Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:

Use hyberbole much?

I would like to see how "the whole project comes down around your ears"

Did I misunderstand your point?

GG

No, I think you got it. I'm not much for fundamentalist religion. To me it is horribly arrogant to presume that an omnipotent being deigned to elevated only a select group of faithful into the light of righteousness. In my mind it recasts religion, something which should be about community and the pursuit of happiness, as a force of alienation.

In terms of logic:

Once you conceive of God as a material thing like any other you necessarily open him to the standards of proof to which material things are subject. These standards are universally reductive in that they strive for simplicity in the causal order. As such, when you have two explanatory theories regarding the material world the one which does not assume something beyond the immediate observation is the one which is correct. Since a physical God will always be beyond immediate observation it will never be correct to conceive of his existence. At least not in matters of science.

Once you conceive of God as a material thing like any other you necessarily open him to the standards of proof to which material things are subject. These standards are universally reductive in that they strive for simplicity in the causal order. As such, when you have two explanatory theories regarding the material world the one which does not assume something beyond the immediate observation is the one which is correct. Since a physical God will always be beyond immediate observation it will never be correct to conceive of his existence. At least not in matters of science.

The difficulty with that argument Dogma is the first point. I don't think believers are viewing God as a material thing in your concept. Further, if that being created said laws of materiality, said being is not necessarily bound by such. The programmer is not bound by the program.

I think it was either Voltaire or Descartes (sorry this is a recollection from before the dinosaurs) who put forth that God is the being thats just beyond are greatest idea of God (in essence our puny minds can comprehend the full scale fo God). Indeed there are religions who's core beleif is that we are all part of God, this is one big god machine as it were.

Frazzled wrote:
The difficulty with that argument Dogma is the first point. I don't think believers are viewing God as a material thing in your concept. Further, if that being created said laws of materiality, said being is not necessarily bound by such. The programmer is not bound by the program.

I agree. I think most believers would label God as something which is beyond the material world. However, that creates a disconnect between the immaterial God and material man. A disconnect which must be explained if we are to assume that recommendations which come from on high can be taken at face value without rational support. In essence, if God is actually informing you of something it should be within your power to support that information with other examples of God's will; including language which is not overtly religious.

That said, someone who is so entrenched in his beliefs as to be willing to state that they are the 'Word of God' is likely to be just as entrenched in them given a different set of linguistic terminology. It isn't so much the words that give rise to the beliefs, but the the beliefs (as extensions of experience) which give rise to the words. Live a simple life, and your belief system is likely to reflect that simplicity.

Note that I'm not trying to indicate that simplicity is an intrinsically bad thing.

Frazzled wrote:
I think it was either Voltaire or Descartes (sorry this is a recollection from before the dinosaurs) who put forth that God is the being thats just beyond are greatest idea of God (in essence our puny minds can comprehend the full scale fo God). Indeed there are religions who's core beleif is that we are all part of God, this is one big god machine as it were.

Yeah, most religions have some kind of mystical or pantheistic tradition. The first person to fully flesh out that idea, at least in the West, was Spinoza. Voltaire expressed some similar beliefs but probably tended more towards my position, which is a general rejection of dogma as explanatory. Clarity has never been my thing.

I think you're attempting to "channel" Descartes there. Presumably his argument towards "How do we know we are here/real?"

In othe words are we really here or just..you know..in "The Matrix" .

In all honesty his final answer, pretty much being that " I thought of God and he is tok awesome to not be true" doesn't really hold up to any serious scrutiny--at least to modern philosphical thinking.

Otherwise we would all be worshipping Santa Claus instead.

PLus it never gets past any "Satan/malevolent God idea".

Plus..well....he was a bit of a loony. From memory it was he who nailed his family dog to the table to "prove" that animals couldn't feel pain.

Amusing death though.

You didn't have to tell me about the dog thing. I have a thing about animals. Now Descartes must die. Oh wait, too late.

Is it getting solipsistic in here or is it just me?

All you people are using them thar high dollar words.

Continuing the tradition of Schopenhauer's poodle?

