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.

I believe ... in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die.

How is deciding the day on which an innocent child will die, and causing the death to happen, not an act of murder?

If you believe that God murders people, then that is a question that you have to workout.

I don't believe God murders people, because I don't believe any gods exist. I believe they're implausible because there's no quantifiable evidence in their favour.

I do believe that if God(s) exist, and they were all-powerful and all-knowing, then they would be responsible for any and all deaths of innocents by "acts of god" (such as tsunamis, tornados, etc).

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I believe ... in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die.

How is deciding the day on which an innocent child will die, and causing the death to happen, not an act of murder?

Because I don't believe that God decidec that on this day a tornado will hit that school.

He knew it would happen. He didn't decide that it should happen.

I don't know how often I have tried to explain that difference to you, but this will be the last time.

He knew it would happen. He didn't decide that it should happen.

Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

So tell me about existentialism - what does that mean?

There is really no point in you continuing to ask me to justify your interpretations of what things mean.

PredaKhaine wrote:
So tell me about existentialism - what does that mean?

It's an order of philosophy that deals with the world in a manner that concentrates on cause and effect, with an emphasis on the individual.

This gives a good quick overview: http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/whatis.html

Existentialism doesn't always lead to atheism, but it certainly does lead to extreme skepticism of unfounded truth claims, and demands logical analysis thereof.

I also have a strong belief that the "solipsism paradox" is a great influence on humankind's behavior vis-a-vis the treatment of and empathy for other humans - moreso than is typically believed by most philosophers. This is, inline with existentialism itself, a rather negative view of the human condition. Despite this, I'm actually a rather happy fellow, taking solace in elements of Buddhist philosophy (as opposed to theology) as regards practical (rather than mystical) karma - I believe that solipsism-influenced traits in humankind can be overcome by a karmic approach to life, as well as judicious application of The Golden Rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
There is really no point in you continuing to ask me to justify your interpretations of what things mean.

I didn't ask you to justify your belief. I asked to to answer yes or or no to one question:

Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me that your interpretation of "if God created the world and God knows everything, then God is directly responsible for the murder of children" is correct and that I should defend that interpretation to you.

We have had 12 pages of people sharing what they believe, we have had people asking others about their faith and we have had people share more about them.

So far you are the only person in this thread that is really going "well, if you believe that then it must also mean this. So defend this!"

 d-usa wrote:
We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm asking a question, and you're not answering it.

Just give me a yes or no answer: Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

I won't ask you to justify that answer- I know it's going to be based on faith, one way or the other.

Just answer it, yes, or no.

EDIT: Or you stop responding and say "I'm not interested in discussing my faith with you anymore, goodbye". You're always free to not chat.

But I'd really love it if you'd answer my question, because chatting is fun, and sharing information broadens all our minds - I'm asking because I'm interested to see how this stuff hangs together, not because I want to laugh at whatever you say next (which is what you seem to be assuming is my intention).

EDIT2: And once again, please feel free to ask me questions about my worldview. It doesn't have to be all about you.
.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I believe ... in May of this year a tornado leveled a grade school in Oklahoma and killed multiple children because God decided that on this day these children will die.

How is deciding the day on which an innocent child will die, and causing the death to happen, not an act of murder?

Because there is a difference between Murder and Killing. On this point I must say I disagree with D-USA that not only did God know of this, but he planned for this tornado to kill people. The difference between murder and killing, is that murder in a biblical context is generally seen as killing based off of sinful motivation. By the definition of sin in the Bible, God has no sinful motivations.

The further question you might ask is why does God let bad things happen to humankind? And in general that is a complete mystery to us. The story of Job, if you are familiar with it, a wealthy man lost everything, his family was killed and all his wealth - his livestock, his home, his land - was lost in a day, all because Satan challenged God to see if Job was still faithful to God after God let all those things happen to him.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm asking a question, and you're not answering it.

Just give me a yes or no answer: Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

I won't ask you to justify that answer- I know it's going to be based on faith, one way or the other.

