 Nonbelif = 0
Hereafter it is logigicaly provibe that is is wiser to belive in god even from a mathmactial standpoint

Flawed logic, based on speculation.

What if god is not good? What if the stories you heard were, not only wrong, but reversed? What if, by believing in 'god', you actually consign your 'soul' to 'hell'?

What if Hell isn't the alternative to Heaven? What if rotting in your grave is actually the best of the three results?.

God exists, but he's a big meanie example:

Eternal life = +1
Eternal life with sick twisted god = -2 (seems fair)

therefore, total = -1

So, it is wiser NOT to belive in god.

Less social complexity how? You are just making this stuff up, now.

You have no basis for half of what you are saying here, apart from maybe a 'faith' that what you say must be right. kind of like a personal Dogmatic Law.

Most Neolithic cultures, by which, one assumes you mean 'ancient' religions probably had almost no knowledge of religion. Try reading some history.
"Probably"? How precise. There are many reference books available on the mythologies of Neolithic cultures. I highly recommend the work of Joseph Campbell, he being the most popular and widely known.

It wasn't until the hunter-gatherer societies became irrigator/herders that they could feed whole communities for the smaller amount of labour that would free up individuals to pursue specific occupations - mostly aftificers of some kind, but, also to specialise in religion.

Most of what would be considered 'gods' by modern day religionists were NOT considered gods by those primitive cultures. More akin, perhaps, to western belief in faeries - elemental creatures that coexisted with humanity.
There is evidence of a rich mythology for hunter/gatherer tribes in the artifacts unearthed by archaeology and in the mythologies of more modern-day "Neolithic" tribes. That is the point I was making - that God is not what the modern world considers to be a physical presence in the universe.

Faeries are a mythological construct, too.

The 'true' religions didn't really start until the settlement of the fertile areas of the middle east, where individual communities coalesced myths into codified histories - establishing the 'gods' as seperate and superior to humans, usually by virtue of a creation myth.
You have a particular idea of what a "true" religion is, and that's fine. But I am expressing another concept of religion and god, one that you don't seem to be interesting in hearing.

Also - there are still Neolithic communities today. Do some research.

Also - the pyramids weren't built 10,000 years ago. Do some research.

It is scary the stuff people will just 'say', with no evidence to back it up.
Yes, there are modern tribes that are pre-industrial, pre-"Bronze Age" if you like. I didn't meant to suggest there weren't.

There is plenty of physical evidence that indicates that the pyramids are at least 10,000 years old. Do some research, yourself. ;-)

Subjective response moderated through objective action to give an objective response, which you view objectively, then process subjectively.
Again, "moderated through...", "brought into..." - expresing the same thing, different ways of saying it. Perhaps our misunderstanding is simply a semantical one, but you seem to be rejecting the more poetic way I describe the same process as if it is contradictory. It's not.

I think your only problem here is in your denying that anything goes on inside you. You are denying "self".

Subjective 'truth' is not truth. If it is ONLY true for an individual, it is not true.
Okay, perhaps you missed the part where it's subjective..... The truth of things that exist in the physical world can be viewed objectively or subjectively. The truth of things which are entirely subjective cannot be viewed objectively unless they are expressed and absracted, but they can be viewed subjectively and understood to be true without ever being expressed.

EDIT: An "idea" is objective, but what the idea is is subjective.

Re: The mentally divergent character in Twelve Monkeys. He lvies in an elaborately crafted fantasy world. It is 'TRUE' to him. But, that doesn't make it 'true' in reality.
I have to see that movie again. You're the third person who has mentioned it this week.

"Probably"? How precise. There are many reference books available on the mythologies of Neolithic cultures. I highly recommend the work of Joseph Campbell, he being the most popular and widely known.

Since we are talking about 'Neolithic' peoples, and that covers an enormous spectrum, and I didn't want to make one sweeping generalisation, I felt it was safer to use the 'probably' clause. I wasn't aiming for specific, I was aiming for inclusive.

There is evidence of a rich mythology for hunter/gatherer tribes in the artifacts unearthed by archaeology and in the mythologies of more modern-day "Neolithic" tribes. That is the point I was making - that God is not what the modern world considers to be a physical presence in the universe.

I'm not sure, but I think you're trying to make the same point as me, just from the other direction. The other poster (forgotten name) said that gods were the instrument of law in Neoltihic culture - and I denied that, partially on my understanding of religion. What Neolithic societies mainly had was mythology, which is not the same as religion. A mythical figure isn't automatically a god. I think you are coming at the same thing in a different way, with the modern definitions of religion - but I could be wrong.

Faeries are a mythological construct, too.

Yes. Kind of my point.

You have a particular idea of what a "true" religion is, and that's fine. But I am expressing another concept of religion and god, one that you don't seem to be interesting in hearing.

As Above.

Yes, there are modern tribes that are pre-industrial, pre-"Bronze Age" if you like. I didn't meant to suggest there weren't.

So you can't generalise about Neolithic cultures existing thousands of years ago, because not all of them did.

There is plenty of physical evidence that indicates that the pyramids are at least 10,000 years old. Do some research, yourself. ;-)
No. There is not 'plenty'. In fact, I have seen no physical evidence that points to it. I have seen some speculation - but specualtion isn't evidence.

There is an interesting theory that holds that the DESIGN of the pyramids dates back about 12,000 years - but there is no evidence to suggest that the structures themselves are more than about 3000 years old.

And I have great respect for this definition of religion, since it admits that religion is a delusion.
Yes, though I wouldn't use that word, myself. It's common usage is derogatory and often used as an insult, to group religion with insanity. People don't stop to consider that their "broken hearts" are a delusion, too.

So long as you are happy in your head, I'm happy for you.
If you took this attitude towards all religious folk, even those that profess their religion to be the 'only true' religion, you would encounter a lot less resistance.

Again, "moderated through...", "brought into..." - expresing the same thing, different ways of saying it. Perhaps our misunderstanding is simply a semantical one, but you seem to be rejecting the more poetic way I describe the same process as if it is contradictory. It's not.

I am merely arguing that there is any 'reality' to the subjective. Just because someone thinks there are fairies in their attic, doesn't make the fairies real. It is subjective, but not real. You talk about concepts that are subjective as though they were 'real' - and I don't take that as a valid assumption.

I think your only problem here is in your denying that anything goes on inside you. You are denying "self".

In a way - I do deny self. I think my thoughts are electronic impulses inside a very complex organic computer, influenced by the 'shapes' of my memories - in the forms of chemical sediment in my brain. Things go on, and I perceive them and react to the stimuli.

That's not to say that I deny imagination. But, it is a concept - and for every argument that imagination is a) god's hand in our heads or b) a spiritual process of creation, there is c) the response to stimuli, moderated by chemicals.

Okay, perhaps you missed the part where it's subjective..... The truth of things that exist in the physical world can be viewed objectively or subjectively. The truth of things which are entirely subjective cannot be viewed objectively unless they are expressed and absracted, but they can be viewed subjectively and understood to be true without ever being expressed.

EDIT: An "idea" is objective, but what the idea is is subjective.


My argument isn't against the word subjective, here - it's against 'true'

You 'understanding' that a thing is 'true' is immaterial, literally. There is no concrete basis to it. It isn't true, it is just 'true to you' - and I don't accept that a thing can be independently true. Either it is true, or it is not.

I have to see that movie again. You're the third person who has mentioned it this week.

Good movie. Possibly Willis at his best, and an astounding performance by Brad Pitt. Should have been a 5 oscar movie... (Actor, Actress, Support, Director, Score) Just my opinion, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Religion, or "true" religion as Iakeokeo calls it, is not required to be true for everyone, just for the individual. That people feel they have to believe what others believe is a failing, in my opinion, of the respective religious organizations that promote the idea.



And I have great respect for this definition of religion, since it admits that religion is a delusion.

So long as you are happy in your head, I'm happy for you.

What offends me is when people push their religion as the 'only true' religion, or try to push it on others by preaching or 'witnessing'.

By your definition of delusion, religion may well be delusional.

What is your definition of "delusion"..?

Religion is a certainty to me.

How do you define "certainty".

This discusion is not about your annoyance at being preached at or "withnessed" to.

It's about whether you think that religion is "true" or not.

If it's not true to you, then why is it not "true", and enlighten us on why it is not true...!

To me, nothing else makes more sense than God.

Yes, though I wouldn't use that word, myself. It's common usage is derogatory and often used as an insult, to group religion with insanity. People don't stop to consider that their "broken hearts" are a delusion, too.


If you took this attitude towards all religious folk, even those that profess their religion to be the 'only true' religion, you would encounter a lot less resistance.

I do take this attitude toward all religious folk.

Religious folk are not happy to accept that, however. They wish to argue the 'reality' of religion. The 'necessity' for religion. They try to 'convert' people. They 'witness' to people.

If they sit quietly and think about god, we are good. When they try to enforce that view on me, or argue it's veracity against me, I object and resist.

And, 'broken hearts', etc. Anything that exists solely within your own head is delusional - I have suffered from this 'delusion', and from the delusion of a huge void when my father died. I understand why I felt that way, and I appreciated the sensation at the time - but it is clearly a delusion, although perhaps an essential one.

The sooner that people realise that their inner life IS delusion, the better for all concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Okay, perhaps you missed the part where it's subjective..... The truth of things that exist in the physical world can be viewed objectively or subjectively. The truth of things which are entirely subjective cannot be viewed objectively unless they are expressed and absracted, but they can be viewed subjectively and understood to be true without ever being expressed.

EDIT: An "idea" is objective, but what the idea is is subjective.



My argument isn't against the word subjective, here - it's against 'true'

You 'understanding' that a thing is 'true' is immaterial, literally. There is no concrete basis to it. It isn't true, it is just 'true to you' - and I don't accept that a thing can be independently true. Either it is true, or it is not.


"Truth" is utterly subjective.

Truth is that which you take as fact, at whatever level of detail you are looking at it.

If someone else takes that same thing as fact, as truth, then that's a lovely coincidence, but is irrelevent to someone who doesn't take that position.

To insist that "my truth" isn't true because "my truth" isn't "your truth" only says that you don't understand the basic nature of the word "truth".

The "either or" argument here is your opinion.

The "either or" mentality does not apply to truth as it pertains to our subject, which is "religion: true or not?"

By your definition of delusion, religion may well be delusional.

What is your definition of "delusion"..?

Religion is a certainty to me.

How do you define "certainty".

This discusion is not about your annoyance at being prreached at or "withnessed" to.

It's about whether you think that religion is "true" or not.

If it's not true to you, then why is it not "true", and enlighten us on why it is not true...!

(From Encyclopedia Brittanica) Delusion: "Absolute conviction, often preoccupying, that is characterized as idiosyncratic, of personal significance to the deluded individual, and persistent despite logical absurdity or contradictory evidence".

The important definition isn't delusion, or certainty. The important definition is "True".

(Merriam Webster) True: "Being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> : conformable to an essential reality : fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come true>

I don't think any religion has enough evidence to claim to be "in accordance with the actual state of affairs", except in subjective context. The religious view of the world differs from religion to religion, and is quite different from that revealed objectively.

I also don't see that any religion is "conformable to an essential reality" - since, once again, religions quibble over details large and small, which belies them being 'essential' to reality.

In face of a lack of evidence otherwise, religion is therefore, both "delusional" and incapable of being "true".

What Neolithic societies mainly had was mythology, which is not the same as religion. A mythical figure isn't automatically a god.
This is my understanding, yes, but a mythology is at the heart of every modern-day religion and is indicative of a religion (traditions, rituals, rites for the dead, and a psychological passage or mind-shift). The religious experience is also not a religion, it's personal.

I think you are coming at the same thing in a different way, with the modern definitions of religion - but I could be wrong.
Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment.

So you can't generalise about Neolithic cultures existing thousands of years ago, because not all of them did.
You're right, I shouldn't generalize so much; I'm just asking for trouble that way. But there are very, very few cultures left who are 'Neolithic', whereas the bulk of Europe, Asia, the Middle-East and Africa, where Judaic-Christian religions originated, and our modern Western-world ideas of religion come from, did exist in the period between 10,000 and rise of the Bronze Age in the various different places (last was, I believe, on Crete).

No. There is not 'plenty'. In fact, I have seen no physical evidence that points to it. I have seen some speculation - but speculation isn't evidence.
A lot of it is circumstantial evidence, but that's not the same as speculative. And yes, there is a lot of speculation and convincing interpretation involved. The same patterns of movements of the moon and sun, bird and lion, net and cross, physical symbolism engraved on stone and bone, repeated in the artifacts of cultures stretching back well before the ice age.

There is an interesting theory that holds that the DESIGN of the pyramids dates back about 12,000 years - but there is no evidence to suggest that the structures themselves are more than about 3000 years old.
Alright, it's been a couple decades since I read about such things. I did see on television a couple years ago a show about the weathering of the Sphinx, how a couple of engineers demonstrated (quite scientifically) that it was much older than proclaimed based on the wear of the bedrock and models of local rain projections going back 10,000 years, and this show, too, hinted at that the age of the pyramids (they didn't pursue it because the show was about their evidence of the Sphinx).

"Truth" is utterly subjective.

Truth is that which you take as fact, at whatever level of detail you are looking at it.

If someone else takes that same thing as fact, as truth, then that's a lovely coincidence, but is irrelevent to someone who doesn't take that position.

To insist that "my truth" isn't true because "my truth" isn't "your truth" only says that you don't understand the basic nature of the word "truth".

