Topic awaiting preservation: Belief System

there is an interesting theory that says that without god(s) need humans as well as humans need god(s).
it goes kinda like this:

No people=No believers
No believers=No Religion
No Religion=No God
No God=Pandemonium

And it does have some strong backup-points:
look at the Aztecs and all the other old religions once all the people who believed in those religions died out so did the religion once the religion died out the only time you ever heard of their god(s) was in mythology and folklore thus creating a dead god. However if for some mysterious reason the world converted back to one of those religions the god(s) of that religion would become alive once more. Now I know what some people may say "That's not true because of our god is the one true god and he or she will never die" well i would be willing to bet anybody at least ten to thirty dollars that most of the followers of the other dead religions felt just the same way before their gods die. And I know that this is going to sound really anti-religous and stuff but I really do believe that there is a way to 'kill' a god if that is a good word for it. You just have to forget about that god or gods depending on your belief.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

The entire point is based upon the premise that humans invent gods. If a god or gods exist independent from human thought, then the whole idea falls on its face. The God I worship, if he truly exists, exists whether I believe in him or not.

The bummer about this is that there is no way for any of us to know which way it really is for certain. I can't prove that my God really is there and no one can prove He isn't.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Good point. I also believe that I just thought it interesting since most people just suffice to say that gods can't be killed they're immortal and dont put any more thought to it.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

Well, it does really depend on the god doesn't it? I mean, if the god was made by man's hands, like a the household gods in ancient Rome, then it could be easily smashed and scratch one religion. But, if the religion is thought up by a man and if the god doesn't have jsut one physical embodiment, then you would have to get rid of the thought in the minds ALL the followers. The last kind, though, cannot be killed, because He was not made by man. This one Almighty God is claimed by many religions: Christians, Jews, Islamics, just to name a few. But all the religions seem to point to one God, who was not merely created by a man like alot of other religions were and still are. I guess the only way you could kill this Almighty God would be to destroy about one third the entire population of the Earth. I believe, being a Christian myself, that this unfortunate event will happen someday in one form or another any way, but I, personally, do not think that wven that could kill the Almighty God. I'm sure the Aztecs did believe that their gods would last forever, but why would I want to have a god of murder, when I could have a God of peace and hope, that loves me. I think that in all these religions, that people are just trying to fill the hole that God has put in their hearts. They, unfortunately, either didn't know about the loving Almighty God, or, they didn't have the best of person telling them about Him.

Why is what doctors do called a "practice"?

Is this the same One Almighty Loving God in whose honour all manner of evil has been committed through the ages?

Oh yeah, like he is something different!

I don't think it matters that you might be able to quote excerpts extolling the virtues of peace and love - as there are plenty of ways to interpret the bible as a manual for all-out-war too, methinks.

It could be said that the blame for religion-related attrocities rests with the majority of the people who believe in him and interpret the bible in such a way; but as the actions of the believers really dictates the nature of the religion (a statement of opinion, perhaps) then the smattering of quiet decades in the last century that have not seen incredible slaughter of some sort (in his name) can hardly be shown as the truer face of a religion that has otherwise been an excuse for carnage on a global scale.

I think there is a way to kill a god. Christianity proved this by killing all the traditional gods, phasing out religions and belief systems that were older than Christianity is now.

Sheep... I mean people were tempted to easy ways of the lazy man's religion fairly easily once their own belief systems had been systematically erradicated - their idols smashed, scriptures burned, and temples vandalised by a growing army of new cult fanatics.

The organised army of The One God waged a war not just of arms, but of psychology and politics. In the process, many older gods died (as did an entire culture, or several).

Now, seeing as The One God made it into being on the say-so of a group of people you've never met (and never will, if you're wrong about them) and became established through violence and subterfuge, how can you be so sure that he is any more real or exclusive than a god in which people believed long, long ago?


Sangreal, have you read Terry Pratchett? Specifically, a book in the Discworld series called Small Gods? If you haven't, then I plead with you to find it, buy/beg/borrow/steal it, and read. You've more or less encapsulated the whole premise of the plot - and it is a very entertaining story, too.

To back you up a little too: I've always been puzzled by this...
If there really is only one true God, why on Earth (or wherever) is he a jealous one? How can it really make a difference to him whether or not people decide to believe in another god?

(Free will? Huh!)

Whether or not other gods exist, this would seem to suggest that he is aware of his own vulnerability, for if he does not ensure the focus of his followers' beliefs, he ceases to exist!

Just a thought.

To clarify, lest my bias be presumed: I have never, nor ever will believe in or worship a deity - nor ever excuse my actions with my beliefs or interpretations of scriptures written in an ignorant and unenlightened time. This does not mean that I do not have beliefs. I think this should be made clear.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-21-2004 16:37)

WH

around 70% of world population are not capable of critical thinking...

you know I was thinking the same before...*we should get rid of religion, it's useless* etc.

but now, the closer I look at the world, I see that people are too damn stupid. Therefor we need religion more than ever...
Me, I am nonreligious, I strictly object all the supernatural ideas and stories. Just because we do not have answear to something now doesn't mean it's supernatural...we simply need more time. =)

But religions are very important to our society, it gives dumbasses morals and values to uphold. Not that everyone who believes is a dumbass, I know quite a few inteligent people who believe what they want to believe and they keep it to themself. I respect them for that

But look at Arabs for exemple...they once were most civilized people. Now they are bums living in the deserts, just think about if they didnt have a religion. It would be chaos... Unlike us, who got everything( education, modern laws, technology)...it's still hard for them to decided from "right" and "wrong"...so you could say religions bring order of somekind to society.