Just answer it, yes, or no.

EDIT: Or you stop responding and say "I'm not interested in discussing my faith with you anymore, goodbye". You're always free to not chat.

But I'd really love it if you'd answer my question, because chatting is fun, and sharing information broadens all our minds - I'm asking because I'm interested to see how this stuff hangs together, not because I want to laugh at whatever you say next (which is what you seem to be assuming is my intention).

EDIT2: And once again, please feel free to ask me questions about my worldview. It doesn't have to be all about you.
.

If he'd answered that question - where would you go with it?

Technically god killing people can't be murder, since murder is defined as one human being killing another.

Because there is a difference between Murder and Killing. On this point I must say I disagree with D-USA that not only did God know of this, but he planned for this tornado to kill people. The difference between murder and killing, is that murder in a biblical context is generally seen as killing based off of sinful motivation. By the definition of sin in the Bible, God has no sinful motivations.

I'd make a few notes there:
- I'm explicitly not using biblical definitions such as sin. When I said murder, I meant it in the common parlance - I'm aware that there's a biblical difference between murder and killing. For example, the first thing Moses does after receiving the Ten Commandments is kill 3000 of his own followers for worshiping an idol- as far as God was concerned that was not a murder. Then a few pages later God tells Moses to exterminate a nation of people known as the Amalekites, including their old women and their babies (the only Amalekites to be spared are the women of breeding age, who may be kept as "slaves"). Quite clearly, God makes a distinction between murder, and killing, at least in the Old Testament.

The further question you might ask is why does God let bad things happen to humankind? And in general that is a complete mystery to us. The story of Job, if you are familiar with it, a wealthy man lost everything, his family was killed and all his wealth - his livestock, his home, his land - was lost in a day, all because Satan challenged God to see if Job was still faithful to God after God let all those things happen to him.

As someone of Jewish heritage, I probably know the Job story better than most. I'd note that Job doesn't "lose" everything - God intentionally takes it from him by ordering The Satan to torture Job. God already knows what's going to be "taken" before he orders Satan to torture Job because he knows everything, of course, and he knew that Job would be tortured, and in what manner from the moment he created the universe (if he's real, that is).

Satan's God-ordered "taking" of Job's property includes killing Job's ten children and his wife, IIRC.

Jews don't have Heaven or Hell, or the Devil as Christians know him, incidentally; It was Jesus that brought the good news of Hell's existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PredaKhaine wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We are now on the second page of you trying to convince me...

Just give me a yes or no answer: Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?
.

If he'd answered that question - where would you go with it?

That'd depend on his answer.

Yes - So everything that ever happens, only happens because that was what God willed would happen, and everything has been set in stone since the moment of creation, right?
No - Doesn't it break a fundamental tenet of Christianity that God can be surprised by unexpected events?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically god killing people can't be murder, since murder is defined as one human being killing another.

I could go with intentional Homicide (as opposed to Deicide) rather than "murder", as a description of what God does every time there's a large natural disaster, if that's more theologically correct.

 Cheesecat wrote:
But science can't be a religion as it has no attachment to the supernatural or a doctrine that talks about theses supernatural events.

Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
I have "faith" that the scientific method will lead us to greater understanding of the universe.
Anything that a person feels strongly about, emotionally and has "belief/faith" in IS a kind of religion, it also has the added bonus of being formalized and a core set of rules, sound familiar?
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
As long as we do not go out after the infidel in the name of science.
How many theories have been made that people believe in but do not have sufficient evidence to be proven?
Good thing is, when we reach a point where the theory is disproven, we should be chucking it out the window without a backwards glance.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
Note when he says "educated" it includes experience and "flexible" thinking.

I understand a knee-jerk reaction to getting offended in calling science a religion but it is such a trusted and emotionally charged method that it would be contrary to evidence to dismiss it out of hand.