The "either or" argument here is your opinion.

The "either or" mentality does not apply to truth as it pertains to our subject, which is "religion: true or not?"

As I just posted in my other reply: the subjective nature of truth is a defiance of 'truth'. Leave the either/or stuff - that's by way of explanation
I'm not saying a thing is untrue because two people disagree on it, I am saying that something is unture because it doesn't amtch the criteria for being true.

A subjective truth is NOT a truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Yes, though I wouldn't use that word, myself. It's common usage is derogatory and often used as an insult, to group religion with insanity. People don't stop to consider that their "broken hearts" are a delusion, too.


If you took this attitude towards all religious folk, even those that profess their religion to be the 'only true' religion, you would encounter a lot less resistance.


I do take this attitude toward all religious folk.

Religious folk are not happy to accept that, however. They wish to argue the 'reality' of religion. The 'necessity' for religion. They try to 'convert' people. They 'witness' to people.

If they sit quietly and think about god, we are good. When they try to enforce that view on me, or argue it's veracity against me, I object and resist.

And, 'broken hearts', etc. Anything that exists solely within your own head is delusional - I have suffered from this 'delusion', and from the delusion of a huge void when my father died. I understand why I felt that way, and I appreciated the sensation at the time - but it is clearly a delusion, although perhaps an essential one.

The sooner that people realise that their inner life IS delusion, the better for all concerned.

And when you die,.. and your consciousness of this world is gone,.. the world itself and all of us will be a delusion.

Your bitterness at being confronted with "the delusions of others" sounds rather like the bitterness of the addict confronted with the temptation of another fix.

The point of religion is to calm one's consciousness in the midst of the phenomena of the world.

If it calms your mind to deny that others have found their own way to do so, and that they would like to show you their discovery is an evil bad act, then you show little compassion toward the compassionate.

If you don't like it, which I personally don't either, then you should respectfully thank them and explain your beliefs (in VERY brief) for their offer and get on with your life.

If you don't want to work that hard, simply smile and say, "No thanks, already got one..!"

If they continue to harrass you, treat them as you would any other door-to-door salesman.

I think you were trying to offer some degree of insult - perhaps imply that I was fundamentally misunderstanding ancient religion. Maybe you think I lack historical knowledge.
I meant no insult, and I don't pretend to know how much you know any topic. I just perceive that you didn't understand where I was coming from, and so didn't understand what the myths were about, and suggested a bit studying might remedy that. Or not...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"Truth" is utterly subjective.

Truth is that which you take as fact, at whatever level of detail you are looking at it.

If someone else takes that same thing as fact, as truth, then that's a lovely coincidence, but is irrelevent to someone who doesn't take that position.

To insist that "my truth" isn't true because "my truth" isn't "your truth" only says that you don't understand the basic nature of the word "truth".

The "either or" argument here is your opinion.

The "either or" mentality does not apply to truth as it pertains to our subject, which is "religion: true or not?"



As I just posted in my other reply: the subjective nature of truth is a defiance of 'truth'. Leave the either/or stuff - that's by way of explanation
I'm not saying a thing is untrue because two people disagree on it, I am saying that something is unture because it doesn't amtch the criteria for being true.

A subjective truth is NOT a truth.

All truth is subjective, therefore ANY truth is true.

By stating, as you do, that truth must be TRUE for all and utterly non-subjective, doesn't that mean you believe in an ABSOLUTE TRUTH..!

Isn't this ABSOLUTE TRUTH your "god"..?

And when you die,.. and your consciousness of this world is gone,.. the world itself and all of us will be a delusion.

Your bitterness at being confronted with "the delusions of others" sounds rather like the bitterness of the addict confronted with the temptation of another fix.

The point of religion is to calm one's consciousness in the midst of the phenomena of the world.

If it calms your mind to deny that others have found their own way to do so, and that they would like to show you their discovery is an evil bad act, then you show little compassion toward the compassionate.

If you don't like it, which I personally don't either, then you should respectfully thank them and explain your beliefs (in VERY brief) for their offer and get on with your life.

If you don't want to work that hard, simply smile and say, "No thanks, already got one..!"

If they continue to harrass you, treat them as you would any other door-to-door salesman.

I'm not sure where you found bitterness? I have no bitterness about my religious belief, or that of any other person.

I object to certain behaviours in others, that I consider an unwarranted invasion of my life - but I hold no animosity toward them for it.

I think you are trying to fit an 'image' around me that you would find easier to deal with.

I do not deny that some religious people seem to have found an oasis in a hectic world. I do deny that there's is the only way, or even the most valid way. I certainly oppose them trying to enforce that as the only valid way.

I have christian friends, and I am happy for them. They chose to embrace their religion. The fact that I think they are wrong doesn't mean we have contention over that fact - but, if a friend were to witness to me (knowing my belief, and chosing to try to over-ride my decision), I would object to that persons behaviour.

Since christianity REQUIRES witnessing, that is an element of that religion I oppose. There are many others.

I meant no insult, and I don't pretend to know how much you know any topic. I just perceive that you didn't understand where I was coming from, and so didn't understand what the myths were about, and suggested a bit studying might remedy that. Or not...

Then no insult is taken.

I have studied mythology quite extensively, both the 'art' of the thing, and the 'science'. The mechanism I suggested in response to the other (sorry, now LONG forgotten) poster was an observation based on much study.

'Early' religion does, indeed, seem to be an attempt to 'rationalise' the elemental world. Even the Bible is guilty of elementalism holdovers from these primitive times.

All truth is subjective, therefore ANY truth is true.

By stating, as you do, that truth must be TRUE for all and utterly non-subjective, doesn't that mean you believe in an ABSOLUTE TRUTH..!

Isn't this ABSOLUTE TRUTH your "god"..?

I disgaree. And so does Merriam Webster.

Truth is, by definition, not a thing limited by subjectivity.

Call it something else when it is subjective, if that makes you happy... call it "Boingo", why not.

All religion is subjective, therefore all religion is Boingo.

And, of course, Truth must be True...

Absolute Truth isn't my god, since I don't have any belief in Absolute Truth as a supernatural entity, I do not believe Absolute Truth created the world, I do not believe that I was crafted by Absolute Truth.

You can't bait me with 'gods'. Your assertion has no more validity than those weak attempts I've seen to claim Atheism as a religion.

I am merely arguing that there is any 'reality' to the subjective. Just because someone thinks there are fairies in their attic, doesn't make the fairies real. It is subjective, but not real. You talk about concepts that are subjective as though they were 'real' - and I don't take that as a valid assumption.
I have to agree with you there. There is no "reality" to the subjective things like the imagined fairies, because our modern mind-set defines the physical world and the viewpoint of the objective observer as the only "really real" reality. I've tried to avoid the suggestion that I think otherwise, and refer to subjective "reality" always as specifically subjective. What I was trying to impose was an idea that there is more appropriate way of understanding religion, the religious experience and God from the viewpoint of the subject, the experiencer. Obviously I'm not doing a very good job of it.

That's not to say that I deny imagination. But, it is a concept - and for every argument that imagination is a) god's hand in our heads or b) a spiritual process of creation, there is c) the response to stimuli, moderated by chemicals.

Your 'understanding' that a thing is 'true' is immaterial, literally. There is no concrete basis to it. It isn't true, it is just 'true to you' - and I don't accept that a thing can be independently true. Either it is true, or it is not.
But knowing that you have a "response to stimuli, moderated by chemicals" does nothing to describe what you imagine, what you envision, and what you feel.

I understand why I felt that way, and I appreciated the sensation at the time - but it is clearly a delusion, although perhaps an essential one.
Booya! "Perhaps essential." Some grounds for future understanding. I get annoyed at people who preach, too, but encounter it very rarely.

I have to agree with you there. There is no "reality" to the subjective things like the imagined fairies, because our modern mind-set defines the physical world and the viewpoint of the objective observer as the only "really real" reality. I've tried to avoid the suggestion that I think otherwise, and refer to subjective "reality" always as specifically subjective. What I was trying to impose was an idea that there is more appropriate way of understanding religion, the religious experience and God from the viewpoint of the subject, the experiencer. Obviously I'm not doing a very good job of it.


But knowing that you have a "response to stimuli, moderated by chemicals" does nothing to describe what you imagine, what you envision, and what you feel.

I honestly am trying very hard to understand... because, at the moment, I'm not sure if I am with you, or against you...

If you mean religion is a totally personal thing, and is utterly defined in the context of subjective experience... I agree

But, that doesn't make it 'TRUE'... so, I'm not sure where we are...

Re: imagination - what I 'see' is what my brain perceives in my visual cortex, as if I were viewing something with my eyes, but with an image created from the static and memeory fragments in my head...?

Booya! "Perhaps essential." Some grounds for future understanding. I get annoyed at people who preach, too, but encounter it very rarely.

You just said "Booya"? I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone type 'booya'... what did you mean?

I understand that grief reactions may be necessary for the acceptance procedure... but I don't see how that makes a 'god' a necessity, or what purpose it is a mechanism for, and, by admitting it a mechanism, wouldn't people be admitting that it wasn't 'really' real?

You encounter it rarely? You don't live in Georgia, then?

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]"Truth" is utterly subjective.

Truth is that which you take as fact, at whatever level of detail you are looking at it.
I would say rather that truth perceived by the subject (whether it is taken as fact from external reality, or is conceived as fact within the mind) is processed internally, and the results of those processes (the knowledge of its "truth" and value judgements made about it) are subjective until they are expressed into the physical world agian in words.
(This is me trying to find new ways of expressing my ideas. It all seems very convoluted, though --simpler to say, Subjective truth is truth perceived subjectively.) :-)

I disgaree. And so does Merriam Webster.

Truth is, by definition, not a thing limited by subjectivity.

Call it something else when it is subjective, if that makes you happy... call it "Boingo", why not.

All religion is subjective, therefore all religion is Boingo.

And, of course, Truth must be True...

Absolute Truth isn't my god, since I don't have any belief in Absolute Truth as a supernatural entity, I do not believe Absolute Truth created the world, I do not believe that I was crafted by Absolute Truth.

You can't bait me with 'gods'. Your assertion has no more validity than those weak attempts I've seen to claim Atheism as a religion.

:)

Your absolute faith that words have absolute meaning tell me all I need to know about your absolutist religion.

I also have no belief in a supernatural entity. I have a belief in "the absolute" entity.

End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"Truth" is utterly subjective.

Truth is that which you take as fact, at whatever level of detail you are looking at it.

I would say rather that truth perceived by the subject (whether it is taken as fact from external reality, or is conceived as fact within the mind) is processed internally, and the results of those processes (the knowledge of its "truth" and value judgements made about it) are subjective until they are expressed into the physical world agian in words.
(This is me trying to find new ways of expressing my ideas. It all seems very convoluted, though --simpler to say, Subjective truth is truth perceived subjectively.) :-)

And my contention is:

All truth is subjective.

Hallucinations are truth to a hallucinagee.

Hallucinations, even after being "broken" by physical "PROOF", can sometimes STILL be truth to a hallucigenee.

This makes even utterly completely provable nonsense TRUTH in potential,.. to someone..!

Under this definition, OBVIOUSLY RELIGION IS TRUE..!

But,... is it true for YOU,... and does it help you in any way..? :)

And my contention is:

All truth is subjective.

Hallucinations are truth to a hallucinagee.

Hallucinations, even after being "broken" by physical "PROOF", can sometimes STILL be truth to a hallucigenee.

This makes even utterly completely provable nonsense TRUTH in potential,.. to someone..!

Under this definition, OBVIOUSLY RELIGION IS TRUE..!

But,... is it true for YOU,... and does it help you in any way..? :)

And THAT is the crux of the matter.

Is it true? My contention is that if not true for everyone, then not true at all - and I've yet to see a good argument against it.

:)

Your absolute faith that words have absolute meaning tell me all I need to know about your absolutist religion.

I also have no belief in a supernatural entity. I have a belief in "the absolute" entity.

End of story.

Once again, trying to fit me into a mould that is comfortable for you, but I'm afraid it's still not the right one...

I didn't claim 'absolute faith' in words having 'absolute meaning'. But, the language we are debating in is English, and English words, when used in English contexts have certain (English) meanings. Those are the meanings of those words - it's not a matter of faith, or of absolutes.

A supernatural entity would be one that was not explicable by the normal natural laws. If you believe in a living 'thing' that is not physical, then you believe in something 'supernatural', doesn't matter how you try to define it to yourself.

I guess that's the end of story for you.... so, we won't be hearing any more?
Pity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And my contention is:

All truth is subjective.

Hallucinations are truth to a hallucinagee.

Hallucinations, even after being "broken" by physical "PROOF", can sometimes STILL be truth to a hallucigenee.

This makes even utterly completely provable nonsense TRUTH in potential,.. to someone..!

Under this definition, OBVIOUSLY RELIGION IS TRUE..!

But,... is it true for YOU,... and does it help you in any way..?



And THAT is the crux of the matter.

Is it true? My contention is that if not true for everyone, then not true at all - and I've yet to see a good argument against it.

My psychotic friend, Yuni, has a truth.

His truth is that no one but Yuni exists.

Therefore you, Grave, do not exist.

Does your religion of absolute meaning of words help you..!?

YES...! YES it does...!!!!

Grave can say: Yuni's truth is not MY truth, so he must mean something other than "truth",.. in fact he means "delusion".

Grave feels SO much better..!