Even Society in America is suffering from morons...teenagers go experiment with sex and drugs and all unneccesary crap subcultures are starting to dominate fashions, everyone is buying those ugly sunglasses because they think they will be cool once they have them, teens get pregnant and breed more morons...get herpes, AIDS, STDs you name it...

there are just to many stupid people...so by giving them idea of invicible guy in the sky who says "thats wrong" they might listen...


If you are capable of critical thinking, I am sure you can, not only decided for yourself what you want to believe, but kinda live as civilized person(which includes not breaking a laws, upholding relationship, be loyal, etc.) and most of all tolerate others beliefs and ideas.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-21-2004 17:30)

quote:

---

Yes, I wondered about that too, MW. I was pretty sure we were doing business with Germany before the war. There was even a decent amount of support for Hitler himself in the early days of his rise to power.

---

[edit for clarity] From a biblical perspective, there are no real gods other than He. So anything that you place before him becomes a god or idol. [/edit]

The idea is that he desires a relationship with the people He created. The Garden of Eden presents what it was like when God walked with Human and there was no separation. You mention Free Will and I'm sure you're aware that is what brought on our fall from Grace. Ever since, the entire history of Human has been about trying to rconcile back to that perfect relationship that once was.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-21-2004 17:46)

^...as it's said in Genesis

WHiteHawk, the more you post, the more I like you.

My first thought was "Small Gods" too - what an excellent story! Not to mention the point Mr. Pratchett makes...

Another book with an interesting perspective on the rise of Christianity and the reasons for why it took over so quickly is Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code". It's a mystery novel, but much of the information contained therein is based on a large collection of historical data. Certainly it is all open to interpretation, but the interpretation Mr. Brown presents is one that has not often been considered. For obvious reasons, once you've read the book.

I firmly believe that the general populous needs something other than the material world to believe in. It's not only a system for providing morality to the world, it is a means of community, and of enculturation. On top of that, it's comforting to folks, especially most Christians I've known, to have faith that there is a reward awaiting them at the end of this incredibly difficult life. Most of the major religions believe in an afterlife of some sort.

quote:

---

But look at Arabs for exemple...they once were most civilized people. Now they are bums living in the deserts, just think about if they didnt have a religion. It would be chaos... Unlike us, who got everything( education, modern laws, technology)...it's still hard for them to decided from "right" and "wrong"...so you could say religions bring order of somekind to society.

---

Ruski: this statement is so bigoted. If you've ever visited any arab cities, you will know that they live in much the same conditions as we do, and have many of the same societal problems. Islam is as complex a religion as any of them, and even if they are biased against Americans right now, the majority of the followers of the Koran are intelligent human beings. Just because the Bedouins still prefer live as nomads, doesn't mean they are uncivilized. It just means they prefer to follow their ancient tradition. Besides, they are only one tribe of Arabic people.

Quit being so ethnocentric. There is no perfect society yet existing on earth.

I honestly don't think it matters what one calls God (or god). I believe that all creative power comes from the same source, regardless of the name it has been given by any people. Dogma is just the set of beliefs associated with a particular name. Gods don't die, they evolve into new Gods.

(Edited by bodhi23 on 05-21-2004 18:39)

I agree bodhi. Culture is a human tool for coping with this life. All cultures have their ups and downs. Ruski, we are all of the same family on this planet. It is better to view *them* as siblings rather than outsiders. Discussing the current struggle between the Arab world and the West is a heavy topic and will take some effort to handle adequately.

One of the problems encountered by the Xians even from the earliest days was that they confused their culture with their salvation. The early church was exclusively Jewish and when Paul began opening the door to the Gentiles there was a huge debate over it. Xianity is independent from culture and it is supposed to change the individual from the inside out. Once it takes hold in the individual, the culture will begin to be informed by that transformation.

But I completely understand how it looks when you view history. And in many cases it is quite true that Xians (in name and/or in reality) have committed terrible atrocities against other groups of people. The entire history of the OT illustrates just how difficult it is for a people who were entrusted with God's message to carry it as He wanted.

As far as most people being like sheep. I agree with that. I think it is much easier to have your culture/society/parents/whoever tell you what to think than to actually have to do it yourself. And I believe most people take the path of least resistance.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

"If God has created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment."
--Voltaire

I had an anthropology professor way back when who used to tell us that humans were "herd animals". Herd animals naturally look to follow the strongest and best leader. Humans, unfortunately, have more going on in their heads than just the survival instinct, and so we do not necessarily follow the best and brightest of our number.

All religions are guilty of "holy wars" at some point in their history. It is not fair to lump it all onto Christianity. The Muslims are big on holy wars, but the Celts fought among themselves, often on the basis of their differing tribal deities/priests, and let's not get started on the Germanic tribes... Just because Christianity swiftly became the most widely practiced religion in the world is no reason to assume that all Christians are evil and blood thirsty. It just goes against the entire belief system.

Actually, now that I think of it, it's more likely that secular governments throughout history have used Christianity to promote their own agendas, and that historically, Christians and members of other religions were only guilty of doing what "herd animals" do: follow the leader.

That's not a bad bit of analysis, bodhi23 Very well put.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

hey hey, I have nothing agains Arabs...and why have you mentioned Islam? I was not talking about any particula system.....besided I never view them as an outsiders...I do not view anyone as an outsider be you Chinese or Arabiant or Eskimo...I dont care....I myself don't even belong to any nation...at least I do not feel I do...
I have left my nation 5 years ago and my way of thinking changed greatly...I was finally able to view everything from an outsided perspective...