Some cool articles on this topic:

Science and Religion: Albert Einstein
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/Einstein%20Sci%20%26%20Rel.pdf

Is Science the New Religion?
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Satan's God-ordered "taking" of Job's property includes killing Job's ten children and his wife, IIRC.

Just children, the wife was left alive and in fact told Job to curse God.

I understand a knee-jerk reaction to getting offended in calling science a religion but it is such a trusted and emotionally charged method that it would be contrary to evidence to dismiss it out of hand.

Broadly, it can be said to be true, because it's always impossible for a single human to learn all of science and conduct all of its possible experiments - an element of faith is required in that you have to trust what some scientists say, because it's impossible to specialise in all forms of science simultaneously, and know everything.

Still, there's a crucial difference, in that you can pick any area of science you like from a text book or publication, (let's say, chemistry) conduct experiments and come to the same (or very occasionally, differing) conclusions as are related in the text book. You can never do that with religion, because none of it can be proven.

So although science requires a small amount of faith in other human beings (you need only have the faith that says "scientists, by and large, do apply the scientific method as they claim they do, and they aren't mostly liars who haven't really tested or proven any theories at all") it don't require faith in something that is intangible and impossible to prove exists to have faith in (all of) science.

It is, in fact, the "solipsism paradox" that I mentioned before that allows science to be described as a religion. Because you always (technically) need faith just to believe that you're a real person and everyone else you meet are real people too. That tiny uncertainty allows (technical) doubt to creep into even the most certainly proven of scientific theorems.

Science and Religion: Albert Einstein
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/Einstein%20Sci%20%26%20Rel.pdf

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, 1954

Great quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Bringer wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

Satan's God-ordered "taking" of Job's property includes killing Job's ten children and his wife, IIRC.

Just children, the wife was left alive and in fact told Job to curse God.

Stupid woman. Always being crap in the Bible, women.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Do you believe that at the moment of the creation of the universe, because god knows everything (you've already said you think god knows everything), god knew everything that would happen in the universe that he was about to create?

Getting into the "free will" discussion, always a favorite.
People far better than me discussed this, I "believe" this quote:

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free.
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

I "believe" this quote:

So, you think God can be surprised by events?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Manchu - my wife made me do things around the house last night so I did not get a chance to look up UK law regards cannibalism - going out tonight and Friday, so not sure when I will get the chance to answer you back.

No prob. I know the answer. I just thought, if SilverMK2 wants to think about this further then the way to do it is thinking about why cannibalism is illegal in the UK.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
So, you think God can be surprised by events?

Hehe, I think more that the overall way of things go "as planned" but the tiny details are left to themselves.

We can choose to ignore things (like the activities with gift hiding before a birthday) to keep things "fun", why set limitations on what a higher power does?
Who knows, we may just be a theory to be played out without interference (or only at key points) messing with the outcome.
Could be a blow to the ego that we are just in some petri dish allowed to play itself out to be checked later.

Motivation to act or not to is some of the biggest puzzles we work on daily, just try to figure out that for a higher being.

I figure you do your best, be accountable for your actions and hold others to theirs.
The blaming or crediting what happens to you to God just seems... egotistical or swinging the other way, a fatalist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Still, there's a crucial difference, in that you can pick any area of science you like from a text book or publication, (let's say, chemistry) conduct experiments and come to the same (or very occasionally, differing) conclusions as are related in the text book. You can never do that with religion, because none of it can be proven.

In each discipline there is a "body of evidence" to build from. Some people can do ALL the math or proof for each step. Some "faith" as described is needed to use a proven theory to move on to others. Much arguing happens because all the same conditions and materials must be carefully controlled to get some of the "reproducible" outcomes. It could be looked at a carefully controlled "ritual" to get the wanted outcome. I have made a career on measuring things, it is a consideration that the "usefulness" of something may not be completely measurable at that time. Think of belief as a "theory" where it is in the process of being proven or disproven that may not be doable in our lifetime.