By listening to the absolute power and might of his absolutely defined words according the his absolutist religion, he is comforted.

But Yuni still has his truth.

And his religion says: Only Yuni exists.

Yuni feels SO much better..!

If I have a favorite color, or book, or such, that is subjective. I am neither "right" nor "wrong" in preferring copper over silver - it's just personal taste. You could easily have a different opinion, which would in no way affect the validity of mine. That is subjectivity.

However, imagine I were to tell you that the chair I am sitting on is blue. That is not a subjective statement. The color of my seat is an objective fact, and even though you can't come here and check the veracity of my claim, it must still be either completely true or completely false - you just don't know which. It is not even a hard to believe statement, since blue is a common color for chairs. This is objectivity.

God is an objective concept. A supreme being either exists or it does not. Again, we might not be able to know which it is (although the claim is certainly less likely than the one that I'm sitting on a blue chair, for someone who doesn't know the facts about either), but it must still be absolutely true or absolutely false.

(Incidentally, my seat is actually green. Although I might be lying.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo


Your absolute faith that words have absolute meaning tell me all I need to know about your absolutist religion.

I also have no belief in a supernatural entity. I have a belief in "the absolute" entity.

End of story.


Once again, trying to fit me into a mould that is comfortable for you, but I'm afraid it's still not the right one...

I didn't claim 'absolute faith' in words having 'absolute meaning'. But, the language we are debating in is English, and English words, when used in English contexts have certain (English) meanings. Those are the meanings of those words - it's not a matter of faith, or of absolutes.

A supernatural entity would be one that was not explicable by the normal natural laws. If you believe in a living 'thing' that is not physical, then you believe in something 'supernatural', doesn't matter how you try to define it to yourself.

I guess that's the end of story for you.... so, we won't be hearing any more?
Pity.

The constant plea of the uncomprehending mind is "I didn't say that..!"

I agreed with you in your proclamation against "supernatural entities".

I do not believe my absolute is "living", nor that it is "not physical".

I don't need to "fit you into a mold". You've done that quite well yourself.

You simply refuse to accept that "religion is true",...

..or that you operate under the same principles that all humanity does.

The principle that we have our beliefs, and our beliefs are true for us, you will not accept.

My psychotic friend, Yuni, has a truth.

His truth is that no one but Yuni exists.

Therefore you, Grave, do not exist.

Does your religion of absolute meaning of words help you..!?

YES...! YES it does...!!!!

Grave can say: Yuni's truth is not MY truth, so he must mean something other than "truth",.. in fact he means "delusion".

Grave feels SO much better..!

By listening to the absolute power and might of his absolutely defined words according the his absolutist religion, he is comforted.

But Yuni still has his truth.

And his religion says: Only Yuni exists.

Yuni feels SO much better..!

Would you like me to respost my comment, so that you could actually replay to any part of it? You seem to have forgotten to...

If I have a favorite color, or book, or such, that is subjective. I am neither "right" nor "wrong" in preferring copper over silver - it's just personal taste. You could easily have a different opinion, which would in no way affect the validity of mine. That is subjectivity.

However, imagine I were to tell you that the chair I am sitting on is blue. That is not a subjective statement. The color of my seat is an objective fact, and even though you can't come here and check the veracity of my claim, it must still be either completely true or completely false - you just don't know which. It is not even a hard to believe statement, since blue is a common color for chairs. This is objectivity.

God is an objective concept. A supreme being either exists or it does not. Again, we might not be able to know which it is (although the claim is certainly less likely than the one that I'm sitting on a blue chair, for someone who doesn't know the facts about either), but it must still be absolutely true or absolutely false.

(Incidentally, my seat is actually green. Although I might be lying.)

We are not talking about chairs.

We are talking about "god".

By my definition of god, it is seen by all, and that is my objective reality.

It is also not seen in it's entirety by any, and that is my objective reality.

Therefore it exists and is "truth" to me, objectively.

You may see what you wish to see.

The constant plea of the uncomprehending mind is "I didn't say that..!"

I agreed with you in your proclamation against "supernatural entities".

I do not believe my absolute is "living", nor that it is "not physical".

I don't need to "fit you into a mold". You've done that quite well yourself.

You simply refuse to accept that "religion is true",...

..or that you operate under the same principles that all humanity does.

The principle that we have our beliefs, and our beliefs are true for us, you will not accept.

I will not apologise for telling you "I didn't say" something that I , in fact, didn't say! If you are going to make blanket statements, you might consider basing them on something.

The title of the thread, I believe is: "Religion: True or Not". I am debating that point. The operative words are religion (which I already debated with Willamena) and True - which is my current contention.

By the meaning of the word "True" (and it is you who keeps adding some absolute significance to this fact, not I), religion is clearly not 'true'.

I do not believe I am the only person in the world who would make that argument, under this circumstance.


And, finally. I TOTALLY accept that your 'truths' may be 'true' to you.

However, that doesn't make them 'true' in any real sense.

That famous scientific principle: "Milosteins Chair", makes this clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
My psychotic friend, Yuni, has a truth.

His truth is that no one but Yuni exists.

Therefore you, Grave, do not exist.

Does your religion of absolute meaning of words help you..!?

YES...! YES it does...!!!!

Grave can say: Yuni's truth is not MY truth, so he must mean something other than "truth",.. in fact he means "delusion".

Grave feels SO much better..!

By listening to the absolute power and might of his absolutely defined words according the his absolutist religion, he is comforted.

But Yuni still has his truth.

And his religion says: Only Yuni exists.

Yuni feels SO much better..!


Would you like me to respost my comment, so that you could actually replay to any part of it? You seem to have forgotten to...

Look a little further back in the thread.

"The Tale of Yuni" is meant for you to comment on.

It illustrates the fact that both you and Yuni do indeed get something out of your respective religions.

We are not talking about chairs.

We are talking about "god".

By my definition of god, it is seen by all, and that is my objective reality.

It is also not seen in it's entirety by any, and that is my objective reality.

Therefore it exists and is "truth" to me, objectively.

You may see what you wish to see.

At the risk of you 'going off on one' again... what you perceive subjectively can only ever be subjective.

It is a difficult language, but it is so successful for a reason.

I don't see what I wish to see, I see what is there. but, now I think I understand the root of our differences.

What is religion, anyway? It's a codifying of spiritual principles intended for mass consumption. It's a comprehensive belief system that provides answers to adherents, or prompts inquiries from adherents, with regards to morals, ethics, human/cosmic origins, what comes after death, etc.

In and of itself, religion isn't foolish, not by any means. It is a very human way of attempting to reconcile our lack of knowledge or certainty where things of great import are concerned.

But I maintain that we have, as a species, come to a point where there is no need for spiritual middlemen. There is no further use to be gained from those who claim to interpret the will of God/the Gods, as we are all of us, each and every one, as close to God or the Gods as are those who profit from organised religion.

You and I and the next person who posts here all have a direct line to Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Odin/Vishnu/Buddah/Ahuramazda (etc.). What need of clergy? Of televangelists? Of 'places of worship'? Of 'scriptures' and 'holy books', of hymns, sacraments, and rituals?

None whatsoever. There is you. There is me. There is God. Or Gods, depending upon how you see it. Everything else is make-work or sentimental journeying at best, a protracted scam or titheing at worst. Priests have lived off the sweat of the people since the first ziggurat was built in Ur many thousands of years ago.

I'll borrow a page from Mark Mothersbaugh: It's time to give the past a slip- it's time for DEVO.

Devolve organised religion! Set those chickens FREE!

Look a little further back in the thread.

"The Tale of Yuni" is meant for you to comment on.

It illustrates the fact that both you and Yuni do indeed get something out of your respective religions.

See, where I come from, you would use the 'quote' button to 'quote' someone... you know, like if you wanted to amke a comment on what they had said...

I am failing to see Yummi's relevence to my post.

Maybe it's just me.

Or maybe, I did respond to what you wrote - and you just subjectively objectively read it objectively subjectively differently to how I wrote it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The constant plea of the uncomprehending mind is "I didn't say that..!"

I agreed with you in your proclamation against "supernatural entities".

I do not believe my absolute is "living", nor that it is "not physical".

I don't need to "fit you into a mold". You've done that quite well yourself.

You simply refuse to accept that "religion is true",...

..or that you operate under the same principles that all humanity does.

The principle that we have our beliefs, and our beliefs are true for us, you will not accept.


I will not apologise for telling you "I didn't say" something that I , in fact, didn't say! If you are going to make blanket statements, you might consider basing them on something.

The title of the thread, I believe is: "Religion: True or Not". I am debating that point. The operative words are religion (which I already debated with Willamena) and True - which is my current contention.

By the meaning of the word "True" (and it is you who keeps adding some absolute significance to this fact, not I), religion is clearly not 'true'.

I do not believe I am the only person in the world who would make that argument, under this circumstance.


And, finally. I TOTALLY accept that your 'truths' may be 'true' to you.

However, that doesn't make them 'true' in any real sense.

That famous scientific principle: "Milosteins Chair", makes this clear.

Oh Grave.... :)

With "By the meaning of the word TRUTH.." you invoke your god.. and it is good, as it comforts you and makes you feisty..!

And as your "real sense" (another absolutist invocation) is the only valid one, you are once again comforted from the annoying and troubling thought that there are others as real as yourself.

What is religion, anyway? It's a codifying of spiritual principles intended for mass consumption. It's a comprehensive belief system that provides answers to adherents, or prompts inquiries from adherents, with regards to morals, ethics, human/cosmic origins, what comes after death, etc.

In and of itself, religion isn't foolish, not by any means. It is a very human way of attempting to reconcile our lack of knowledge or certainty where things of great import are concerned.

But I maintain that we have, as a species, come to a point where there is no need for spiritual middlemen. There is no further use to be gained from those who claim to interpret the will of God/the Gods, as we are all of us, each and every one, as close to God or the Gods as are those who profit from organised religion.

You and I and the next person who posts here all have a direct line to Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah/Zeus/Odin/Vishnu/Buddah/Ahuramazda (etc.). What need of clergy? Of televangelists? Of 'places of worship'? Of 'scriptures' and 'holy books', of hymns, sacraments, and rituals?

None whatsoever. There is you. There is me. There is God. Or Gods, depending upon how you see it. Everything else is make-work or sentimental journeying at best, a protracted scam or titheing at worst. Priests have lived off the sweat of the people since the first ziggurat was built in Ur many thousands of years ago.

I'll borrow a page from Mark Mothersbaugh: It's time to give the past a slip- it's time for DEVO.

Devolve organised religion! Set those chickens FREE!

Yeah! What he said!

]Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Look a little further back in the thread.

"The Tale of Yuni" is meant for you to comment on.

It illustrates the fact that both you and Yuni do indeed get something out of your respective religions. [/COLOR]


See, where I come from, you would use the 'quote' button to 'quote' someone... you know, like if you wanted to amke a comment on what they had said...

I am failing to see Yummi's relevence to my post.

Maybe it's just me.

Or maybe, I did respond to what you wrote - and you just subjectively objectively read it objectively subjectively differently to how I wrote it?


Today 1:10 pm

#662 (Thank goodnie it wasn't Post #666..!)

(( Although I DID get post #666..! Yeah,... ME...! ))

It's just you.... :)

The only people I pity is those who keep talking and talking and talking about their beliefs and faith, whether it be christianity or atheism...I can't stand it.

Yes I'm catholic, but my life doesn't revolve around it.

The only people I pity is those who keep talking and talking and talking about their beliefs and faith, whether it be christianity or atheism...I can't stand it.

Yes I'm catholic, but my life doesn't revolve around it.

Excellent..! :)

Keep that up... it's HEALTHY..!

I can't see why people care what other people, um, believe in?

There's no answer, so there's no argument.

Oh Grave.... :)

With "By the meaning of the word TRUTH.." you invoke your god.. and it is good, as it comforts you and makes you feisty..!

And as your "real sense" (another absolutist invocation) is the only valid one, you are once again comforted from the annoying and troubling thought that there are others as real as yourself.

I'm sure you THINK you're making a point here, but I must be missing it..

all I'm seeing is you attaching weird inflated bold-type meanings to my words..

You are seeing god where you want to, even in my statements about words. I take this as an inability on your part to actually discuss the issue - which implies you are just using words to fill up space on your screen.

I don't have any trouble believing that other people are as 'real' as me - but the reality of Mrs Jones, at 7, Wilberforce Terrace does not equate to the 'Truth' of the existence of the Giant Marshmallow Octopus that Eats Rainbows.

Maybe if you sit and think a minute, you can come up with something I can actually debate with you?

The name of the topic is at the top, if that helps.

I can't see why people care what other people, um, believe in?

There's no answer, so there's no argument.

Grave doesn't like being pestered by "missionaries",... so he comes into this.

Go figure...

Excellent..! :)

Keep that up... it's HEALTHY..!

Somehow...I sense sarcasm in your post.

Grave doesn't like being pestered by "missionaries",... so he comes into this.

Go figure...

And here, when someone discusses their religious belief with me - no matter how bizarre - it is a consensual event. I see no contradiction.

Maybe it's like hamburgers. When you want a burger, you might go to McDonalds... but if someone from McDonalds tried to force Happy Meals down your throat all day, you'd be less inclined to acquiese to their requests.

Means "No".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oh Grave....

With "By the meaning of the word TRUTH.." you invoke your god.. and it is good, as it comforts you and makes you feisty..!