Er...I like cheese

generalgrog wrote:

Except that they don't have to be contradictory at all.

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

Well, I've always been taught that it was simply an earlier narrative. That's not the point, the point is that you need to do a bit of interpretation and some finagling to really make the two accounts fit together. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm#foot2

The differing accounts of Judas' death can be attributed to different states of Judas' death. It's entirely possible that after Judas hung himself, his body fell and broke open. there has also been some discussion as to whether or not "hanged" really means to be hanged with a rope, or to have been "impaled".

It's entirely possible, but again my point is that you have to so a little smoothing out.

Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.

Well, it depends what you mean by "discount" and "literal reading." I think that the fossil record is pretty good evidence that there has been life on earth for a pretty long time, and that creatures changed and evolved into more derived (not necessarily advanced) forms. I think that it is, if not overwhelming, at least positive evidence that the earth is neither 6500 years old nor was it created in 6 business days. I'm not saying you couldn't explain it away, but there is a lot of evidence that the earth is pretty old.

A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.
GG

Again, I'm not interesting in reading books that show the gaps in evolution. I"m fine with gaps. If you have a better theory, or you know somebody that does, let's get it out there and start testing it. I don't need to read 380 pages to know that there are gaps in the fossil record. I already know that. I also know that IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Polonius wrote:

Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.

Well, it depends what you mean by "discount" and "literal reading." I think that the fossil record is pretty good evidence that there has been life on earth for a pretty long time, and that creatures changed and evolved into more derived (not necessarily advanced) forms. I think that it is, if not overwhelming, at least positive evidence that the earth is neither 6500 years old nor was it created in 6 business days. I'm not saying you couldn't explain it away, but there is a lot of evidence that the earth is pretty old.

A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.
GG

Again, I'm not interesting in reading books that show the gaps in evolution. I"m fine with gaps. If you have a better theory, or you know somebody that does, let's get it out there and start testing it. I don't need to read 380 pages to know that there are gaps in the fossil record. I already know that. I also know that IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Young Earth creationism maddens me. Kinda like Biblical literalism when using the King James Version (one of the most beautiful books in the English language, with words chosen based on the poetic nature over literal translation of the preceding works).

Ok for those of you who support Young Earth Creation, how do you ignore the scientific evidence?

efarrer wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.

Well, it depends what you mean by "discount" and "literal reading." I think that the fossil record is pretty good evidence that there has been life on earth for a pretty long time, and that creatures changed and evolved into more derived (not necessarily advanced) forms. I think that it is, if not overwhelming, at least positive evidence that the earth is neither 6500 years old nor was it created in 6 business days. I'm not saying you couldn't explain it away, but there is a lot of evidence that the earth is pretty old.

A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.
GG

Again, I'm not interesting in reading books that show the gaps in evolution. I'm fine with gaps. If you have a better theory, or you know somebody that does, let's get it out there and start testing it. I don't need to read 380 pages to know that there are gaps in the fossil record. I already know that. I also know that IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Young Earth creationism maddens me. Kinda like Biblical literalism when using the King James Version (one of the most beautiful books in the English language, with words chosen based on the poetic nature over literal translation of the preceding works).

Ok for those of you who support Young Earth Creation, how do you ignore the scientific evidence?

This was already covered by the suggestion that God could have created the Earth to APPEAR 6 Billion years old. There's no way we can claim this is 100% not the case, and asking why he would bother would be fruitless, as the default answer is that we cannot understand his motives, we can barely comprehend his existence. God not having done so, and the Earth really being the age geology indicates is the simplest answer, and those that accept the principle of Occam's Razor accept this, but those that don't are not going to have their minds changed by the question. God doing this is possible, but unlikely. Fact.

A more pertinent question to stop this thread becoming a stale statement of our personal beliefs is:

Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?

Elessar wrote:
A more pertinent question to stop this thread becoming a stale statement of our personal beliefs is:

Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?

I think you're looking at it wrong. Divinity isn't something which can be proven objectively. It is a sensation generated by one's interaction with the world. When sane people talk about God they aren't discussing something which necessarily possesses some form of corpus, but a metaphorical condition which is best encapsulated by religious language.