Personaly I think if people travel more(not vacation, but more like migration) they mature faster...

My statement was refered especially to areas like Afganistan and wast big Arabs empty desert fields. The communication can be very hard alot of people are nomadic etc.

I know that there are urban areas in Aran nations and that they are very similar to us, but I also believe they are having very rought time...

The problem is of course that their government is bonded with religion, which is unneccesary...and always bringas alot of negative actions...

now please keep in mind I am not refering to Isalm or Christianity as being evil..I am saying that seperation from church and state is very important and that they should not be mixed.

quote:

---

All religions are guilty of "holy wars" at some point in their history. It is not fair to lump it all onto Christianity. The Muslims are big on holy wars, but the Celts fought among themselves, often on the basis of their differing tribal deities/priests, and let's not get started on the Germanic tribes... Just because Christianity swiftly became the most widely practiced religion in the world is no reason to assume that all Christians are evil and blood thirsty. It just goes against the entire belief system.

---

bodhi I agree very much, but what about all those beautiful cultures that perished to Christianity...Japanese, Native Americans, Aztec, Incans...sure we see, know and hear about them...but they either dont exist or are not seen anymore...

I am not saying that scripture is responsible for it...but showing your faith to someone's face...or doing it by force was never good actions/

I think Spain would have conquered much of the Americas with or without Christianity. The same goes for just about every other invasion in human history. The sad fact is that it's human nature to hate those with whom we differ.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

. . .I've always been puzzled by this...
If there really is only one true God, why on Earth (or wherever) is he a jealous one? How can it really make a difference to him whether or not people decide to believe in another god?

---

who created who? we him, or he us? him in our image, or we in his image?
of course he's jealous, aren't you? be honest. would it make any difference to you if someone broke your heart?

quote:

---

(Free will? Huh!)

---

yup.

quote:

---

Whether or not other gods exist, this would seem to suggest that he is aware of his own vulnerability, for if he does not ensure the focus of his followers' beliefs, he ceases to exist!

---

signed, sealed, and delivered! (he is also well aware of our vulnerability)

quote:

---

To clarify, lest my bias be presumed: I have never, nor ever will believe in or worship a deity - nor ever excuse my actions with my beliefs or interpretations of scriptures written in an ignorant and unenlightened time. This does not mean that I do not have beliefs. I think this should be made clear.

---

oops! i think you put you foot in it here. (never say never)

don't get me wrong, i'm not picking on you (except maybe humorously).

http://www.furious.com/dogma.html

quote:

---

of course he's jealous, aren't you? be honest. would it make any difference to you if someone broke your heart?

---

why are you comparing god so much to humans? why do you assume he has emotions? and if he does is he human? if so then he is not perfect?

who the heck are humans to even speak for a deity?

I always found it funny how people use idea of magical being to be our father and we children, and if children misbehave he punishes them, heh.

I say: "failure of children is a failure of a parent"

according to OT, our sin was simply "knowlegde" and "curiosity". Since we gained awareness of ourself we were punished, why? what is there so "evil" in knowing? why is nakedness bad when he created us naked?
I assume, according to bible he created two robots who are happy, dumb and don't know anything and would always worship him...kinda like pets....yet when we gain acknowledgment of our awareness we become evil unholy bastards that deserve to be punished.

why didn't the great almighty magical being teach us how to use "knowledge" is a correct way? Yet so many human fathers do... he simply shows great deal of impatience...

he rushed to punish us, why? and then requesed a bunch of sacrifieses and worships? yet then he gest tired of it and sends his own son to be murdered? for what? for somekind of sacrifies? yet he is called perfect and needs to see more murder and blood all for what? his own entertainment?

in order to "save" people?

I mean...do people buy that stuff? I am quite surprised many take those jewish stories literally...

we all know that Genesis was written by man...I mean it was all written by man, but before you moan and shriek; "it was inspired by god"

how could man get into the head of magical being and talk for him and what was he thinking...all the conversations, between god and devil...al the private talks between Jesus and Pilate are written as if they were recorded right in front of them...

sure I can say, it is possible to get great deal of wisdom from reading stuff like that, if you know the history, culture etc. understand how people lived during that time and why they wrote like that...there can be found alot of great messages...over all bible is pretty good philosophy, only if you know "how" to read it.

but if you gonna use an ancient poetric text to explain all the purposes/reasons/causes of the world....*sight*

(Edited by Ruski on 05-23-2004 10:09)

Bodhi, Yes you are correct Small Gods is a great book by Terry Pratchett (one of my favorite authors) but that is not the only place i have seen this theory.

Bugimus I have a question if: From a biblical perspective there are no other gods than the one god why does one of the ten commandments say: Thou shallt not have any gods before me.? (Just to be difficult)

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

Bodhi, Yes you are correct Small Gods is a great book by Terry Pratchett (one of my favorite authors) but that is not the only place i have seen this theory.

Bugimus I have a question if: From a biblical perspective there are no other gods than the one god why does one of the ten commandments say: Thou shallt not have any gods before me.? (Just to be difficult)

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

Please ignore the second post my computer is being stupid again.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

Sangreal, the "other gods" specifically refers to man made gods, idols. Idolatry was very common at that time, and even among the Hebrews themselves; remember the golden calf? The God of the bible is saying that He alone is worthy of worship and not images fashioned from stone or metals. In today's world it is far less common to actually worship stone gods. But any object can become the focus of our attentions which is the essential element of worship. So the commandment is germane even today.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugimus are you telling me that Brahma and Shiva and this "third magical guy whatever his name is" are to be concidered false idols and not gods worthy of worship?

bodhi23,

quote:

---

All religions are guilty of "holy wars" at some point in their history

---

Not quite - the Aborigines of Australia have never embarked on a "Holy War" of any sort in regards to their religion - which happens to be the oldest known religion (unbroken).

