Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Lord Raffles

Do you believe in God?

Recommended Posts

Fredrik said:

What if you think the brain is a kind of electro-chemical computer, consciousness being nothing more than a series of reactions within that computer, but that reality is an illusion created by and pertaining to the mind?

Then you have a plethora of belief structures to choose from, all of which can be supported by by their own tower of logic:

  • These computers are eternal, or exist in phases
  • They all were invented by some common Origin
  • The Matrix has you
  • Yours is the only mind in existence; you are God of your own soap opera
  • This "computer brain" concept is your ace-in-the-hole, you decide that's as much as you need to read into life

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

[I actually intended to say some more about gender and biology here, but I wrote over five paragraphs without reaching a good place to stop. If anyone wants to continue in that direction, I might participate.]

I'd be interested to read it. Obviously I realize there exists hormonal differences in addition to the concept of childbirth and nursing, and some differences in biological thinking patterns is possible, although i remain highly skeptical.

The basic sociological analysis is that while there are some biological differences between men and women, these differences have become violently exaggerated, and new stereotypes have been developed to fit in with these new gender roles. In short, this is because these small differences lead initially to a change in lifestyle (i.e. women in a more domestic sphere, men in a more "worldly"), which in turn builds more stereotypes on the relationship between a man and woman (i.e. women belong at home, men's duty is to provide; women are subservient) and this promotes also a lack of education in women, and further social promotion of other traits (i.e. men are dominant, aggressive, educated; women subordinate, passive, unintelligent, pure). Men, therefore, are expected to exhibit those emotions more acceptable of their active, dominant role (i.e. anger, frustration) while women much more passive forms of expression (crying, moping).

But I'd be interested to hear the biological explanation if just so I can understand that perspective.

Share this post


Link to post

sargebaldy said:
In short, this is because these small differences lead initially to a change in lifestyle (i.e. women in a more domestic sphere, men in a more "worldly"), which in turn builds more stereotypes on the relationship between a man and woman (i.e. women belong at home, men's duty is to provide; women are subservient) and this promotes also a lack of education in women, and further social promotion of other traits (i.e. men are dominant, aggressive, educated; women subordinate, passive, unintelligent, pure). Men, therefore, are expected to exhibit those emotions more acceptable of their active, dominant role (i.e. anger, frustration) while women much more passive forms of expression (crying, moping).

It's not always a good idea to divide things between material conditions and psychological stereotypes; they are the same thing. Men and women adapt to their current conditions according to their constitution; and note that any inherent (exclusive to humanity) traits must be accounted for both in the surroundings (as in what we "create," from habitations to communications systems and whatnot) as well as genetically. The genetic material is more basic and mode adaptible, but is certainly in constant interaction with all other factors. Nothing specifically determines situations, except the relations between all involved factors. Genetic make-up is always a factor in everything we do, and naturally you can't abstract the genetic factor and explain circumstances by annulling everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

Yeah but who created God?


I think the Bible states that God has always been.

God created time and space.
God is a spiritual entity. He exists outside of the three-dimensional, physical world in which we live.
God has always been. He not only began time; He will also end it. When time ends, all matter and all mankind will enter eternity—a timeless condition free of the negative things that time brings upon us now.

When asked “Who or what created God?,” we are making the assumption that God was created. If God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created! God began the beginning! This is why He says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

The above was taken from this site:
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html

Here's another site that explains it:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

It's actually interesting reading. It does raise this question though:

How can God just exist?

You can believe in things or not and that's why we ask these questions because we don't really know so all we can do is believe.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with most of the points frederick has made.

I do however believe in some sort of Deity, whether it be governing or not. However I have also come to the conclusion that this Deity may or may not care at all for human existence.

The way I see it, nobody on this earth has enough knowledge of the afterlife to make any claims if there's a God or not - and there never will be. I truely believe it's one of those things where you have to SEE it to believe it. Until then, I'm not going to run around preaching faith of any kind, nor will I claim that there is no God.

Share this post


Link to post
Job said:

Meh, science is for people who can't survive without concrete answers to any and all questions and also aren't equipped with the flexibility to comprehend the possibility of some aspects of the universe being beyond our very limited human comprehension.



Thank you, God, for creating the run-on sentence. :P


And do you suppose that religion was created for people who can't live their lives without knowing/thinking that there's a life after death? Because they lack the understanding of the scientific method? Or is it because they reject science?

The point I'm trying to make is that claiming that science is purely for people who can't survive without concrete answers is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Dittohead said:

And do you suppose that religion was created for people who can't live their lives without knowing/thinking that there's a life after death? Because they lack the understanding of the scientific method? Or is it because they reject science?

The point I'm trying to make is that claiming that science is purely for people who can't survive without concrete answers is moot.