And as your "real sense" (another absolutist invocation) is the only valid one, you are once again comforted from the annoying and troubling thought that there are others as real as yourself.


I'm sure you THINK you're making a point here, but I must be missing it..

all I'm seeing is you attaching weird inflated bold-type meanings to my words..

You are seeing god where you want to, even in my statements about words. I take this as an inability on your part to actually discuss the issue - which implies you are just using words to fill up space on your screen.

I don't have any trouble believing that other people are as 'real' as me - but the reality of Mrs Jones, at 7, Wilberforce Terrace does not equate to the 'Truth' of the existence of the Giant Marshmallow Octopus that Eats Rainbows.

Maybe if you sit and think a minute, you can come up with something I can actually debate with you?

The name of the topic is at the top, if that helps.

Yes,.. I must say,.. you've missed it.

The question before us is "Religion, True or Not".

I say yes, as it's true for me.

You say no, it is not true for anyone.

I say truth is subjective, and your truth may not be my truth.

You say there is an absolute and singular truth for everyone.

You say I am deluded to have my religion because it is not true.

I say you use your religion to claim my religion is not true.

You say you have no religion.

I say you do.

We are both comforted by our beliefs.

All is good.

Comments,.. or must your mind be spoon fed..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Excellent..!

Keep that up... it's HEALTHY..!


Somehow...I sense sarcasm in your post.

NO,.. really,...!

NOT obsessing over this blindingly-obvious nonsense is HEALTHY..!

Keep doing what you're doing, and quit being paranoid.

If they're out to get you,... they're out to get you..! :)

Comments,.. or must your mind be spoon fed..?

Always gotta get a dig in, eh? Never happy to agree to disagree, no matter what preamble you whip up.

Be bigger than that, Iakeokeo. Be graceful for once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Grave doesn't like being pestered by "missionaries",... so he comes into this.

Go figure...


And here, when someone discusses their religious belief with me - no matter how bizarre - it is a consensual event. I see no contradiction.

Maybe it's like hamburgers. When you want a burger, you might go to McDonalds... but if someone from McDonalds tried to force Happy Meals down your throat all day, you'd be less inclined to acquiese to their requests.

Means "No".

NO to what...!?

Grave,.. you're REALLY gonna have to figure out how to use the language, dude..!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Comments,.. or must your mind be spoon fed..?


Always gotta get a dig in, eh? Never happy to agree to disagree, no matter what preamble you whip up.

Be bigger than that, Iakeokeo. Be graceful for once.

I'm here to converse.

There's always more to converse about on any subject.

My comment as to my judgement that Grave has trouble occasionally "grasping" the subject of our interchange, is a playful poke.

My people (if you've read any of my work) LOVE to poke at things...

Yes,.. I must say,.. you've missed it.

The question before us is "Religion, True or Not".

I say yes, as it's true for me.

You say no, it is not true for anyone.

I say truth is subjective, and your truth may not be my truth.

You say there is an absolute and singular truth for everyone.

You say I am deluded to have my religion because it is not true.

I say you use your religion to claim my religion is not true.

You say you have no religion.

I say you do.

We are both comforted by our beliefs.

All is good.

Comments,.. or must your mind be spoon fed..?

I find it hard to believe that THAT is the message you've been machine-gun spattering over the entire thread.... but...

I didn't say (look there I go again) that it wasn't true for anyone. I said if it ISN'T true for everyone, then it isn't "true", since what is subjective is not what is objective.

There is an absolute and singular truth - but it isn't FOR anyone... it just... is! If something is true it is true. Truth isn't altered by perception - only your perception of it.

I said that religion is delusion - because it is entirely subjective, and that it can only ever 'be' subjective. Once you try to imply it is objective, you run into problems - because others do not share your subjective perception.

I have no religion. I admit it. I am neither ashamed, nor proud, of that fact. It is just... I guess... True.

To try to make out that my 'no-religion' is my religion is to try to undercut my argument by the lame resort that my point is 'no better' than yours - which is weak, and, I would have thought, below most forum debaters. But, I guess I am learning...

It does appear that I must indeed be spoonfed. Or that your posts lack coherency. I know which path I suspect, but I'd imagine you'd choose a diferent one. That's subjectivity for you.

I'm here to converse.

There's always more to converse about on any subject.

My comment as to my judgement that Grave has trouble occasionally "grasping" the subject of our interchange, is a playful poke.

My people (if you've read any of my work) LOVE to poke at things...

The funny thing is... most people don't have this 'bewildering' effect on me.

It's difficult to know quite what you are saying, half the time.

It's like trying to arm-wrestle an egg.

Grave - thank you for saving me the time I'd've spent typing. BTW, I am a very spiritual person, though I subscribe to no organised religion. I was raised Unitarian, and like a great number of Unitarians, attended a course as part of my Religious Education, called, 'Building Your Own Theology'...and thereafter, left the church.

What need, I realized, what need of the armature of organized worship, other than a sense of community, which in and of itself does not require religion as a focus point?

I already know how Iakeokeo thinks of Unitarianism, so I'll ask him not to chime in on this one. PLEASE.

NO,.. really,...!

NOT obsessing over this blindingly-obvious nonsense is HEALTHY..!

Keep doing what you're doing, and quit being paranoid.

If they're out to get you,... they're out to get you..! :)

lol... :O

Whether there is a god or no, you must remember that he did not write the books. People did.
Morality was written by humans; probably by a few humans who saw the necessity to keep their people working together harmoniously in order to survive. Think about it, it makes sense. A person or two who cared very much for all their friends and partners would want to protect them from killing each other or hurting each other. This person would make morality according to what he or she felt and thought.
People make decisions on how to behave (under normal circumstances) according to the memory of or mental construction of how they would feel if someone did something in specific to them. Someone would not want his friends to have something of theirs taken if they knew they wouldn't like it either.
Morality is to keep people in order and it was written by man. Morality is a social thing rather than a religious or divine thing. Unless you define morality as doing what is best for the preservation of oneself and of one's species, at which point every animal is moral.
~*~
Also remember, religion is a human invention. This is not saying that there is or isn't a god, but humans invented religion. People are the ones who came up with the idea that the church has to be this long by this wide and that there has to be a little altar covered in cloth in the center. People wrote the books down, whether divinely inspired or not.
~*~
As to the Big Bang, the evidence does support the Big Bang and its still the most generally accepted model, though there is still research as to what precisely the Big Bang is (whether it was a small dense mass, a plane, strings, etc.).
~*~
I also don't think that people are more or less inclined to live a full life whether they believe in god or a religion, because if they are doing what seems right to them, they will be fulfilled.
~*~
I'd also like to point out that god can really be defined as anything which you believe is the greatest or highest thing or state. If you believe in the laws of nature, you can say that those laws are your god. So really, there is no debate here as to whether there is or isn't a god, unless someone just doesn't believe in god or you use god only to define the Judeo-Christian idea of a god in the likeness of man (if god created man in his likeness, then god is the likeness of man, it's reciprocal).
~*~
On another note, why are we talking about this? We will never convince the other that we are right.

You just said "Booya"? I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone type 'booya'... what did you mean?

I understand that grief reactions may be necessary for the acceptance procedure... but I don't see how that makes a 'god' a necessity, or what purpose it is a mechanism for, and, by admitting it a mechanism, wouldn't people be admitting that it wasn't 'really' real?
The answer to those question can be found in mythology, too...

You said it yourself: truth is that which is "conformable to an essential reality : fully realized or fulfilled". But what is essential to Man the Objective Observer is not the same as what is essential to Man the Experiencer. The observer is looking for logical rationalization and fact in a subject, but the subject is not "looking for" anything in himself --he is experiencing it. The definition of delusion, too, included an important idea --that logic becomes absurd when it tries to bend the the subjective "real-ization" to fit its narrow rules.

Not all that is irrational is a bad thing.

According to Joseph Campbell, a god is an image of us, transcending us. These ideas are not new - people have been (objectively) recognizing an internalized "mechanism" of godhood, and its uses, for years. Carl Jung distinguished between a real God and an internalized, experiential "God-image":
"The God-image is not something invented, it is an experience that comes upon man spontaneously. . . The unconscious God-image can therefore alter the state of consciousness just as the latter can modify the God-image once it has become conscious." This altered state of consciousness, at its finest, is a "connection" with life and the universe going on around us, and a moral one, because by being connected to life one can appreciate its existence; and with a spiritual appreciation, one can treat it with honour and respect.

Here is another explanation of what the "mechanism" of god is for, in line with Jung’s:
"We cannot know, or even imagine, the nature of the consciousness which is the universe. We do not know how or when the goddess-or-god image first arose, whether from dreaming sleep or from waking vision. All that can be said is that the experience of divinity exists in the soul and that the soul insists on making an image of it because, through that image, it feels itself related to something greater than itself. The image is sacred, for it is this above all that binds that part of the psyche incarnated in time and space to the unseen dimension that enfolds it." --Anne Baring and Jules Cashford

They also propose that "the sacred is not a stage in the history of consciousness, but an element in the structure of consciousness belonging to all people at all times. It is part of the character of the human race, perhaps the essential part. So it is crucially necessary for an understanding of that other aspect of being human, which is to have been born at a particular time into a specific family within a certain tribe group."

And it was ideas like this one that got me started on my path:
"It is my considered belief that the best answers to this critical problem (bridging the gap between the sacred and science) will come from the findings of psychology, and specifically those findings that have to do with the source and nature of myth. For since it has always been on myths that the moral orders of societies have been founded, the myths canonized as religion, and since the impact of science on myth results --apparently inevitably --in moral disequalibration, we must now ask whether it is not possible to arrive scientifically at such an understanding of the life-supporting nature of myths that, in criticizing their archaic features, we do not misrepresent and disqualify their necessity --throwing out, so to say, the baby (whole generations of babies) with the bath." --Joseph Campbell

You encounter it rarely? You don't live in Georgia, then?
Haha! no... :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I'm here to converse.

There's always more to converse about on any subject.

My comment as to my judgement that Grave has trouble occasionally "grasping" the subject of our interchange, is a playful poke.

My people (if you've read any of my work) LOVE to poke at things...


The funny thing is... most people don't have this 'bewildering' effect on me.

It's difficult to know quite what you are saying, half the time.

It's like trying to arm-wrestle an egg.

That's fine,... I appreciate your sensibilities being "tweaked" when in discussion with me.

People who "see" where I'm coming from find me most amusing. Those who are more prone to strict logic (as opposed to my more "fluid" logic, due to my knack of "redefinition to refocus") sometimes get a bit frustrated with not being able to "win", or at least "place". [horseracing term]

Then again, some people don't "get" the Three Stooges, or Monty Python either.

And as this started as a discussion of the single most VAGUE subject in existence, "GOD" for god's sake,.. you should probably have expected some weird stuff to float by yuor nose.

This ain't "Business English 101" little trooper..! :)

This R Roleplay,... and MORE..!

And as this started as a discussion of the single most VAGUE subject in existence, "GOD"
God is not a vague subject. The word itself has a well-defined meaning, that being: An intelligent being that is not (or not fully) bound by the laws of nature.

The question is whether a being matching this definition exists. The question is difficult to answer, but it is not vague.

I believe that the answer is no.

for god's sake,..
Oh, the irony...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And as this started as a discussion of the single most VAGUE subject in existence, "GOD"

God is not a vague subject. The word itself has a well-defined meaning, that being: An intelligent being that is not (or not fully) bound by the laws of nature.

The question is whether a being matching this definition exists. The question is difficult to answer, but it is not vague.

I believe that the answer is no.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
for god's sake,..

Oh, the irony...

But I disagree with your definition of god. My people do not believe in THAT god..!

The question of "an intelligent being that is not bound by the laws of nature" is EASY for my people to answer,.. and unequivocally..!

NO..! Such a thing is SILLY beyond measure..!

So we agree,.... break out the beers..!

Grave - thank you for saving me the time I'd've spent typing. BTW, I am a very spiritual person, though I subscribe to no organised religion. I was raised Unitarian, and like a great number of Unitarians, attended a course as part of my Religious Education, called, 'Building Your Own Theology'...and thereafter, left the church.

What need, I realized, what need of the armature of organized worship, other than a sense of community, which in and of itself does not require religion as a focus point?

I already know how Iakeokeo thinks of Unitarianism, so I'll ask him not to chime in on this one. PLEASE.

I have nothing but respect for the choice to pursue religion on your own terms. It isn't 'religion' that I object to - it is the accessories that go with it... the NEED to preach, the rules about what OTHER people cannot do, the overarching reliance on one key text or set of texts.

As far as I can tell, Iakeokeo just wants to imprint 'it is' on everything he sees... but, hey, maybe I'm misjudging him.

Only too happy to lend a hand... I seem to be in a running confrontation with Iakeokeo as it is...

The answer to those question can be found in mythology, too...

You said it yourself: truth is that which is "conformable to an essential reality : fully realized or fulfilled". But what is essential to Man the Objective Observer is not the same as what is essential to Man the Experiencer. The observer is looking for logical rationalization and fact in a subject, but the subject is not "looking for" anything in himself --he is experiencing it. The definition of delusion, too, included an important idea --that logic becomes absurd when it tries to bend the the subjective "real-ization" to fit its narrow rules.

Not all that is irrational is a bad thing.