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Ruski, yes.

I am telling you that Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are not real. I believe they are everything DL-44 would most likely say that they are; human inventions. I don't for a second dispute that in the absence of real god(s), we humans will invent some to fill our need for them.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

well, I can say that Yaweh/Jehova are human inventions too, more like Jewish/Hebriew inventions..which inspired foundation of Islam and developed another root, Christianity.

You do say that, don't you? What's the point?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Loooooooong response soon, but for now:

The point is Bugimus, that by asking "What's your point", you have shown your inability to think outside of the limitations of your belief system. You will ignore the beliefs of people whose religions were around long before yours was dreamed of by some bloke whose integrity is beyond examination (an observation qualified by the fact that a man dead for thousands of years can't be questioned, or otherwise inquisitioned).

You are, in fact, demonstrating the point!

...and being a bit ignorant about it too.


Damn, I am actually itching to get my teeth into this argument again, right now - but it's all work, work, work...
_______________________________
Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-26-2004 18:58)

(I wish I had more time in the day, I swear!)

WS - I can well believe that the Aborigines have never fought a holy war, expecially as isolated as Australia was for so much of history... I stand corrected.

Ruski, whether you meant to sound bigoted or not, that particular statement was very much so. As long as you recognize when it happens...

For all of us: for the most part, we debate intelligently and clearly, with some emotion, but most often respectfully. Most misunderstandings occur when we post hastily or unthinkingly. Please review your posts before clicking submit to make sure that you have made your point as clearly and concisely as possible to avoid future confusion about what you have said...

That said, since all religions are taken on their faith, and there is no way to prove that any deities exist at all, it can be assumed that all religions are human construct. Whether or not any prophet in history was truly "divinely inspired" or not is always open to debate. Religion, in itself, however, serves and important societal purpose. It is the machine of morality and enculturation for human society today. Religious worship is a means of raising up our children with a system of rules, beliefs and traditions intended to keep them in line with the current secular government. Generally, if you adhere to the beliefs of your religion , you will not break any of the country's major laws.

In light of that, whether a deity actually exists or not is a moot point.

quote:

---

That said, since all religions are taken on their faith, and there is no way to prove that any deities exist at all, it can be assumed that all religions are human construct. Whether or not any prophet in history was truly "divinely inspired" or not is always open to debate. Religion, in itself, however, serves and important societal purpose. It is the machine of morality and enculturation for human society today. Religious worship is a means of raising up our children with a system of rules, beliefs and traditions intended to keep them in line with the current secular government. Generally, if you adhere to the beliefs of your religion , you will not break any of the country's major laws.

In light of that, whether a deity actually exists or not is a moot point.

---

Hmmm...some real gems in here...but also, some false ones, as well.

quote:

---

That said, since all religions are taken on their faith, and there is no way to prove that any deities exist at all, it can be assumed that all religions are human construct.

---

I tend to agree with this - and it is also my opinion, as well.

quote:

---

Whether or not any prophet in history was truly "divinely inspired" or not is always open to debate. Religion, in itself, however, serves and important societal purpose. It is the machine of morality and enculturation for human society today.

---

A definite gem - well said! I agree wholeheartedly.

quote:

---

Religious worship is a means of raising up our children with a system of rules, beliefs and traditions intended to keep them in line with the current secular government.

---

Hmmm...here I would tend to disagree. I don't think it is a means of raising, but "programming" - i.e. brainwashing. And I don't think it is done, to keep them in line with the current secular government, but as a means of preserving and spreading the Faith for the next Generation.

quote:

---

Generally, if you adhere to the beliefs of your religion , you will not break any of the country's major laws.

---

This is just plainly false. In fact, often Religious Beliefs contradict laws of a Country - and there is then conflict. I see the opposite being true here.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-26-2004 18:45)

Bugs, White Hawk clarified all I ment....regarless of my faith or what I think of your god.

Now, bodhi. What are you accusing me of? If ya wanna know, I am trying hard to tolerate as much religions as possible( I know all about "since all religions are taken on their faith, and there is no way to prove that any deities exist" I think you are religious in someways and I am very glad that you tolerate that and so do I, yet I find christainity to be the hardest one to convince of such oppinion, perhaps because I live in christian nation...I say there won't be understanding among religions if we do not investigate the foundations of religions, Bugimus said that Hindu deities are idols and are fake human invetion (which leads me to assume that he expresses that whole hindu system is pure hoax) to me it shows little understanding of their faith...
My statement ment exactly what White Hawk has said, I just questioned him. Sorry if I am incapable of expressing myself better and if I may appear sarcastic at times, but I am not living in united states yet and I do do not practice much of my english in day to day communication.

If you are offended that I forgot the name of the third god of Hindusm and called him "third magical guy whatever his name is" then I can only offer my apology. =)

edit: Shaman I agree with you on everything you mentioned in your last post.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-26-2004 18:59)

Leaving the office now, so a passing comment...

Bodhi, I agree with what you say (and I am glad that I please you, BTW), but what decent moral grounding can one truly expect from a religion which condones the fatal stoning of an unmarried mother, for instance?