Logically speaking, you just implied that science serves virtually the same purpose as religion. Consequently, science is only as functional as religion and, in my opinion, just as reliable for the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Job said:

Logically speaking, you just implied that science serves virtually the same purpose as religion. Consequently, science is only as functional as religion and, in my opinion, just as reliable for the truth.


Science can be supported by facts. Religions cannot be.

It is also my belief that science is far more functional in a rational sense than anything that religion can offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Dittohead said:

Science can be supported by facts. Religions cannot be.

It is also my belief that science is far more functional in a rational sense than anything that religion can offer.

[insert some Descartian statement here]

Anyway, what are facts? How can we know what we perceive to be the truth/facts to actually be genuine? For all we know, religion could be truer than science. And until you can give me proof against God et all, I'll won't be inclined to see it any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Job said:

[insert some Descartian statement here]

Anyway, what are facts? How can we know what we perceive to be the truth/facts to actually be genuine? For all we know, religion could be truer than science. And until you can give me proof against God et all, I'll won't be inclined to see it any other way.


And somehow you can't understand why people reject religion? Think about it. I can take your last comment and switch the words truth/facts with theology and we have the same answer. One could easily say the exact opposite. Which brings me to my original point that your rational is moot when applied here.

Share this post


Link to post
Job said:

And until you can give me proof against God et all, I'll won't be inclined to see it any other way.

You can't falsify god. The burden of proof is on the faithful.

Share this post


Link to post
Dittohead said:

And somehow you can't understand why people reject religion? Think about it. I can take your last comment and switch the words truth/facts with theology and we have the same answer. One could easily say the exact opposite. Which brings me to my original point that your rational is moot when applied here.

*sounding trumpets*

Science = Religion


How disappointing that we've debated so long in another useless internet thread just to end up in L. Ron Hubbard's shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Job said:

*sounding trumpets*

Science = Religion


How disappointing that we've debated so long in another useless internet thread just to end up in L. Ron Hubbard's shoes.


My bad. I was under the assumption you were trying to prove something.

BA-ZING.

Share this post


Link to post

There's nothing to prove on this eternal stage which takes place within the psychological plane.

Share this post


Link to post

"You see, God, I haven't quite, how do you say...knocked on heaven's door just yet, if you know what I mean, and I assume you don't. I haven't had a wet dream...wait, that sounds like I wet the bed. What I mean to say is, I haven't yet had a dream that caused me to ejaculate in my underwear while sleeping. Oh, this all just sounds stupid. I just wanna be a man! I'M GONNA KILL MYSELF!"

Share this post


Link to post

Humbug... Science doesn't have the answers - there will ALWAYS be some mystery about the universe that science can't solve. On the other hand, religion doesn't, either. After all, it's all just made up to begin with - I fully acknowledge that my concept of God exists purely within my own head. Who says anybody has to prove anything? And for that matter, what's wrong with having some filler to seal up the gaps in our understanding of the universe? Oh sure, you could say that you just accept that some questions cannot be answered, and don't bother thinking about them, but honestly, there's no fun in that. Make up a God, come up with some convoluted explanation for how the universe created itself, but whatever you do, don't just ignore it. After all, it's human nature to be curious, and besides, whatever theory you come up with, it's not like anybody can say you're wrong, not to mention like I said earlier it's a good mental exercise. AND I REFUSE TO STOP AT L. RON HUBBARD! KEEP THIS DARN THING GOING!

Share this post


Link to post
Job said:

Anyway, what are facts? How can we know what we perceive to be the truth/facts to actually be genuine? For all we know, religion could be truer than science. And until you can give me proof against God et all, I'll won't be inclined to see it any other way.

Science is not the search for truth, it is the search for that knowledge, true or not, which can be applied. Religion, by contrast, is the useless declaration that something is "true", without any intention or possibility of application (other than that of constraining thought to that "truth").

Just take a look at how science has contributed to the development of human society and consciousness over the last few hundred years. Now compare with the impact religion has had. With that difference in mind, any attempt to equate science with religion is intellectually insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
geekmarine said:

And for that matter, what's wrong with having some filler to seal up the gaps in our understanding of the universe?

Things like this really aren't a problem IMO. Except that science is there to attempt to understand it. Science becomes pointless if we just make-believe fairie tales and stay in that mode of thought...anyway, read Fredrik's post.

Who says anybody has to prove anything?