So although science requires a small amount of faith in other human beings (you need only have the faith that says "scientists, by and large, do apply the scientific method as they claim they do, and they aren't mostly liars who haven't really tested or proven any theories at all") it don't require faith in something that is intangible and impossible to prove exists to have faith in (all of) science.

This is why it has many familiar elements of a religion and very zealous supporters of it. However it is incredibly useful and demonstrable which accumulates such "faith" due to a great track record.

It is, in fact, the "solipsism paradox" that I mentioned before that allows science to be described as a religion. Because you always (technically) need faith just to believe that you're a real person and everyone else you meet are real people too. That tiny uncertainty allows (technical) doubt to creep into even the most certainly proven of scientific theorems.

Very Buddhist viewpoint which I like. Our senses seem more geared toward limiting to bands of "interest" for our survival and our brains tend to "fill in the gaps" so perception is somewhat participative which can make us doubt what we perceive with good reason. The "cynicism" of questioning and following up on reasoning and perception appears reasonable faced with the degree of perceived reality person to person. To think of others as projections made from the self is rather depressing if taken seriously. Science is a means of rules that we agree upon on how we perceive our universe, others may think we are riding on the back of a giant turtle, it is hard to get someone to toy with a change of viewpoint without falling back on saying "you are wrong!" it does not get very far.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, 1954
Great quote.

Agreed, it is finding that "wonder" of creation that I feel is so important. To think of it as an enormous clockwork is interesting at first, but we are always drawn to when "rules" can be broken = mysticism.

Deep thinking on this thread, I like it... just hope we can avoid flame or the occasional troll.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
But science can't be a religion as it has no attachment to the supernatural or a doctrine that talks about theses supernatural events.

Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

I use these definitions when referring to religion and as far as I'm aware science has no supernatural elements to it. Also your definition sounds more like the definition of the word "belief" rather than "religion" as your definition would mean that anytime you strongly believe in something to

be true that it somehow becomes a religious belief like if you're rock climbing and you're 100% positive the harness and rope will hold your weight cause you've done testing and research on the product is that what religion means to you?

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Technically god killing people can't be murder, since murder is defined as one human being killing another.

and we were created in god's image. What does that make god?

 Talizvar wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:
So, you think God can be surprised by events?

Hehe, I think more that the overall way of things go "as planned" but the tiny details are left to themselves.

We can choose to ignore things (like the activities with gift hiding before a birthday) to keep things "fun", why set limitations on what a higher power does?

Because we're often told of a specific limitation (or, lack of limitation) that the Christian God has - he is all-knowing.
He knows *everything*; Jesus says that God knows the number of hairs on every head on every human on earth, and all the thoughts within all their craniums.

Could be a blow to the ego that we are just in some petri dish allowed to play itself out to be checked later.

As an existentialist, that wouldn't trouble me, that would just be the nature of things.

Motivation to act or not to is some of the biggest puzzles we work on daily, just try to figure out that for a higher being.

It's pretty easy to work out, if your higher being took the opportunity to visit one of his gogolplex planets in the form of an evolved ape, and in the form of that evolved ape told us what type of people to go to bed with - that's an eternal deity with some extremely parochial concerns.

The blaming or crediting what happens to you to God just seems... egotistical or swinging the other way, a fatalist.

It is impartial and logical. If God knows *everything*, and God can do *anything*, then it necessarily follows that God knew everything about the universe he created at the moment of its creation. Everything.

Think of belief (in God) as a "theory" where it is in the process of being proven or disproven that may not be doable in our lifetime.

Okay then. The only way you test a theory is to try and disprove it. That's the basic form of the scientific method.

You can't prove a Deistic God, because Deist gods are too vague, and don't do anything after the moment of creation.
But you can disprove specific interpretations of specific Gods by testing and disproving those interpretations.
For example, I can test and disprove the existence of Zeus by climbing mount Olympus.
I can test and disprove the existence of Thor by cursing his name and not being struck with lightning.
I can test and disprove the existence of an all-knowing all-powerful Loving God (that's "Loving" as humans understand it) by examining how many infants die painfully of eye cancer, or natural disaster, etc.