Okay, without naming religions, I am well aware that I making a reference to the sort of thing that happens(happened?) in a country where the brutal governmental regime was/is as much to blame for such atrocities (regardless of anyone's opinion, such an act has to be considered an atrocity) as the religion practiced by its people...
. ...therefore, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I am suggesting that not all religious beliefs (or perhaps, interpretations) could be considered an appropriate mechanism for shaping a society's moral framework.

But, again, that is also a matter of (my) opinion. Maybe I'm wrong?
Perhaps it is right, in some circles, to bludgeon a woman to death within days of her giving birth to a bastard child, while it is also (quite rightly) a terminally punishable offence for a woman to expose her face in public?

Sure, the religion of which I have made an example, is not always practiced with such extreme fervour - but it is religion in general that people use as much to excuse their actions as to control them.

I don't know...




Argh! The time! I've got to run for my bus..!

*sound of slamming doors, fumbled keys, running feet, then distant profanity as a bus pulls away...*

quote:

---

...you have shown your inability to think outside of the limitations of your belief system. You will ignore the beliefs of people whose religions were around long before yours was dreamed of by some bloke whose integrity is beyond examination (an observation qualified by the fact that a man dead for thousands of years can't be questioned, or otherwise inquisitioned).

You are, in fact, demonstrating the point!

...and being a bit ignorant about it too.

---

Actually, I'm not. But you're new to this community and I can totally see how you would get that impression from what I told Ruski. I look forward to your looooooong response

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I am indeed new, and I think perhaps that I jumped on the wrong person (too tired to read back now).

Thank you for being gracious about it.

I've decided that I should delay my looooooooooong posting. I'm feeling a little too energetic to be objective, and I've been doing far too much thinking on the bus home to be politically inoffensive.


One little thought though:
If a child grows to believe that a man is his father and never discovers otherwise - in fact, dies believing that man was his father - does that belief make the truth of whether or not the man was his father?
Also, if you gave him the opportunity on his death bed to know the truth - would he:
1) want to know?
2) be better off knowing?


The way I'm thinking right now, that probably doesn't make the sense I was hoping for, but I'm going to leave it like that.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-26-2004 23:31)

I HAVE read back now, and I must admit that it wasn't a hasty posting, but a hasty reading: I confused Ruski for Bugimus somehow (despite the obvious), when, in fact, I'd misunderstood you both.

I will strive not to make the same mistake again.

Sorry.

_______________________________
Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-26-2004 23:24)

*double posting - slow browser - sorry*

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-26-2004 23:26)

Religion is a touchy thing and that is why I like to debate on it. Many say that religion is a subject that should not be discussed with others because of the same reason. For my point of view on it suffice to say:
Religion and Science, while they seem like opposites, are, in a way, very much related. Humans invented science to tell them the how to's and whys. And again Humans invented religion to tell them the why's and who-dun-it's and saddenly, more often than not, yes who to persecute or ridicule.

I said Man because even if the god is a not man-made he still needs man to believe in him otherwise what's the point in being a god. For life (again as it says in Small Gods) is merely a game of chess with god(s) as the player(s) and once that god(s) has lost all it's pieces it doesn't wanna play any more.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

I decided a long time ago that people SHOULD discuss religion and politics. It never made sense to me to avoid the two most important topics in life. That's one of the reasons I love this place.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

heh - the only problem is that, with enough of the wrong type of participants, they degenerate into the same circular arguments.

reitsma

What's the 'right' type of participant?

Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Bush, I'm sure there are others...

*whistles innocently, while striding towards the door*

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

*another replicated post - sorry - a bit click-happy of late*

(Edited by White Hawk on 05-27-2004 14:09)

This isn't my looooooong post - I'm just bored at the office for the moment...
___

I second that, Sangreal,

I also think that there would be a lot of happy despots in the world if topics like religion and politics were successfully made taboo.

There was a time when the idea of questioning established 'facts' was considered heresy. You were either crazy or heretic if you suggested that the world was round, or that it wasn't the centre of the universe. Crazy or heretic, the result was usually the same - horrific death.

I believe absolutely, that we are returning to such a time by gradual degrees.

The greatest problem we face is that your average religion just isn't practiced with the conviction that it once was. Moderation is breeding extremism. A vacuum has formed in the order of belief systems which will be (is being?) filled by the more extreme religions.

This is an age of increasing cultism and superstition - simply because people seem to need to grasp a faith that can help them to cope with a world beyond their understanding.
Fundamentally, it is simpler to blame/excuse/thank god for the things that happen in one's life, than to face them without faith in some almighty plan.

Whether or not God exists, he will always be believed in - humans require that greater mystery to explain all the lesser ones.
___

Oh, I've changed my mind, by the way:

You can't kill the god that exists in modern religions.
The pagan gods and spirits were all ways of explaining the ebb and flow of nature. They would eventually have been superseded by science as the systems behind events in the universe were explained.

Taking the Christian god as an example: the principle concept of the faith is that you can never truly know god. The wonders and marvels of a scientific universe are flippantly attributed to the power of god. For this reason, he exists as an unreachable, unprovable, unquestionable entity beyond the mortal's ability to truly conceive.

His mystery becomes his insurance - omnipotence through enigma.
___

And finally, I'm wondering how many people will read my last posts and consider the question I posed.

Principally - how many people would consider my question without actually assuming the truth of the father? How many people will first consider the question of whether or not the man is truly the father of the child?