The morals set forth in the Bible are fairly elementary, and have very clear sociological causes. But to people that have a history of being on the wrong end of immoral choices made by those in power the existence of a person who adamantly denies their self-professed righteousness holds the apparition of divinity.

Why is it a sin to be gay? I find homosexuality perfectly natural, why can't the church(es)?

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Why is it a sin to be gay? I find homosexuality perfectly natural, why can't the church(es)?

We've already covered that quite extensively, and would be best if we didn't rehash it all over again. Probably 5 or 6 pages back it starts, if not further.

Ahtman wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Why is it a sin to be gay? I find homosexuality perfectly natural, why can't the church(es)?

We've already covered that quite extensively, and would be best if we didn't rehash it all over again. Probably 5 or 6 pages back it starts, if not further.

Oh, sorry. Didn't see that. never mind my questions.

did you know that Pope John Paul said you should listen to scientists on the creationism vs Evolution thing? Just gonna toss this out there and see who Bites

He reached across the borders of religion vs science. Best pope ever.

Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?

I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?

Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.

halonachos wrote:He reached across the borders of religion vs science. Best pope ever.

Agreed

The direct translation of the 10 commandments say "Thou shall not murder." not "Thou shall not kill.".

God wanted man to be able to fight back and survive, not just lay down and die. "Turn the other cheek" applies for non-fatal harm.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?

I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?

Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.

No people teach that. I'd posit
1. depends on the society. I doubt Somalia teaches that. Where I lived in Cali while in school the moral was not thou shalt not kill but thou shalt not be disrespected.
2. Society has massive mixed messages on morals.

I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?

Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.

Yeah but aren't all European and American societies based on Christian theology? Like laws and such?

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?

I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?

Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.

No people teach that. I'd posit
1. depends on the society. I doubt Somalia teaches that. Where I lived in Cali while in school the moral was not thou shalt not kill but thou shalt not be disrespected.
2. Society has massive mixed messages on morals.

Society created the Code of Hammurabi(eye for an eye), religion created the 10 Commandments.

halonachos wrote:He reached across the borders of religion vs science. Best pope ever.

Agreed.

mcfly wrote:

I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?

Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.

Yeah but aren't all European and American societies based on Christian theology? Like laws and such?

Sort of. Legal history is quite complicated with parts coming together from local and imported sources over long periods of time.

Also, how can this thread still be going on when McDonalds has brought back the McRib? Now that's something to discuss!

MCRIB!

Now thats a sign of god's existence.

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Elessar wrote:
Do any of you (primarily GG, Polonius and dogma) believe, taking the Bible as a moral text, and leaving the supernatural aside, that it expresses any moral values that don't have a sociological value from the time period they were written? As in, obviously "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty obvious thing that could equally have been conceived of by people looking to build a community. Basically, any moral values in there that REQUIRED divine intervention to conceive of?

I'd go further and ask what those morals are that religion teaches?

Society teaches, don't kill or steal for example. Not religion.

No people teach that. I'd posit
1. depends on the society. I doubt Somalia teaches that. Where I lived in Cali while in school the moral was not thou shalt not kill but thou shalt not be disrespected.
2. Society has massive mixed messages on morals.

Society created the Code of Hammurabi(eye for an eye), religion created the 10 Commandments.

Different societies have different messages, but within societies morals are pretty solid - if there's ambiguity its because it's not something socieety has the right to deem right or wrong.

If your point is that religion prefers inequality, sure - Leviticus 20:15 "If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal" - obviously consenting is an equal crime here. Or perhaps Deuteronomy 23:23/4 "If a man happens to meet in a town a Virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death - the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help"

A dig at a Third World country hardly seems appropriate in your post now, huh?

I think hes trying to go at the whole piracy thing.

Fair enough, an emotive issue I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that we made them that way. It's hard to have a set of societal beliefs that respect life when everyone is poor and dying, while you are aware how much better life is for Americans and Western Europeans.