That doesn't serve to disprove an all-powerful all knowing Indifferent God, of course. It just brings you to a place closer to Einstein, where it's obvious that Gods to not meddle in the affairs of Women.

It is, in fact, the "solipsism paradox" that I mentioned before that allows science to be described as a religion. Because you always (technically) need faith just to believe that you're a real person and everyone else you meet are real people too. That tiny uncertainty allows (technical) doubt to creep into even the most certainly proven of scientific theorems.

Very Buddhist viewpoint which I like. Our senses seem more geared toward limiting to bands of "interest" for our survival and our brains tend to "fill in the gaps" so perception is somewhat participative which can make us doubt what we perceive with good reason. The "cynicism" of questioning and following up on reasoning and perception appears reasonable faced with the degree of perceived reality person to person. To think of others as projections made from the self is rather depressing if taken seriously. Science is a means of rules that we agree upon on how we perceive our universe, others may think we are riding on the back of a giant turtle, it is hard to get someone to toy with a change of viewpoint without falling back on saying "you are wrong!" it does not get very far.

Here's the trap, though - by using the Solipsism Paradox as a foundation for a definition of science as faith (because of the basic uncertainty at the heart of the human condition you cannot technically prove the existence of anything beyond your own mind's perceptions), then everything else in life is a matter of faith too. You end up having faith that cars exist, that computers exist, that Justin Bieber exists.

Solipsism as a philosophical paradox is unfalsifiable yet intellectually bland - a worldview where faith in Justin Bieber is exactly the same as faith in God, or HB pencils, is a universe where the word "faith" has lost all meaning through (literally endless) dilution. It's a hall of mirrors trick, nothing more.

Ultimately science is *not* the same as religion. Whilst they may share some basic fundamentals, those fundamentals are also shared with literally everything else in existence. The real meaty stuff - lack of authority versus ultimate authority, inspiration versus revelation, existentialism versus credulity - it's all different.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, 1954
Great quote.

Agreed, it is finding that "wonder" of creation that I feel is so important. To think of it as an enormous clockwork is interesting at first, but we are always drawn to when "rules" can be broken = mysticism.

I'd argue it's always been the other way around. When we knew very little, we saw gods in everything.
The more we learned, the more the gods died.
Now the only strong gods left, are those that were hardly there to begin with at all.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

I use these definitions when referring to religion and as far as I'm aware science has no supernatural elements to it. Also your definition sounds more like the definition of the word "belief" rather than "religion" as your definition would mean that anytime you strongly believe in something to be true that it somehow becomes a religious belief like if you're rock climbing and you're 100% positive the harness and rope will hold your weight cause you've done testing and research on the product is that what religion means to you?

First, it would be a poor definition in a dictionary to describe "belief" with "belief" but I admit I favor this definition because it does not get caught up in the details that are easily refuted involving a leader or god. It is a bit like describing what makes something a table or stool, it possesses the nature and features of that icon.

Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
Science has been so incredible in technology that if it is sufficiently advanced, it can be indistinguishable from magic.
I like this article:
Matter being able to exist in two places at once.
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists
There is no mention that religion must be supernatural but most are so I do see what you are pointing to.

I do not "believe" in 100% certainty. I zip lined recently and they had a double harness, two wires, two roller sets and two separate straps. Enough hardware I am reasonably certain I could send my car down it. Still scared the heck out of me, or should I say it was thrilling? The reasonable certainty allowed me to get on with my life and have a fun experience. Religion allows people to get on with their lives thinking "someone's got their back". Like walking a tightrope with a net underneath, makes you less afraid and you can do it without freaking out.

Messy I know but talking about feelings: thinking there is some kind of afterlife sure beats the alternative: you die, you cease to exist, you oversized colony of cells die and rot.
If you are wrong in either condition it sucks.