Is that just obscure logic? I'm losing the thread of that thought now... *sigh*

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

quote:

---

If a child grows to believe that a man is his father and never discovers otherwise - in fact, dies believing that man was his father - does that belief make the truth of whether or not the man was his father?
Also, if you gave him the opportunity on his death bed to know the truth - would he:
1) want to know?
2) be better off knowing?

---

A fact is a fact...belief does not change this. The child may believe that the man is his father - and dies, still believing so. But it doesn't change the [b]fact[/] that this is not so.

The answer to the question

"if you gave him the opportunity on his death bed to know the truth - would he:
1) want to know?
2) be better off knowing?"

is a subjective one, that can only be decided by the person in question. How should I know what he wants, or what is better for him? Let it be his own decision.

quote:

---

Principally - how many people would consider my question without actually assuming the truth of the father? How many people will first consider the question of whether or not the man is truly the father of the child?

---

"Assuming the truth of the Father"...I take it you mean, that the actual "truth" that you suppose in the first question (or the fact that you give - the Father is not really the father of the child). What, should we then doubt this given fact? Based on what clue, or information? For if I am supposed to consider "doubting" that this is indeed fact (as given), then I must doubt everything that you propose, or say...and that makes the effort then silly, doesn't it? In end effect, I should then just ignore you. Maybe that is the reason that I am the only one answering your question.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Actually, the whole point was that I did not suggest either way. It is the belief either way that is in question - the truth is entirely ignored by the question.

Did you miss that entirely?

And perhaps doubting what I say is a good start? You might otherwise blindly believe anything I tell you!
It is people like you that make the world a little more bearable.

AND yes: it might all be silly after all. Are you offended by this possibility - you seem agitated.
Have you had your shock therapy lately? I book myself in for an intensive session at least every few days. Keeps the brain nice and loose.

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

By the way - I think you may have been caught up in the semantics of the question, rather than the relevance of the analogy?

What do I know? Even I don't understand what I'm getting at half the time...

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

I couldn't help laughing out loud at this, WebShaman:

quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Bush, I'm sure there are others...

*whistles innocently, while striding towards the door*

---

Bugimus & Ruski:

Before we start saying which deity(s) are real, perhaps we need to define what 'Real' means. If I'm not mistaken that is one of the main points of this thread.

To it seems clear that anything that is thought of (any idea or concept) exists. The best test I can think of for 'reality' is this: Does the Object in question have an effect on anything else? If so, it exists and is therefore 'Real'.

Object as in-

God myDeity=new God();

Hey....! Forget Artificial Intelligence, coding new gods is way cool! Sounds like a worthwhile Ozone Asylum project to me.

Of course, since Satan has already been compiled there will be no need to use Visual Basic.

*laughing hysterically*
(time for another shock session)

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

White Hawk, Belief is not a substitute for Truth, for fact (though many believe it is). It is irrelevant, what the child believes - the man is/is not his biological father, as the case may be.

The belief will not change the fact that the man is/isn't, as the case may be (biologically, anyway). However psychologically and emotionally, that is an entirely different story. If the child believes, then the man is his father psychologically and emotionally.

I see, and understand the allegory behind what you are saying. Metaphorically, one could compare the child with a Believer - of either Religion, or Science, as the case may be (though I would tend to disagree on the terminology here - Science is a method of learning based on Facts, on repeatable results, Religon is based on Faith). In the example you give, the answer is not known (the fact, if you will) - that just leaves the "Belief".

Thus, the answer to the second part, would be the urge to either Disprove/prove existance of God - Science or Spread the Faith - Religon. Or not to. It could even allegorically, be seen as God himself, debating whether or not He should inform the "child" a non-believer, etc...but I wander.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

At last! I could kiss you, I really could.

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

...but I won't.

*Breathes sigh of relief*

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

In the interest of time, I'm going to respond to 2 immediate posts, and then read the rest of the posts since yesterday, I think I need to clarify (due to my haste yesterday afternoon...)

WS - I did say "generally"... I realize that's probably not as true today as it has been in the past. Quite possibly, if I'd had the chance to re-read the post first, I would have made that a little more clear.
And, uh, raising, brainwashing, they mean the same in terms of bringing up children in a society, right?

Ruski, I only commented that the particular comment was bigoted, and for the most part, the rest of my post was directed at the general populous, not just you. I'm not accusing you of anything - except perhaps not taking the time to go back and rephrase yourself so you aren't mistaken for being intolerant. As you can ^see^, I am also guilty of rushing every now and then... .

Now that I've had a chance to read a little more thoroughly...

quote:

---

but what decent moral grounding can one truly expect from a religion which condones the fatal stoning of an unmarried mother, for instance?

---

You take my meaning entirely too literally. I mean mainstream religion, of course. What shapes our society (through Christianity) is not the literal stories from the Bible, but the form and function of attending worship services, and all of the rules and societal etiquette that go along with it and the whole "church" experience. It's the interaction of the community in a formal setting that does the work - not the stories the people are actually talking about. Not to mention the reward of eternal life in heaven as a means to coax good behavior out of young people. Not, mind you, that this has been terribly effective in recent years. I use Christianity as an example only because it is currently the predominant religion in the US, which is the only society I can appropriately speak about, since I'm part of it.

edit: not that religion is the sole means of shaping children into adults these days either - it is only one means to the end...

Just because the topic has strayed slightly, and we have some new folks in here, let me just clarify my position on religion.

I am a spiritual person. I feel the wonder of the natural world around us, and I am pretty convinced that there is a focused creative force involved somehow, but I do not now,and have not for some years, felt the need to give it a name of any kind. I was raised in the Episcopal Church, and my mother in an ordained minister. I have studied religions on my own as a hobby and interest, and through my formal studies as a student of Anthropology.