According to Joseph Campbell, a god is an image of us, transcending us. These ideas are not new - people have been (objectively) recognizing an internalized "mechanism" of godhood, and its uses, for years. Carl Jung distinguished between a real God and an internalized, experiential "God-image":
"The God-image is not something invented, it is an experience that comes upon man spontaneously. . . The unconscious God-image can therefore alter the state of consciousness just as the latter can modify the God-image once it has become conscious." This altered state of consciousness, at its finest, is a "connection" with life and the universe going on around us, and a moral one, because by being connected to life one can appreciate its existence; and with a spiritual appreciation, one can treat it with honour and respect.

Here is another explanation of what the "mechanism" of god is for, in line with Jung’s:
"We cannot know, or even imagine, the nature of the consciousness which is the universe. We do not know how or when the goddess-or-god image first arose, whether from dreaming sleep or from waking vision. All that can be said is that the experience of divinity exists in the soul and that the soul insists on making an image of it because, through that image, it feels itself related to something greater than itself. The image is sacred, for it is this above all that binds that part of the psyche incarnated in time and space to the unseen dimension that enfolds it." --Anne Baring and Jules Cashford

They also propose that "the sacred is not a stage in the history of consciousness, but an element in the structure of consciousness belonging to all people at all times. It is part of the character of the human race, perhaps the essential part. So it is crucially necessary for an understanding of that other aspect of being human, which is to have been born at a particular time into a specific family within a certain tribe group."

And it was ideas like this one that got me started on my path:
"It is my considered belief that the best answers to this critical problem (bridging the gap between the sacred and science) will come from the findings of psychology, and specifically those findings that have to do with the source and nature of myth. For since it has always been on myths that the moral orders of societies have been founded, the myths canonized as religion, and since the impact of science on myth results --apparently inevitably --in moral disequalibration, we must now ask whether it is not possible to arrive scientifically at such an understanding of the life-supporting nature of myths that, in criticizing their archaic features, we do not misrepresent and disqualify their necessity --throwing out, so to say, the baby (whole generations of babies) with the bath." --Joseph Campbell


Haha! no... :-)

I agree with Campbell that gods are the transcendental forms of id, and that is why I defy the definition that early elementalist 'theology' is truly a theology... in my opinion, those 'spirits' of fire and water were not gods... they were (as I said before) closer to the mythical creatures we call faeries - in fact, they do actually fit the definitions of some clearly defined historical 'faerie' archetypes.

I disagree strongly with Campbell on his assertion that moral orders have always been founded on myth. This is a blanket statement, that I doubt would hold absolutely true even in a single case. I will grant that some elements of societal law come from religious observation - but law and morality are different creatures. As I said, I don't think he has sufficient evidence to claim that moral orders are ALWAYS founded on myth.

As far as I can tell... religious experience is most closely associated with brain sciences... either the psychologist approach, or the more academically physical approach. In an experiment I read about a few years ago, electrodes stmulating certain parts of the brain gave people 'ecstatic visions', which varied from culture to culture, but were usually some kind of 'god' interaction - seemingly shaped by cultural upbringing.

Ironically, in an atheist - this experiment produced lucid dreaming of fragments of past memories - no 'gods' at all.

For this, and other reasons, I am of the opinion that the 'reality' of religion is limited solely to personal experience. I think it a delusion.

But I am more than happy for others to occupy themselves in this way, provided they don't impress their wills on others.

As far as I can tell... religious experience is most closely associated with brain sciences... either the psychologist approach, or the more academically physical approach. In an experiment I read about a few years ago, electrodes stmulating certain parts of the brain gave people 'ecstatic visions', which varied from culture to culture, but were usually some kind of 'god' interaction - seemingly shaped by cultural upbringing.

Ironically, in an atheist - this experiment produced lucid dreaming of fragments of past memories - no 'gods' at all.
Was testing for religious experience the purpose of their experiment, or a side-effect?

I have nothing but respect for the choice to pursue religion on your own terms. It isn't 'religion' that I object to - it is the accessories that go with it... the NEED to preach, the rules about what OTHER people cannot do, the overarching reliance on one key text or set of texts.
So, basically it's Protestant Evangelists and Jehovah's Witnesses you object to? :-)

I hate Religious(sp?) threads... Ok, I'll kill you and you'll find out who is right! :D :sniper: Disclaimer: Do NOT take death threats seriously!

:) Have a nice day.

That wouldn't work if there is no conciousness after death, as is my belief.

it takes more faith not to belive in God and if anyone wants to talk about it feel free to contact me

it takes more faith not to belive in God and if anyone wants to talk about it feel free to contact me

It'd only take more faith not to believe in God if you know He excists and still try to ignore Him.
Funny enough, this isn't how 99.999999% of atheists/agnosts are. Imagine that.

I am a very religious person. But I am not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslem. I am a Wiccian. And I thnk it is DISGUSTING how all of hte athiest bash orginized religion and all of the other religions bash each other and the athiests. Why cna't we leave each others personal preferances alone and let us live our lives and practice our religions in peace?

atheist in real time are persecuted at least to some degree by christians. Maybe this is thier chance to blow some steam because they could not get away with it in certain parts of the U.S.A. in everyday life. If some of them did they would get the smackdown by the Man. (The states that are in teh by-bull belt.)

But hey christians are equal opportunity chauvinists and biggots. They are superior to everyone in thier knowlege of Higher Power. Teh by-bull says so.

I am not an atheist. Not that there is a damn thing wrong with being honest and having a decent arguement for non-belief.

I am a believer in a Higher Power but realise I can not prove its existence.
I worship because it makes me feel good. Thats my personal proof.
I guess I slant towards agnosticism at times.

I never have been ridiculed or been made to feel like a sinner from my dealings with Pagans, Buddhists, Taoists, Fellow Deists or Atheists. Funny how we can get along but christianity, islam, and judaism has at least an air of superiority towards others perception of Higher power/s.

It is the abrahamic based religions like judaism, islam, and christianity that cause all the problems. 911 ring a bell? why does the U.S. coddle isreal?
Why can't the jews and the palestinians get along? hmmmmm.... could it be what thier "holy books tell them? hmmmmm maybe? ya think?

Secular Government is everyones best friend. Too bad jews, mussilims, and fundy christians can not grasp this truth.

it takes more faith not to belive in God
replace "God" with "Santa" and you will understand how funny your statement is to an agnostic like me :).

it takes more faith not to belive in God and if anyone wants to talk about it feel free to contact me

Ah, faith.. "Faith is the ultimate unreasonableness. It lacks rational thought. It says, no matter what you say, no matter what you show me, no matter how convincing your argument, I'm going to believe this anyway. Nothing can change my mind." Not sure where I heard that, but it emulates my opinion quite well.

replace "God" with "Santa" and you will understand how funny your statement is to an agnostic like me :).

Have you ever considered making the jump to atheism? Its great fun over here! :P

Have you ever considered making the jump to athiesm? Its great fun over here! :P
been there, had some fun, but unfortunately as a scientist i cannot claim to disbelieve in God. while i believe that adopting an atheist stance is more rational than a superstitious one, it is still not the best possible course for me; i must admit i cannot disprove God, and since i have no conclusive evidence either way i must remain agnostic.

but hey, my boyfriend is an atheist, and he's a blast. :)

So, because you can't disprove that the tooth fairy exists, you take a neutral stance on that, too? :)


EDIT: Note that im not attacking your beliefs or something, I just love debating :P

Was testing for religious experience the purpose of their experiment, or a side-effect?

I believe, in the original phase, they were just poking around investigating brain functions... you know, stimulate part of the brain and see what happens - see what it mirrors - the same way they locate the areas of long term memory, etc.

I seem to recall they were investigating some interface of the visual cortex, perhaps where it contacts a memory area? And they came up with this interesting side-effect.

After that, they conducted 'follow-up' projects... first to find out whether the religious experience was culturally linked (because, otherwise, that would have been clear evidence of the existence of ONE god) - and then they tested an atheist.... etc.

So, basically it's Protestant Evangelists and Jehovah's Witnesses you object to? :-)

Anyone that follows that particular pursuit... my wife's family are Georgia Southern Baptists....

That probably gives you an idea...

Defuny

I think I must expand your definition of troublemakers. All kinds of religion that refuse to believe that other gods than theirs exist will go bashing people.

And I apologize for I am going to have a lengthy babbling next. You should read it completely though. You will see that I am quite extremely atheist.

I cannot understand why people believe in things they cannot prove. There is no point in believing that Santa exists, nor point in believing any kind of higher powers. They are just imagination and must be understood as such. What comes to the afterlife I can just ask why should you care of it because you just can´t know anything of it.

Most probably(<-- note this) there is nothing because our consciousness and all our beliefs are only a byproduct of complex organic computer we call brains. Humans form their worldviews from their sensory input by processing it trough their brains. Religious experiences, hunger, love, and all other such things are just biological functions and byproducts of evolution. From previous list I find two important functions: hunger and love. first states that we are low of fuel for our cells and must eat to survive. This is a function of self-preservation. Love
bonds people together and it has only one ultimate meaning: reproduction. If it happens to be that those in love belong in same sex the both have malfunctioning programming in their genes if viewed by normal standards of evolution. There is nothing shameful or sinful in this.

Moral standards exist outside of religion. Every human has some kind of moral standards although they may be deranged. Even most even somewhat animals have something that can be called as morality. How complex they are is based on the complexity of interactions with other living organisms. Thus cat will understand what it should do or not to do to provoke certain actions from other cats or from humans. It has learned this and this is also how human morals work. Humans only have very complex ways to interact with their surroundings due to their brain capacity. Why they exist is a simple question. Self preservation and reproduction, genetics, evolution and so on...

Do you want that I continue? No? I expected that sort of reaction for most people are not yet ready to accept the cold truth. ;)

The purpose of life? It has none and it needs none. Just live it trough for you cannot know if it is your only one.

All I'm going to say to that is this:

You simply have to realize that there are things you CANNOT prove. For instance, you cannot prove that you exist, but you believe it. God is one of those things you cannot prove. Even if you're as atheistic as they come, you have to understand that humans are not the end-all be-all. The universe is too inordinantly large and complex for us to even hope to comprehend. Humans are limited naturally by our own finite brains, therefore we must come to just accept some things.

All I'm going to say to that is this:

You simply have to realize that there are things you CANNOT prove. For instance, you cannot prove that you exist, but you believe it. God is one of those things you cannot prove. Even if you're as atheistic as they come, you have to understand that humans are not the end-all be-all. The universe is too inordinantly large and complex for us to even hope to comprehend. Humans are limited naturally by our own finite brains, therefore we must come to just accept some things.

And it is that knowledge - the huge and complex universe... the knowledge that there is so much we can NEVER comprehend... that is what makes someone an Atheist.

The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?
This sounds more like an argument for agnosticism than anything else. :p


I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

This theory is incredibly self indulgent. Instead of "wasting" energy arguing your beliefs or pursuing truth, scientific or spiritual, it allows you to simply say 'Everyone is right for themselves' and when people call you on it, to throw words like intolerant at them. Personally, I'm terrified of death. But I don't sweat it much because that would be pointless, and hypocritical. Whatever happens, happens. Maybe in the end some grand enlightenment will be bestowed upon humanity, but I'm not going to sit around waiting for it.
The Big Bang is also just a theory, and having a scientific veiwpoint doesn't mean you believe it to be absolute truth. Anybody who does is as foolish as any religeous zealot.

Let's see- the Big Bang thoery successfully predicted:
- Expansion of the universe (Red-shift)

Nuh-uh
Red shift indicates that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which could not be caused by the initial explosion of energy in the big bang. It means that there is some force of energy being exerted on it even now. Hence the profusion of dark matter theories.


The Big Bang EXPLAINS these things...so what? God can explain them.
Of course He does. Of course an immensly all powerful, all knowing and omnipresent being made up for the express purpose of explaining everything is going to explain . . well, everything! That doesn't mean we should accept that explaination.

As a naturally curious and inquisitive human, I refuse to give up. *thumbs up*
Very well said. Expresses how I feel almost exactly.

I agree with Campbell that gods are the transcendental forms of id, and that is why I defy the definition that early elementalist 'theology' is truly a theology... in my opinion, those 'spirits' of fire and water were not gods... they were (as I said before) closer to the mythical creatures we call faeries - in fact, they do actually fit the definitions of some clearly defined historical 'faerie' archetypes.

I think you are wrong. God(s) are a manifestation of the authoritarian constructs of the superego. Culture is inherently repressive of basic id desires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russo-Princepolis
All I'm going to say to that is this:

You simply have to realize that there are things you CANNOT prove. For instance, you cannot prove that you exist, but you believe it. God is one of those things you cannot prove. Even if you're as atheistic as they come, you have to understand that humans are not the end-all be-all. The universe is too inordinantly large and complex for us to even hope to comprehend. Humans are limited naturally by our own finite brains, therefore we must come to just accept some things.


And it is that knowledge - the huge and complex universe... the knowledge that there is so much we can NEVER comprehend... that is what makes someone an Atheist.

It also makes some of us religious. :)

It's what you do with your beliefs, what they are used for, that really matters.

Murder weapon or kitchen utensil,... pick one.

Defuny

I think I must expand your definition of troublemakers. All kinds of religion that refuse to believe that other gods than theirs exist will go bashing people.

And I apologize for I am going to have a lengthy babbling next. You should read it completely though. You will see that I am quite extremely atheist.

I cannot understand why people believe in things they cannot prove. There is no point in believing that Santa exists, nor point in believing any kind of higher powers. They are just imagination and must be understood as such. What comes to the afterlife I can just ask why should you care of it because you just can´t know anything of it.