If you truly think death is the ultimate end: why are you arguing with idiots in a forum? Go out and do something exciting, time is a wasting!

 Talizvar wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Let us start with a dictionary meaning of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

I use these definitions when referring to religion and as far as I'm aware science has no supernatural elements to it. Also your definition sounds more like the definition of the word "belief" rather than "religion" as your definition would mean that anytime you strongly believe in something to be true that it somehow becomes a religious belief like if you're rock climbing and you're 100% positive the harness and rope will hold your weight cause you've done testing and research on the product is that what religion means to you?

First, it would be a poor definition in a dictionary to describe "belief" with "belief" but I admit I favor this definition because it does not get caught up in the details that are easily refuted involving a leader or god. It is a bit like describing what makes something a table or stool, it possesses the nature and features of that icon.

Yeah, bad description on my part what I mean is a belief is accepting that you think something is true.

Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
Science has been so incredible in technology that if it is sufficiently advanced, it can be indistinguishable from magic.

Not true, as magic is supernatural and something that is supernatural goes beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature therefore it can't be scientific if it becomes the same as magic.

There is no mention that religion must be supernatural but most are so I do see what you are pointing to.

Name me one religion that doesn't have a supernatural element to it.

If you truly think death is the ultimate end: why are you arguing with idiots in a forum? Go out and do something exciting, time is a wasting!

Cause I enjoy it, it isn't a waste of time for me.

I'm Atheist here, placed my vote on the poll just now.

 Talizvar wrote:
In each discipline there is a "body of evidence" to build from. Some people can do ALL the math or proof for each step. Some "faith" as described is needed to use a proven theory to move on to others. Much arguing happens because all the same conditions and materials must be carefully controlled to get some of the "reproducible" outcomes. It could be looked at a carefully controlled "ritual" to get the wanted outcome. I have made a career on measuring things, it is a consideration that the "usefulness" of something may not be completely measurable at that time. Think of belief as a "theory" where it is in the process of being proven or disproven that may not be doable in our lifetime.

As a scientist, I have to very much disagree with this. Religion is not a scientific theory (an explanation for something with a large body of evidence backing it up); it is not even a hypothesis since a hypothesis requires that the proposed explanation be testable in some way, either by positively or negatively identifying evidence to support or dispute said explanation.

And regards "faith" in science - it is like the common usage of "theory" compared to the scientific use of "theory". I have faith that scientists carry out their work correctly, that the general scientific body of information is largely accurate and reflects, as well as we are able to determine, how the universe works. This faith is based on evidence from my work as a scientist, observing other scientists at work, reading the publications of other scientists and my many years of education in the sciences and scientific theory and underlying evidence and the knowledge that, given the appropriate amount of time and money, I would be able to replicate the work and conclusions of pretty much any scientist in any field you cared to choose; because that is how science works.

"Faith" in science is not the same as faith in religious terms. Nor are scientific practices similar to religious rituals.

 Talizvar wrote:
Supernatural: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
Science has been so incredible in technology that if it is sufficiently advanced, it can be indistinguishable from magic.

Except that anyone in the world can pick up a text book, teach themselves how to do science, and distinguish how the magic is done.

You can't do that with religion.

There is no mention that religion must be supernatural but most are so I do see what you are pointing to.

It must be, otherwise it's not religion, it's just secular philosophy.

Messy I know but talking about feelings: thinking there is some kind of afterlife sure beats the alternative: you die, you cease to exist, you oversized colony of cells die and rot.
If you are wrong in either condition it sucks.

I enjoy the late Christopher Hitchens' thoughts on the afterlife, here's a quote from a debate he had with a chap named David Wolpe (a Rabbi):

"It will happen to all of us that at some point you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party is over, but slightly worse: the party’s going on but you have to leave. And it’s going on without you. That’s the reflection I think that most upsets people about their demise.