I have, over the last 10-12 years, given religion a great deal of thought, and have decided that it is only what the individual makes of it. The basic tenets and beliefs of all major religions boil down to the same ideas: be nice to yourself, be nice to other people, believe in a higher power, and keep your thoughts on the positive outcome. Whatever trappings you decide to surround these ideas with become your own personal dogma. Whether you do it on your own, or you do it in a community, real spirituality is distinctly personal.

Even so - organized religion serves its purpose, as I said above. The last 10 years or have seen a major shift in popular view, from a society that welcomes all faiths, to a society that seems to no longer have need of any. Even Christianity is beginning to suffer in light of the aformentioned shift. I firmly believe that as humans, it is an integral part of ourselves to nurture some sort of spiritual belief. It doesn't really matter what you believe, just that you do believe. Otherwise, one is left feeling slightly bereft and empty. And "empty" people leave themselves open to being sucked into less "savory" types of activities/practices...

(Edited by bodhi23 on 05-27-2004 21:00)

White Hawk, I hadn't replied to your question because I just hadn't gotten around to it yet. But now I can do so.

quote:

---

If a child grows to believe that a man is his father and never discovers otherwise - in fact, dies believing that man was his father - does that belief make the truth of whether or not the man was his father?

---

The child's belief that the man was his father does NOT determine whether or not the man was, in fact, his father.

quote:

---

Also, if you gave him the opportunity on his death bed to know the truth - would he:
1) want to know?
2) be better off knowing?

---

Only the child could answer the first question. If he were Carl Sagan I suspect he would want to know as I recall a quote of his

quote:

---

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
--Carl Sagan

---

The second question is very interesting. I would say that in most cases it would be better NOT to reveal the truth to the child on his death bed. Why? Although the father was not the "biological" father, he was the child's "actual" father. If you define father, as I do, as the one who actually does the fathering then this makes sense. But I suspect you're more focusing on the biological truth of fatherhood and since I place very little emphasis on that, I say telling the child would serve no purpose whatsoever under the circumstances.


norm, I mean that before this world existed (yes, I deny the world is eternal) God was. He was then, is now, and ever will be completely independent of our thoughts and existence. He is not dependent on us for anything whatsoever. That is really real. It's about as real as it gets. No, it is the ultimate reality.

So that is how I view real. I hope that helps to clarify where I'm coming from in my comments above about the Hindu "Trinity".

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

White Hawk: If questioning facts makes you a heretic today as it did in those days then I claim the title of WORLD'S BIGGEST HERETIC. I love anyhting that has a fighting chance to overhtrow any given fact. Without anyone to have faith in a god or the christian god (like to point out now that I am Methodist by more or less my own choosing, But not entirely of my own volition) than wouldn't that god stop having power. A miracle would be difined as any work by any god(s) and those miracles can only come through faith therefore NO faith equals NO miracle.

I'm sorry I haven't had the time to make a post yet, but I do want to thank Bugimus, because it seems that he has said all the things I have wanted to say. But back on topic, I would like to say some other things.

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

there are plenty of ways to interpret the bible as a manual for all-out-war too,
methinks.

---

I do not know where in the Bible it says something like that. When i have read it, it only points to a loving God who wants to have a relationship with you, like Bugimus said. He doesn't want you to go and kill people that are against you. If you can find a part in the bible that condoles the unneccesary use of force, I would like to know.

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

but what decent moral grounding can one truly expect from a religion which
condones the fatal stoning of an unmarried mother, for instance?

---

If you are talking about Christianity or the Jewish faith, then yes that has happened in the past. If it happens in any Christian church now, then it should stop, but back then it did happen for a reason. The people of Israel were very easily led, like sheep. They were going to fall into the laps of the other religions, unless strict rules were laid out. The rules had to be enforced, and the reason that they would stone to death someone is so that they could rid the community of of the evil. A premarital pregnancy or a "bastard" is usually a sign that the woman was commiting adultry. That is why she had to be stoned. She had committed a sin, and they didn't want the sin to infect the community. And sin is contageous. Just look at America. Sin rampages throughout America because it is unchecked. But anyway, they didn't want the sin to infect the whole community. They had to get rid of the offender in the worst way possible, which was death. It was quite effective too. I mean, if you stoned someone with a rock that you picked up, and you hurled it at them, and you killed them, then you would be less likely to commit that sin too, for fear of being stoned. If you just banished the person, then you are saying that it is bad, but not bad enough to take your life away, then some people would say,"lets do it too." That would have been bad.

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

but it is religion in general that people use as much to excuse
their actions as to control them.

---

I do agree with this, and that too many people have taken advantage of churches and used them for "Holy Wars". I am strictly against that. I think that God wrote "Thou shalt not kill." on the tablet for a reason. People are lost sheep, and they do follow. That is why so many churches have been corrupted.

Why is what doctors do called a "practice"?

Bugimus, let me start off by saying that you have some very good arguements and that I do not expect either side of this particular debate to truly win merely come to some sory of comprimise since:
1. To prove the system wrong you MUST come up with concrete evidence (other than firm belief) that God, Yahweh, Jehovah..... whatever you wish to call him is the one TRUE GOD and not man-made. And I am confident yet saddened in the fact that this shall never happen.
2. To prove the system correct you MUST come up with concrete evidence (other than firm belief) that God..... is NOT the one TRUE GOD. I am also confident in the fact that this shall never happen.