Most probably(<-- note this) there is nothing because our consciousness and all our beliefs are only a byproduct of complex organic computer we call brains. Humans form their worldviews from their sensory input by processing it trough their brains. Religious experiences, hunger, love, and all other such things are just biological functions and byproducts of evolution. From previous list I find two important functions: hunger and love. first states that we are low of fuel for our cells and must eat to survive. This is a function of self-preservation. Love
bonds people together and it has only one ultimate meaning: reproduction. If it happens to be that those in love belong in same sex the both have malfunctioning programming in their genes if viewed by normal standards of evolution. There is nothing shameful or sinful in this.

Moral standards exist outside of religion. Every human has some kind of moral standards although they may be deranged. Even most even somewhat animals have something that can be called as morality. How complex they are is based on the complexity of interactions with other living organisms. Thus cat will understand what it should do or not to do to provoke certain actions from other cats or from humans. It has learned this and this is also how human morals work. Humans only have very complex ways to interact with their surroundings due to their brain capacity. Why they exist is a simple question. Self preservation and reproduction, genetics, evolution and so on...

Do you want that I continue? No? I expected that sort of reaction for most people are not yet ready to accept the cold truth.

The purpose of life? It has none and it needs none. Just live it trough for you cannot know if it is your only one.


"The purpose of life? It has none and it needs none."

The purpose of life is to continue itself by gathering from the entropic flows of energy in the world (the downhill paths from high concentration to low concentration), and using that energy to make "the next generation".

Or in Iakeokeoian talk-talk: "You want yo' kids to feed you when you' old, you go hunt down something to eat now, lazy-bones..!"

The purpose of humans is to be human,.. good or bad,.. but human.

You act in the world according to what you believe. "To believe", with or without proof, as belief does not necessarily require proof, is an act of connecting yourself to what you believe, and the habitually connecting (using) with your beliefs, this linking, this "ligion", is "re-ligion".

Your religion is how you act according to what you habitually believe.

This is to BE human. :)

This is what my people believe.

Your religion is how you act according to what you habitually believe.

This is to BE human. :)

Amen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your religion is how you act according to what you habitually believe.

This is to BE human.


Amen.

You know,.. I always liked the sound of that word (either english or hebrew)..!

"AMEN".

I think I know why.

The "A" is a very soothing "free relaxed throat" "ahhhh" noise. Very much like the sound I used to hear when I was a little one with my ear to my moms chest, resting.

The "M" is the "A" sound with your mouth shut.

"AM" is sort of a "MOM" backward.

The "EN" seems like just a reminder that "AM" has presently come to an end.

So I suppose my "interpretation" of "AMEN" is: Soothing outside, Soothing inside, and it won't last forever.

:)

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

I think most people who beleive god spoke and the world was created believe that because it's in the bible. They put a lot of weight on that fact. But just become someone wrote it, doesn't make it true. just look at the national enquirer. People who support big bang support it because of scientific theories, not a "holy" book.

I have studied mythology quite extensively, both the 'art' of the thing, and the 'science'. The mechanism I suggested in response to the other (sorry, now LONG forgotten) poster was an observation based on much study.

'Early' religion does, indeed, seem to be an attempt to 'rationalise' the elemental world. Even the Bible is guilty of elementalism holdovers from these primitive times.
As when you stated earlier that you tend to deny "self", and I stated I thought you were missing something essential in mythology, I think what's missing is an understanding of how primitive myths do support and inform religion as the external expression of a subjective religious consciousness. "An attempt to 'rationalise' the elemental world" does not cover it, barely brushes the surface, and is even dismissive of the spiritual 'elements' of the myths. I struggled with this whole thing, too, at the start of my studies, until somewhere along the way it clicked.

(Forgive the lateness in my response, and its length. I was trying to find references in a certain book from many years ago, albeit with a “faulty memory made all the more golden by years”.)

In their book The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image Anne Baring and Jules Cashford demonstrate, using evidence, logic and symbology, how 'primative elementalism holdovers' likely evolved into the gods and goddesses of more modern religions. Let me quote what they say about the lunar myth motif (the god who dies and the goddess who pursues him into the underworld to bring him back life). Bear with me, if you’ve heard this all before:
The moon was an image in the sky that was always changing yet was always the same. What endured was the cycle, whose totality could never be seen at any one moment. All that was visible was the constant interplay between light and dark in an ever-recurring sequence. Implicitly, however, the early people must have come to see every part of the cycle from the perspective of the whole. The individual phases could not be named, nor the relations between them expressed, without assuming the presence of the whole cycle. The whole was invisible, an enduring and unchanging circle, yet it contained the visible phases. Symbolically, it was as if the visible ‘came from’ and ‘returned’ to the invisible --like being born and dying, and being born again.

The great myth of the (Old Europe) Bronze Age is structured upon the distinction between the ‘whole’, personified as the Mother Goddess, and ‘the part’, personified as her son-lover or her daughter. She gives birth to her son as the new moon, marries him as the full moon, loses him to the darkness as the waning moon, goes in search of him as the dark moon, and rescues him as the returning crescent. In the Greek myth, in which the daughter plays the role of the ‘the part’, the cycle is the same, but the marriage is between the daughter and a god who personifies the dark phase of the moon (Kore and Hades). The daughter, like the son, is rescued by the mother. In both variations of the myth, the Goddess may be understood as the eternal cycle of the whole: the unity of life and death as a single process. The young goddess or god is her mortal form in time, which, as manifested life --whether plant, animal or human being --is subject to a cyclical process of birth, flowering, decay, death and rebirth.

This essential distinction between the whole and the part was later formulated in the Greek language by the two different Greek words for life, zoe and bios, as the embodiment of two dimensions co-existing in life. Zoe is eternal and infinite life; bios is finite and individual life. Zoe is inifinite ‘being’; bios is the living and dying manifestation of this eternal world in time. The Classical scholar Carl Kerenyi explains: ‘Zoe is the thread upon which every individual bios is strung like a bead, and which, in contrast to bios, can be conceived of only as endless’ --as ‘infinite life’.

Relating this to the moon, zoe becomes the totality of the cycle of the moon’s phases, and bios becomes the individual phases. Zoe is then both transcendent and immanent, and bios is the immanent form of zoe. In this way, bios is contained in zoe, as the part is contained in the whole. Zoe contains bios, but bios cannot contain zoe. Similiarily, we suggested that the Palaeolithic myth of the Goddess contained the myth of the hunter, but the myth of the hunter could not contain the myth of the Goddess.

The Mother Goddess can be recognized as the totality of the lunar cycle --as zoe --and her daughter and son-lover, who emerged from and return to her, can be seen as the moon’s phases --as bios. Together they image the two ‘faces’ of life: eternal and transitory, unmanifest and manifest, invisible and visible. The son and daughter personify the ever-dying and ever-renewed forms of life, whether human, animal or plant. Related to the cycles of thd earth’s seasons, the son and daughter incarnate the life of vegetation. The transitional moments in the agricultural cycle are commemorated with festivals of mourning and rejoicing, and in the great mythic dramas that express the mysterious analogy between the life of the moon, the life of plants and the life of human beings. Participating in these rituals created a trust that as darkness is always followed by light, so death is followed by rebirth. All life, therefore, holds a promise of renewal. The sacred marriage, in which the Mother Goddess as bride is united with her son as lover, reconnects symbolically the two ‘worlds’ of zoe and bios, and it is this union that regenerates the earth.

You may have noted certain ideas with a parallel in ("the true") Judao-Christian religion; that that which is transcendent of man is eternal, unmanifest and invisible; that bios, in the form of the Son, dies and is symbolically resurrected. These paralells are drawn deliberately in this early chapter, because the whole book leads towards a better understanding of these 'elementalism holdovers from primitive times'.

But,... is it true for YOU,... and does it help you in any way..?And this is the crux of the matter.

Is it true? My contention is that if not true for everyone, then not true at all - and I've yet to see a good argument against it.
The truth of it is how it helps you. What you get out of it. The meaning behind it, which is interpreted by each individual.

I would dare say that religion, as it is practiced today in the Judao-Christian traditions, is not "true" to the original intent of religion, in that the meaning behind the myths has been largely repressed (until it is all but forgotten) in favour of sprouting a God that exists in the physical world. I think this is the crux of the matter: religion was never intended to be shared by all. Organized religion is an abomination of the spirit of religion. The spiritual passage of the initiate through a dark wall-painted cave was intended for him alone to find a movement towards or connection with the transcendent being. His being --not an external one. This isn't to say that people cannot come to the same spiritual message through organized religion, but it is usually dispite that religion. (/opinion)

". . . connection with the transcendant being." Wouldn't it be funny if all of organized religion was just a mistake of semantics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russo-Princepolis
I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?



I think most people who beleive god spoke and the world was created believe that because it's in the bible. They put a lot of weight on that fact. But just become someone wrote it, doesn't make it true. just look at the national enquirer. People who support big bang support it because of scientific theories, not a "holy" book.

And most of those that believe in the big bang (including myself) do so because it's in some "scientific treatise" (a form of bible, aka "BOOK").

And you said, just because someone wrote it....

Except that I can go out and deduce the Big Bang for myself should I have the proper knowledge and equipment, and the Big Bang theory does not tell me how to live.

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
I have studied mythology quite extensively, both the 'art' of the thing, and the 'science'. The mechanism I suggested in response to the other (sorry, now LONG forgotten) poster was an observation based on much study.

'Early' religion does, indeed, seem to be an attempt to 'rationalise' the elemental world. Even the Bible is guilty of elementalism holdovers from these primitive times.

As when you stated earlier that you tend to deny "self", and I stated I thought you were missing something essential in mythology, I think what's missing is an understanding of how primitive myths do support and inform religion as the external expression of a subjective religious consciousness. "An attempt to 'rationalise' the elemental world" does not cover it, barely brushes the surface, and is even dismissive of the spiritual 'elements' of the myths. I struggled with this whole thing, too, at the start of my studies, until somewhere along the way it clicked.

(Forgive the lateness in my response, and its length. I was trying to find references in a certain book from many years ago, albeit with a “faulty memory made all the more golden by years”.)

In their book The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image Anne Baring and Jules Cashford demonstrate, using evidence, logic and symbology, how 'primative elementalism holdovers' likely evolved into the gods and goddesses of more modern religions. Let me quote what they say about the lunar myth motif (the god who dies and the goddess who pursues him into the underworld to bring him back life). Bear with me, if you’ve heard this all before:

The moon was an image in the sky that was always changing yet was always the same. What endured was the cycle, whose totality could never be seen at any one moment. All that was visible was the constant interplay between light and dark in an ever-recurring sequence. Implicitly, however, the early people must have come to see every part of the cycle from the perspective of the whole. The individual phases could not be named, nor the relations between them expressed, without assuming the presence of the whole cycle. The whole was invisible, an enduring and unchanging circle, yet it contained the visible phases. Symbolically, it was as if the visible ‘came from’ and ‘returned’ to the invisible --like being born and dying, and being born again.

The great myth of the (Old Europe) Bronze Age is structured upon the distinction between the ‘whole’, personified as the Mother Goddess, and ‘the part’, personified as her son-lover or her daughter. She gives birth to her son as the new moon, marries him as the full moon, loses him to the darkness as the waning moon, goes in search of him as the dark moon, and rescues him as the returning crescent. In the Greek myth, in which the daughter plays the role of the ‘the part’, the cycle is the same, but the marriage is between the daughter and a god who personifies the dark phase of the moon (Kore and Hades). The daughter, like the son, is rescued by the mother. In both variations of the myth, the Goddess may be understood as the eternal cycle of the whole: the unity of life and death as a single process. The young goddess or god is her mortal form in time, which, as manifested life --whether plant, animal or human being --is subject to a cyclical process of birth, flowering, decay, death and rebirth.

This essential distinction between the whole and the part was later formulated in the Greek language by the two different Greek words for life, zoe and bios, as the embodiment of two dimensions co-existing in life. Zoe is eternal and infinite life; bios is finite and individual life. Zoe is inifinite ‘being’; bios is the living and dying manifestation of this eternal world in time. The Classical scholar Carl Kerenyi explains: ‘Zoe is the thread upon which every individual bios is strung like a bead, and which, in contrast to bios, can be conceived of only as endless’ --as ‘infinite life’.

Relating this to the moon, zoe becomes the totality of the cycle of the moon’s phases, and bios becomes the individual phases. Zoe is then both transcendent and immanent, and bios is the immanent form of zoe. In this way, bios is contained in zoe, as the part is contained in the whole. Zoe contains bios, but bios cannot contain zoe. Similiarily, we suggested that the Palaeolithic myth of the Goddess contained the myth of the hunter, but the myth of the hunter could not contain the myth of the Goddess.

The Mother Goddess can be recognized as the totality of the lunar cycle --as zoe --and her daughter and son-lover, who emerged from and return to her, can be seen as the moon’s phases --as bios. Together they image the two ‘faces’ of life: eternal and transitory, unmanifest and manifest, invisible and visible. The son and daughter personify the ever-dying and ever-renewed forms of life, whether human, animal or plant. Related to the cycles of thd earth’s seasons, the son and daughter incarnate the life of vegetation. The transitional moments in the agricultural cycle are commemorated with festivals of mourning and rejoicing, and in the great mythic dramas that express the mysterious analogy between the life of the moon, the life of plants and the life of human beings. Participating in these rituals created a trust that as darkness is always followed by light, so death is followed by rebirth. All life, therefore, holds a promise of renewal. The sacred marriage, in which the Mother Goddess as bride is united with her son as lover, reconnects symbolically the two ‘worlds’ of zoe and bios, and it is this union that regenerates the earth.