Alright then, let’s - because it might make us feel better – let’s pretend the opposite. Instead you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told “Great news: this party’s going on forever, and you can’t leave”. “You’ve got to stay. The boss says so and he also insists that you have a good time”.

I’ve read about David’s father and I had a bad time when my own father passed on, but the father proposed by monotheism is the father who doesn’t die, who reassures his children, “Don’t worry, I’ll never leave you. You’ll never see the end of me. You’ll never get the chance to feel sorry. I’m always there. I’m the absolute ultimate in dictatorship. And in my courts, there’s no appeal.”

Do you really think that this would cheer up anyone of sentience or humanity or capable of feeling of irony? I submit: it’s out of the question.”

If you truly think death is the ultimate end: why are you arguing with idiots in a forum? Go out and do something exciting, time is a wasting!

Who said you were an idiot? Or that we were arguing?

Evil & Chaos wrote:

I enjoy the late Christopher Hitchens' thoughts on the afterlife, here's a quote from a debate he had with a chap named David Wolpe (a Rabbi):

"It will happen to all of us that at some point you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party is over, but slightly worse: the party’s going on but you have to leave. And it’s going on without you. That’s the reflection I think that most upsets people about their demise.

Alright then, let’s - because it might make us feel better – let’s pretend the opposite. Instead you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told “Great news: this party’s going on forever, and you can’t leave”. “You’ve got to stay. The boss says so and he also insists that you have a good time”.

I’ve read about David’s father and I had a bad time when my own father passed on, but the father proposed by monotheism is the father who doesn’t die, who reassures his children, “Don’t worry, I’ll never leave you. You’ll never see the end of me. You’ll never get the chance to feel sorry. I’m always there. I’m the absolute ultimate in dictatorship. And in my courts, there’s no appeal.”

Do you really think that this would cheer up anyone of sentience or humanity or capable of feeling of irony? I submit: it’s out of the question.”

I always though of it as getting tapped on the shoulder and invited to a better 'after' party

PredaKhaine wrote:
I always though of it as getting tapped on the shoulder and invited to a better 'after' party

Then why live this life at all, if the next is better?

This is the suicidal impulse at the heart of all religions that offer a better life on the other side of the veil - they say that this life, our real life, is an irrelevant eyeblink before you spend an eternity in a better place. If the Churches didn't institute mystical rules prohibiting suicide, they'd soon be extinct, or at least bereft of their genuine believers, if you catch my drift. And I'm sure we can all name religions that actively encourage certain types of suicide, and offer reward for those who self-exterminate in the correct propitiate manner.


And that "better place" you want to go to is simply a state of existence where you spend your eternity in endless praise of your jealous*** owner, or being tortured by your owner if you annoyed him during your brief eyeblink of breathing - It's such a depressing view of existence, to me, reducing humanity to the level of a Pavlovian creature, longing for death and a reward that will never come, and if it does come it will be intellectually void.


"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."
Isaac Asimov



***God's own description of himself, in the 3rd commandment.

Evil & Chaos wrote:


And that "better place" you want to go to is simply a state of existence where you spend your eternity in endless praise of your jealous*** owner, or being tortured by your owner if you annoyed him during your brief eyeblink of breathing - It's such a depressing view of existence, to me, reducing humanity to the level of a Pavlovian creature, longing for death and a reward that will never come, and if it does come it will be intellectually void.

Thats one view of it - heaven is what you make of it.

The main point of heaven is to keep people in line. That way, when people began to settle down and live together in whatever time that was, they could cohabit successfully with each other. The commandments are a series of rules designed to help that happen.

There are some good rules in there too - thou shalt not kill is a fairly good piece of advice if you live in a community. Heaven and Hell were the big sticks people used to justify their rules.

There are still some useful rules in the 10 commandments.

Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shall not kill/murder.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
Thou shall not covet your neighbor's wife (or anything that belongs to your neighbor).

I'm also convinced all people *are* pavlovian creatures.