That said I shall say this:
How can you believe in God and then not believe in the supernatural/paranormal (as you stated in the thread Belief in the Paranormal). Since God is in fact Supernatural/Paranormal?

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

I suggested earlier that the bible could be interpreted as a manual for all out war. Perhaps this was an over-statement...

Gideon said:

quote:

---

I do not know where in the Bible it says something like that. When i have read it, it only points to a loving God who wants to have a relationship with you, like Bugimus said. He doesn't want you to go and kill people that are against you. If you can find a part in the bible that condoles the unneccesary use of force, I would like to know.

---

The Bible suggests:

quote:

---

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
(Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. ... This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-15)

---

You asked..?

As regards god wanting to have a relationship with me (!), he'd better keep his hands to himself. I'm a tolerant man, but I just don't swing that way!

Oh yes Gideon, regarding the horrors of the past...

Just the other day I watched an old (as in, last year) BBC report on a young woman who was awaiting her death sentence (stoning) for bearing a child out of wed-lock in some developing country or other.

Do you know what an honour killing is under Islam?

Several young London women would be able to tell you... if they hadn't been stabbed or bludgeoned to death by their own fathers/families for so-called promiscuity (or, in some cases, being too friendly with white men).

Yeah, that was in the past - so will the next one be, and the one after that, and the one after that. It's hardly inappropriate for me to mention something that occurs in my own country every year (despite the fact that the reports have become less high-profile of late).

quote:

---

I think that God wrote "Thou shalt not kill." on the tablet for a reason. People are lost sheep, and they do follow. That is why so many churches have been corrupted.

---

Is this the same (infallible and unchangeable) god who instructed his followers to kill unfaithful wives and husbands, to stone a girl to death if charges of promiscuity could not be dis-proved, or to kill homosexuals for 'detestable' acts?

I agree: people have somewhat corrupted that particular set of commands over time, haven't they?

Oddly, you also stated:

quote:

---

Sin rampages throughout America because it is unchecked. But anyway, they didn't want the sin to infect the whole community. They had to get rid of the offender in the worst way possible, which was death. It was quite effective too.

---

So, I take you are an advocate of the death penalty?

And Bugimus...

quote:

---

The child's belief that the man was his father does NOT determine whether or not the man was, in fact, his father.

---

...is an answer relevant to the thread, seeing as we were discussing the possibility that a god might exist simply because it is believed in. I think you lost me with the rest though - I was attempting an analogy which, it is now obvious to me, was redundant anyway.

To clarify - would you rather die believing that god does or does not exist, or find out the truth (whatever it is) before you die? As a believer, this question would be pertinent. Most non-believers would happily consent to being told the truth by someone (or something) in authority.

Typically though, this is one of those 'unknowables'. If there is no answer before death, then God may still exist simply because he is 'unknowable'. On the other hand, should an after-life therapist appear with a form to fill out declaring you sound of spirit and seeking asylum in the nether-reaches of an un-expectedly capitalist and commercial after-life....?

Bodhi, you said:

quote:

---

You take my meaning entirely too literally. I mean mainstream religion, of course.

---

And what could be more 'mainstream' than the fastest growing religion of them all? I refer you to the first few lines of this post.

quote:

---

And, uh, raising, brainwashing, they mean the same in terms of bringing up children in a society, right?

---

That's exactly what most religious leaders would have us believe! ;)

I wasn't brain-washed by my parents. I was brought up with a few basics on the differences between right and wrong, and a healthy belief in myself and my abilities. I was also encouraged to explore my own spiritual beliefs from a very early age.
I strive to be polite at all times, respect other people, and obey (most :D ) of the laws of men.
However, I have known plenty of religious thieves, muggers, drunkards, and a wife-beater. That last one was the only person (first and last) I ever deliberately and intentionally attacked with the aim of causing harm, but my defence is temporary insanity - I abhor unnecessary violence in any form.

Life is a marvelous and beautiful thing for me, regardless of whether or not there is a 'why' behind it all. I don't need a belief in a deity to make me appreciate the world, or to fill an emptiness inside me. Though I sometimes moan about long hours at work, the state of public transport, the failing standards of education, or the terrible behaviour of kids today - I can honestly say that I am content with my lot, and even somtimes, quite happy... ;)

____________________________________________

And the lord said unto Moses, "Come forth" . . .
...but he came fifth and won a pink teddybear instead.
____________________________________________

quote:

---

BRAINWASHING: Dictionary Entry and Meaning
Pronunciation: 'breyn`wâshing

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs

See Also: indoctrination

---

I was, initially, being facetious with that remark... But now I have to make a point. In a society of humans, adults are required to bring up their offspring to be productive, contributing members of that society. The young are given no choice in the matter. You have children, you live in a specific society, you bring the children up to know and accept the rules of the society they will have to live in. If this isn't brainwashing in it's most raw form, I don't know what is.

You might think your parents didn't brainwash you, but your whole outlook on life is a construct of your parents tutelege. Regardless of how much a free-thinker you take yourself to be. Now, don't take this on the defensive, I'm not trying to insult anyone. Just making a point. Children learn by imitation. Parents do what they know, necessarily their children grow up indoctrinated into society simply by their existence in the family group. In anthropology, it's known as "enculturation", but it means the same. You may hold some different opinions, but you still know how to function in society, and that is where you are "brainwashed". The older I get, and the more I interact with my parents as people, the more I see that this is exactly the case. I am so much like both of them it makes me ill. How does one undo a lifetime of conditioning?