You may have noted certain ideas with a parallel in ("the true") Judao-Christian religion; that that which is transcendent of man is eternal, unmanifest and invisible; that bios, in the form of the Son, dies and is symbolically resurrected. These paralells are drawn deliberately in this early chapter, because the whole book leads towards a better understanding of these 'elementalism holdovers from primitive times'.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
But,... is it true for YOU,... and does it help you in any way..?

And this is the crux of the matter.

Is it true? My contention is that if not true for everyone, then not true at all - and I've yet to see a good argument against it.

The truth of it is how it helps you. What you get out of it. The meaning behind it, which is interpreted by each individual.

I would dare say that religion, as it is practiced today in the Judao-Christian traditions, is not "true" to the original intent of religion, in that the meaning behind the myths has been largely repressed (until it is all but forgotten) in favour of sprouting a God that exists in the physical world. I think this is the crux of the matter: religion was never intended to be shared by all. Organized religion is an abomination of the spirit of religion. The spiritual passage of the initiate through a dark wall-painted cave was intended for him alone to find a movement towards or connection with the transcendent being. His being --not an external one. This isn't to say that people cannot come to the same spiritual message through organized religion, but it is usually dispite that religion. (/opinion)

". . . connection with the transcendant being." Wouldn't it be funny if all of organized religion was just a mistake of semantics?

"Organized Religion" is a sharing of a feeling via words.

Feelings can only be hinted at with words, just as describing "blue" to a born-blind person is "hinting".

Since "OrgRel" is entirely about words, it is entirely about semantics. And there is no "mistake" with semantics other than "misinterpretation".

A story, from my people:

"Why does the moon move, Auntie..?" said Iake.

"Because it has things to do,.. it has things to please..." said his Auntie Iakao.

"I know it is a ball, way up in the sky, 'cause the round-tree-fruit gets the same shadow-shape on it when I hold it and move it around in the sun..." he said.

"But how does it please things for it to move, and why does it want to please things at all, anyway..?" he continued.

Auntie Iakao said, "Every part of the day and night, the morning, the high-sun, the afternoon, and the same parts of the night, are like us. They want to get love from their mother, from their friends, from others that they live close to."

"The moon gives each love, and a different face, to each part of the day and night, because it gets that same love from the ball that we live on." she said.

"Nobody knows who gave the love first, the moon or the ball we live on,.. but does it really matter..?" she finished.

:)

Aloha nui loa kakou..!

You know,.. I always liked the sound of that word (either english or hebrew)..!

"AMEN".



:)

It's one of the very few words that has survived a DIRECT translation form the Hebrew, into Greek, into Latin and onward. I have several foreign language bibles, and most of them use the word 'amen'. (Although it is hard to be sure in the Korean and Chinese ones...).

I find it interesting that the word 'amen', in all probability, derives from Egypt - in the form of Amun (meaning 'hidden'), who was occasionally the most ascendant god in Egypt's shifting heirarchy.

As when you stated earlier that you tend to deny "self", and I stated I thought you were missing something essential in mythology, I think what's missing is an understanding of how primitive myths do support and inform religion as the external expression of a subjective religious consciousness. "An attempt to 'rationalise' the elemental world" does not cover it, barely brushes the surface, and is even dismissive of the spiritual 'elements' of the myths. I struggled with this whole thing, too, at the start of my studies, until somewhere along the way it clicked.

(Forgive the lateness in my response, and its length. I was trying to find references in a certain book from many years ago, albeit with a “faulty memory made all the more golden by years”.)

In their book The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image Anne Baring and Jules Cashford demonstrate, using evidence, logic and symbology, how 'primative elementalism holdovers' likely evolved into the gods and goddesses of more modern religions. Let me quote what they say about the lunar myth motif (the god who dies and the goddess who pursues him into the underworld to bring him back life). Bear with me, if you’ve heard this all before:
The moon was an image in the sky that was always changing yet was always the same. What endured was the cycle, whose totality could never be seen at any one moment. All that was visible was the constant interplay between light and dark in an ever-recurring sequence. Implicitly, however, the early people must have come to see every part of the cycle from the perspective of the whole. The individual phases could not be named, nor the relations between them expressed, without assuming the presence of the whole cycle. The whole was invisible, an enduring and unchanging circle, yet it contained the visible phases. Symbolically, it was as if the visible ‘came from’ and ‘returned’ to the invisible --like being born and dying, and being born again.

The great myth of the (Old Europe) Bronze Age is structured upon the distinction between the ‘whole’, personified as the Mother Goddess, and ‘the part’, personified as her son-lover or her daughter. She gives birth to her son as the new moon, marries him as the full moon, loses him to the darkness as the waning moon, goes in search of him as the dark moon, and rescues him as the returning crescent. In the Greek myth, in which the daughter plays the role of the ‘the part’, the cycle is the same, but the marriage is between the daughter and a god who personifies the dark phase of the moon (Kore and Hades). The daughter, like the son, is rescued by the mother. In both variations of the myth, the Goddess may be understood as the eternal cycle of the whole: the unity of life and death as a single process. The young goddess or god is her mortal form in time, which, as manifested life --whether plant, animal or human being --is subject to a cyclical process of birth, flowering, decay, death and rebirth.

This essential distinction between the whole and the part was later formulated in the Greek language by the two different Greek words for life, zoe and bios, as the embodiment of two dimensions co-existing in life. Zoe is eternal and infinite life; bios is finite and individual life. Zoe is inifinite ‘being’; bios is the living and dying manifestation of this eternal world in time. The Classical scholar Carl Kerenyi explains: ‘Zoe is the thread upon which every individual bios is strung like a bead, and which, in contrast to bios, can be conceived of only as endless’ --as ‘infinite life’.

Relating this to the moon, zoe becomes the totality of the cycle of the moon’s phases, and bios becomes the individual phases. Zoe is then both transcendent and immanent, and bios is the immanent form of zoe. In this way, bios is contained in zoe, as the part is contained in the whole. Zoe contains bios, but bios cannot contain zoe. Similiarily, we suggested that the Palaeolithic myth of the Goddess contained the myth of the hunter, but the myth of the hunter could not contain the myth of the Goddess.

The Mother Goddess can be recognized as the totality of the lunar cycle --as zoe --and her daughter and son-lover, who emerged from and return to her, can be seen as the moon’s phases --as bios. Together they image the two ‘faces’ of life: eternal and transitory, unmanifest and manifest, invisible and visible. The son and daughter personify the ever-dying and ever-renewed forms of life, whether human, animal or plant. Related to the cycles of thd earth’s seasons, the son and daughter incarnate the life of vegetation. The transitional moments in the agricultural cycle are commemorated with festivals of mourning and rejoicing, and in the great mythic dramas that express the mysterious analogy between the life of the moon, the life of plants and the life of human beings. Participating in these rituals created a trust that as darkness is always followed by light, so death is followed by rebirth. All life, therefore, holds a promise of renewal. The sacred marriage, in which the Mother Goddess as bride is united with her son as lover, reconnects symbolically the two ‘worlds’ of zoe and bios, and it is this union that regenerates the earth.

You may have noted certain ideas with a parallel in ("the true") Judao-Christian religion; that that which is transcendent of man is eternal, unmanifest and invisible; that bios, in the form of the Son, dies and is symbolically resurrected. These paralells are drawn deliberately in this early chapter, because the whole book leads towards a better understanding of these 'elementalism holdovers from primitive times'.


The truth of it is how it helps you. What you get out of it. The meaning behind it, which is interpreted by each individual.

I would dare say that religion, as it is practiced today in the Judao-Christian traditions, is not "true" to the original intent of religion, in that the meaning behind the myths has been largely repressed (until it is all but forgotten) in favour of sprouting a God that exists in the physical world. I think this is the crux of the matter: religion was never intended to be shared by all. Organized religion is an abomination of the spirit of religion. The spiritual passage of the initiate through a dark wall-painted cave was intended for him alone to find a movement towards or connection with the transcendent being. His being --not an external one. This isn't to say that people cannot come to the same spiritual message through organized religion, but it is usually dispite that religion. (/opinion)

". . . connection with the transcendant being." Wouldn't it be funny if all of organized religion was just a mistake of semantics?

Thank you for the reply - better late than never.

Yes, I had seen those concepts before, maybe not set out quite like that - and usually with more reference to the Female-Moon and less emphasis (or no emphasis) on the Son aspect. I think that a short-circuit is being made in the reasoning there - to link straight from Moon Animism to biblical trinity, and I understand WHY that is being done (so the reader doesn't get bored, while you go through 20 stages of religious evolution), but I prefer a less concise - and more precise - route.

I agree with the fundamental concept. Modern religions seem very obviously to be the evolutions of earlier religions (this is especially apparent in the Bible, if you read it looking for traces of elementalism).

By the way, I pretty much agree with your opinion. What starts as an individual quest loses it's meaning in the broader experience. We may differ as to what we think lies at the end of the quest, but I agree with the mechanism.

Yes, I had seen those concepts before, maybe not set out quite like that - and usually with more reference to the Female-Moon and less emphasis (or no emphasis) on the Son aspect. I think that a short-circuit is being made in the reasoning there - to link straight from Moon Animism to biblical trinity, and I understand WHY that is being done (so the reader doesn't get bored, while you go through 20 stages of religious evolution), but I prefer a less concise - and more precise - route.
The book itself is 700 pages long. There is more supporting text. ;-)

The book itself is 700 pages long. There is more supporting text. ;-)

I had kind of figured the book must be longer than four paragraphs... :)

I meant to add that there was more in the chapters leading to this passage, and that the "shortcut to biblical trinity" is just foreshadowing things to come in later chapters.

I meant to add that there was more in the chapters leading to this passage, and that the "shortcut to biblical trinity" is just foreshadowing things to come in later chapters.

I hoped as much... that was the 'soundbite' version, so you don't have to sit through twenty stages of evolution...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You know,.. I always liked the sound of that word (either english or hebrew)..!

"AMEN".

It's one of the very few words that has survived a DIRECT translation form the Hebrew, into Greek, into Latin and onward. I have several foreign language bibles, and most of them use the word 'amen'. (Although it is hard to be sure in the Korean and Chinese ones...).

I find it interesting that the word 'amen', in all probability, derives from Egypt - in the form of Amun (meaning 'hidden'), who was occasionally the most ascendant god in Egypt's shifting heirarchy.

It's a very simple word, with no apparent meaning, and so probably was passed as "rote" into and through the various traditions. I'll bet it predated "egypt" by 100,000+ years... :)

I just like the idea that I can assign my own meaning to it according to my "gut feeling" of the sounds involved.

Yet another case of "making meaning from noise" that my mind (if not other people's) likes to play.

I kinda see the meaning of the word like a verbal (sound based) game of "now you see it, now you don't" that most parents the world over play with their infants.

Just a random thought. :)

Honestly? I'm tired of these threads.

But I'll answer.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife. Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life." I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.

I love you LG.

In all seriousness, the dynamic/personal afterlife theory is the one I utilize most, as it shuts people up if they think I'm being non-confrontational.

I personally believe in re-incarnation though, which doesn't fit too well with the afterlife theory, unless the life I'm living now is one of those post-death hallucinations. Scary thought, huh?

Aaaanyway, to my point. If you rag on someone for believing in religion, you're a douchebag. If you you rag on someone for NOT believing in religion, you're a douchebag. I don't care if you're screaming in caps and one-letter words, or if you've written a three page article with sources and direct quotes from a P.hD astronaut that singlehandedly saved the universe. Giving someone the personal freedom to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how depressing or frigged up it is, is what makes someone a person worth talking to.

Of course, if someone insults you first, you're entitled to self-defence, even if just ignoring them is the more logical thing.

It's a very simple word, with no apparent meaning, and so probably was passed as "rote" into and through the various traditions. I'll bet it predated "egypt" by 100,000+ years... :)
Actually, it is derived from the Hebrew root Aleph-Mem-Nun, which is also used for the verb "to believe" ("la'amin" - "la" is a prefix meaning "to"). A sensible translation of "amen" would be "I believe in what you said", or more simply, "I agree".

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?Well, it's not as simple as that. First of all most people do not even know what their own religion is about. And they lack any historic background and just believe in what a tiny number of texts appears to (literally) tell them. The question about religion is not simply one of truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs
Honestly? I'm tired of these threads.

But I'll answer.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife. Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life." I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.


I love you LG.

In all seriousness, the dynamic/personal afterlife theory is the one I utilize most, as it shuts people up if they think I'm being non-confrontational.

I personally believe in re-incarnation though, which doesn't fit too well with the afterlife theory, unless the life I'm living now is one of those post-death hallucinations. Scary thought, huh?

Aaaanyway, to my point. If you rag on someone for believing in religion, you're a douchebag. If you you rag on someone for NOT believing in religion, you're a douchebag. I don't care if you're screaming in caps and one-letter words, or if you've written a three page article with sources and direct quotes from a P.hD astronaut that singlehandedly saved the universe. Giving someone the personal freedom to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how depressing or frigged up it is, is what makes someone a person worth talking to.

Of course, if someone insults you first, you're entitled to self-defence, even if just ignoring them is the more logical thing.

Oooooooooo... I wanna hear about the Ph.D astronaut guy that saved the universe..!

Sounds pretty nifty a story..! Apparently he's NOT one of those "douchebag" people you refered to earlier..? :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
It's a very simple word, with no apparent meaning, and so probably was passed as "rote" into and through the various traditions. I'll bet it predated "egypt" by 100,000+ years...


Actually, it is derived from the Hebrew root Aleph-Mem-Nun, which is also used for the verb "to believe" ("la'amin" - "la" is a prefix meaning "to"). A sensible translation of "amen" would be "I believe in what you said", or more simply, "I agree".

I rather like the translation "it is".
("A=outside, M=inside, N=exists [terminates]")

WHERE have I seem THAT before..! :D

Actually, it is derived from the Hebrew root Aleph-Mem-Nun, which is also used for the verb "to believe" ("la'amin" - "la" is a prefix meaning "to"). A sensible translation of "amen" would be "I believe in what you said", or more simply, "I agree".

I'm not trying to argue over the origins of a word... I appreciate that 'Amen" as transliterated from the Hebrew follows the Aleph-Mem-Nun root, but I suspect that the root is derived from someone else's language - as is the case with most English words.

Amen is more 'sensibly' translated as "Faithful" or "Faithfully", and, from there, as "True" or "Truely".

The "I believe" interpretation comes from the similarity to "Amam" , which would, pretty much directly translate to "believe".

As a point of interest, does "Amen" turn up in Ugaritic, I wonder - because that might shed some light... I shall have to research the matter.

I rather like the translation "it is".
("A=outside, M=inside, N=exists [terminates]")

WHERE have I seem THAT before..! :D
May I ask which language that's from? I am not aware of any such interpretation of the letters. Then again, the true interpretation according to the actual meanings assigned to the Hebrew letters doesn't fare much better...

The letter Aleph means "assertiveness" or "ego" (an ancient symbol for the letter is believed to have represented bull's horns).
The letter Mem means "water".
I'm not sure what the letter Nun means, but i've heard theories about it being a snake or a fish.

So, I guess that would make Amen a territorial aquatic snake. Which makes no sense.

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

As a "humanist" (in the Dutch and French word),I can only say that a men's believe is a private matter and that his private opinions should be respected as long as this believe is not taking the freedom from other peoples acting, beliefs, sexual opinions aso. Freedom for them off course and yes it is silly when people attack you on your religion.

About the big bang, I don't know but I tend to believe (indeed it is a believe to, you are right about that) the scientist a bit more.

I'm not trying to argue over the origins of a word... I appreciate that 'Amen" as transliterated from the Hebrew follows the Aleph-Mem-Nun root, but I suspect that the root is derived from someone else's language - as is the case with most English words.
Yes, probably. However, the word is still based on the root, regardless of where the root came from. (Or the verb was derived from Amen? It's a possibility, though I don't think so.)

Amen is more 'sensibly' translated as "Faithful" or "Faithfully", and, from there, as "True" or "Truely".

The "I believe" interpretation comes from the similarity to "Amam" , which would, pretty much directly translate to "believe".
Nope. The word for "to believe" definitely ends in a Nun. There is no such word Aleph-Mem-Mem. I checked the dictionary.

As a point of interest, does "Amen" turn up in Ugaritic, I wonder - because that might shed some light... I shall have to research the matter.
Interesting. If you find something, do tell. I never heard about the Ugarites or whatever they were called - where they earlier than the Hebrews?

As a final note: Eneni miktso'i, aval ani bemikre dover et hasafa ha`ivrit. Ani goshev she ani yode'a yoter aleha mimkha.

Translation: I'm not an expert, but I do happen to speak the Hebrew language. I think that I know more about it than you.

The letter Aleph means "assertiveness" or "ego" (an ancient symbol for the letter is believed to have represented bull's horns).
The letter Mem means "water".
I'm not sure what the letter Nun means, but i've heard theories about it being a snake or a fish.

So, I guess that would make Amen a territorial aquatic snake. Which makes no sense.
*lol* I immediately recognize in the symbolism of M-N the Mother (Monster) Goddess, Babylonian Tiamat or Summerian Nammu. Adding "ego" to that, A-M-N, you get Marduk, slayer of Tiamat, the mythological equivalent of the Hebrew Yahweh. That's just the symbolism, though --don't know how it becomes a prayer.

Barbara Walker is not one of my favourite references for symbolism, but one of her books says that amen means "so be it", from Sanskrit, and has been symbolized in a glyph that looks like a swastika "since at least 10,000 B.C." The footnote indicates the source of this is Claudia de Lys, "The Giant Book of Superstitions", 1979.

Yes, probably. However, the word is still based on the root, regardless of where the root came from. (Or the verb was derived from Amen? It's a possibility, though I don't think so.)

Nope. The word for "to believe" definitely ends in a Nun. There is no such word Aleph-Mem-Mem. I checked the dictionary.

Interesting. If you find something, do tell. I never heard about the Ugarites or whatever they were called - where they earlier than the Hebrews?

As a final note: Eneni miktso'i, aval ani bemikre dover et hasafa ha'ivrit. Ani goshev she ani yode'a yoter aleha mimkha.

Translation: I'm not an expert, but I do happen to speak the Hebrew language. I think that I know more about it than you.

"The word is directly related -- in fact, almost identical -- to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful. And so, it came to mean "sure" or "true", an expression of absolute trust and confidence".

http://www.biblestudyplanet.com/q23.htm

I also checked the 'dictionary' and found ['amam] as a word meaning hidden or huddled, overshadowed, or dim. And the name of a village referred to in the bible.

However, Strong's Concordance suggested "amam" for believe, and a number of reference websites seem to sing the same refrain.

Which 'Hebrew' do you speak? I understand that there are three distinct eras of the Hebrew language, and I certainly do not have comprehensive knowledge of all three - nor do I pretend to.

Ugarit was a culture that predates that of the Hebrews, that shares much of the same 'language' structure (and is the probably ancestor of the Hebrew language - certainly it's closest relative). The "Song of Miriam" is an example of Hebrew literature 'stealing' directly from Ugaritic.

Ugarit also had much intercourse with earlier Egypt (which has references to 'Amen' or 'Amun' dating back as far as the fifth dynasty), indeed some of their religious writings (which closely resemble early Judaic texts, are credited to an Egyptian authority... perhaps not coincidentally, named "Amen-em-ope".

I'm afraid merely 'speaking a language' does not make you an expert... most of the people I know speak reasonably good English, but have no idea where any of it COMES from.

I'd listen to Willamena, if I were you... the Mesopotamian root is by far the most likely origin of the word. (For which the probable evolution was Sumerian --> Early Egyptian --> Ugarit --> Hebrew -- transliterated --> modern languages.

I also checked the 'dictionary' and found ['amam] as a word meaning hidden or huddled, overshadowed, or dim. And the name of a village referred to in the bible.
I just checked mine. There is no such word Aleph-Mem-Mem. There IS, however, a word `Ayin-Mem-Mem, which indeed means what you said. The letter `Ayin is nearly silent but not completely so, although it is often mispronounced as completely silent. (By comparison, the letter Aleph is always silent.). Since Amen is spelled Aleph-Mem-Nun, the two words are quite obviously not related. There is no word `Ayin-Mem-Nun.

However, Strong's Concordance suggested "amam" for believe, and a number of reference websites seem to sing the same refrain.
Do any of these website authors speak Hebrew?

Which 'Hebrew' do you speak? I understand that there are three distinct eras of the Hebrew language, and I certainly do not have comprehensive knowledge of all three - nor do I pretend to.
Mostly modern Hebrew - I learned it from my mother who lived in Israel for a while, though we left when I was three, partly to avoid some war or the other.

My dictionary is Hamilon Ha`ivri Hamerukaz (Concentrated Hebrew Dictionary), ISBN 965-17-0201-6, copyright 1993 Kiryat-Sefer, Ltd.

Oooooooooo... I wanna hear about the Ph.D astronaut guy that saved the universe..!

Sounds pretty nifty a story..! Apparently he's NOT one of those "douchebag" people you refered to earlier..? :)

...

Please to be going to a dictionary now good sir. It was hyperbole, and not unwaranted, as I've seen many an article quoting a supposed expert (or written by a supposed expert) with no proof of their credentials and some rather outlandish claims.

Actually, if said non-existant Ph.D is forcing his opinions down people's throats, he is. He can research theology all he wants, he can tell people who ask him his findings, he can tell people who don't ask him his findings. But if he goes up to a religious person, and says "Look, look at these findings, you're wrong. Your religion is wrong, there is no heaven." or "This is the wrong religion, you're stupid for believing otherwise.", etc., THEN he's a douchebag. Got it?

I beleive religion is just to fill in the gaps, and explain what science can not, but thats just me. 'm not calling anyone stuipid though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I rather like the translation "it is".
("A=outside, M=inside, N=exists [terminates]")

WHERE have I seem THAT before..!

May I ask which language that's from? I am not aware of any such interpretation of the letters. Then again, the true interpretation according to the actual meanings assigned to the Hebrew letters doesn't fare much better...

The letter Aleph means "assertiveness" or "ego" (an ancient symbol for the letter is believed to have represented bull's horns).
The letter Mem means "water".
I'm not sure what the letter Nun means, but i've heard theories about it being a snake or a fish.

So, I guess that would make Amen a territorial aquatic snake. Which makes no sense.

Well,.. as usual my "interpretation" is entirely idiosyncratic and personal. :)

It's my interpretation via how I "feel" about the sounds involved.

To recap:

"A" (the sound) sounds like a simple voiced outward relaxed breath made through an open mouth. To me that "means" it signifies "intent (voice) from deep inside out into the world".

"M" sounds like "A" with your mouth shut. To me that "means" it signifies "intent (voice) contained inside".

"N" as a final sound sounds like "A" crammed up into your head (nasalized) then stopped. To me that "means" it signifies "intent (voice) pushed 'up' into a 'higher place' then abruptly ended".

So:
..the "A" means "outside" or "intent in the world",
..the "M" means "inside" or "intent contained in the self",
..and "N" means "exists" or "has an end and is not endless" or "intent transitioning into something else as opposed to the never-ending".

Which I cleverly interpret as a whole into the simplest of verbs "is", or "it is" if it's given a subject.

More poetically it might be like:
"Remember that which has been done as"--<- the "text" prior to the "amen"
"Your intent in the world,"-------------<- "A"
"Your intent within yourself,"----------<- "M"
"Does exist, as it has an end (within the endless)."--<- "N"
So, I suppose, I see the invocation of "AMN" as a plea/affirmation (to self) that your intent is real and a finite part of the endless world.


(( I especially like doing games like this with Hawai'ian words, as the sound permutations are so much smaller than most languages. ))

Note, the Hebrew letter Aleph is not pronounced as an A, in fact, it is silent. In Hebrew all letters are consonants (with the exception of certain forms of Vav and Yud, although this might be a curruption of their original pronunciation), and all the "meaning" of the word is in the consonants. The vowels are not properly part of the word. There are "vowel points" ("nikud" - Nun-Quf-Vav-Dalet) written under the letters proper to denote vowel sounds, but these are probably relatively modern inventions, and many texts still today choose to omit them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oooooooooo... I wanna hear about the Ph.D astronaut guy that saved the universe..!

Sounds pretty nifty a story..! Apparently he's NOT one of those "douchebag" people you refered to earlier..?


...

Please to be going to a dictionary now good sir. It was hyperbole, and not unwaranted, as I've seen many an article quoting a supposed expert (or written by a supposed expert) with no proof of their credentials and some rather outlandish claims.

Actually, if said non-existant Ph.D is forcing his opinions down people's throats, he is. He can research theology all he wants, he can tell people who ask him his findings, he can tell people who don't ask him his findings. But if he goes up to a religious person, and says "Look, look at these findings, you're wrong. Your religion is wrong, there is no heaven." or "This is the wrong religion, you're stupid for believing otherwise.", etc., THEN he's a douchebag. Got it?

Oh well,... maybe you can compose a nifty story about this said Ph.D Astronaut at some point and post it.

It IS a nice seed for a story though, wouldn't you say..? :)

We have one, kinda similar, about a perpetually drunken solo-navigator that keeps going around and around the islands, telling all the canoe-people he meets that they're in the wrong places, because he can't remember which stars are where in the sky.

If "douchebag" means "funny guy that everybody laughs at", then our sloshed navigator is a douchebag too. :D

Note, the Hebrew letter Aleph is not pronounced as an A, in fact, it is silent. In Hebrew all letters are consonants (with the exception of certain forms of Vav and Yud, although this might be a curruption of their original pronunciation), and all the "meaning" of the word is in the consonants. The vowels are not properly part of the word. There are "vowel points" ("nikud" - Nun-Quf-Vav-Dalet) written under the letters proper to denote vowel sounds, but these are probably relatively modern inventions, and many texts still today choose to omit them.

As a savage from "somewhere else entirely", I can only comment on what I get presented, and what I remember (though my foggy mind) of what I've learned from others. :)

Why would you have a letter for such an important concept as a sound, that doesn't have a sound associated with it..?

You you folks think I'M odd..!! :D

I'm rather glad then that my people didn't develop their alphabet (quasi-syllabary actually) from the hebrew explorers of the big ocean, 'cause sometimes we can go for entire sentences without using a consonant..! :)

Hebrew must be a very fluid language though, if the vowels don't really matter. Or are they just for various inflected meanings of the "root" consonant combinations..? They must be.... they can't possibly mean "nothing".