I do, as should anyone that values logical rational thinking. When you have things like "intelligent design" sneaking into school science curriculum, I have a problem. When you have jesus preaching tolerance and kindness and then his "followers" tend to be the most intolerant, judgemental hypocrits, i have a problem. And when those same who tout faith attempt (and succeed) to legislate our lives based on their god damn fantasy world view, I have a big fucking problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Ack! No! Not them! Argh... Unfortunately, Quast, I really have no response to that - just too far outta left field for me. I would like to point out, though, that what's the point in demanding proof from those types? They don't care about proof. In fact, all the evidence in the world of say, evolution, would never convince them. Wasted effort. All you can do is point out their errors and inconsistencies to the rest of the population, and hope they haven't been sucked in yet.

I still don't see what place proof has in the realm of the unprovable... Or what those Bible-thumping wackos have to do with a discussion of the concept of God (not any particular incarnation). It's not that I disagree with you, it just seems to me that organized religion is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Oh, and with respect to your first comment - no arguments with Fredrick there... Science is not about the Truth, science is simply a tool to improve humanity. Theoretically, though, religion should also be a tool to improve humanity, rather than the Truth, but something went horribly wrong there - not quite sure what, but it's a shame. Actually, I think it's the fact that people tend to lose sight of that fact, and treat religion as the Truth, rather than as a tool to improve humanity. And believe men, religion really does have a potential for good, even if that has not been historically the case. Oh, and science has had its moments, too, like the invention of the A-Bomb. Truth... Such a silly notion... Fools, there is no Truth!

Share this post


Link to post

Fredrik said:
Science is not the search for truth, it is the search for that knowledge, true or not, which can be applied. Religion, by contrast, is the useless declaration that something is "true", without any intention or possibility of application (other than that of constraining thought to that "truth").

Well, religion is pretty "practical" too. The main difference is that the application of science must be immediate; it deals with what we have at hand (a hand which has been gradually extending.) Religion looks toward what isn't here, yet it's "effects" are also felt here.

Science is the combined disciplines backing hyperspecialized developing technology, while religion is a meta-text dealing with mass human social arrangement, both in a vague intuitive way and in a blindingly hypocritical way.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, both science and religion synthesize "practical" knowledge; science, by definition, simply that knowledge which is empirical and falsifiable (and incidentally applicable in the development of technology), whereas in the case of religion the doctrine encapsulates moral values and aesthetics (and the assignment of higher meaning thereto), both of which are firmly rooted in social utility.

So, yes, religion has a practical use: as you nicely expressed it, dealing with "mass human social arrangement". I'd however prefer the term "brainwashing".

I am unable to make out from your post what "vague intuitive" and "blindingly hypocritical" means.

Share this post


Link to post

eh, I wouldn't necessarily say that in the sciences data are empirical or falsifiable; in the humanities conclusions are largely abstract and often based on qualitative analysis as well as quantitative. to say scientific analyses are falsifiable limits them to either be true or false, and i feel this is very shaky ground. sciences are more of an analytical process used to generate rational hypotheses to explain why something is or how it works, that can be shown more or less accurate depending on the complexity of the study. but where science uses a reasoned investigation to make its claims, religion relies largely on the concept of faith, or belief transcending any natural laws. in short, i would not contend either are factual, but the former utilizes rational thought where the latter feels this entirely unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post

Whether found through qualitative or quantitative analysis, theories are only valid science if they make testable predictions. That's why, in fact, a large portion of the humanities is not actually science. Not to sound like I'm disparaging the humanities here, I should mention string theory. It's the hottest thing in physics at the moment, but it's questionable whether it qualifies as science since no one has figured out how to test it.

Also, the result of testing a scientific theory can be "false", but never "true". The best you can get is "it worked this time".

Share this post


Link to post

Explain how science has nothing to do with "mass human social arrangement" or "brainwashing". I recall my middle school science teacher being just as unreceptive to different concepts or questioning of accepted knowledge as my grade school religion teacher. Same for people throughout my life.

Share this post


Link to post

You can make testable predictions in "hard sciences" (or as my professors like to call them, "simple sciences") but you can't know for certain why you receive your result. "Soft sciences" also test predictions in order to explain circumstances. Neither can be proved. The primary difference is that the margin of error is much greater when attempting to analyze a far more abstract structure (such as a population) than a tangible structure (such as an atom). This does not make them less a science, it only means analyses and data are less concrete and more interpretible.

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

I guess your science teacher was incompetent.

Would you say the same of any of these people I know who claim to hold science as their alternative to religion, and yet are every bit as immutable and contemptuous toward disparate concepts as any religious fanatic?

Share this post


Link to post

Being a fan of science does not make you a scientist any more than being a fan of pop music makes you a pop star.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe. If I'm wrong and there's nothing, I'll never know, if I'm right, I'm covered. : )

I'm more of a moralist that a spiritualist, however. I don't think you need church to be a christain, I don't but consider myself pretty active in my beliefs. And I was raised Catholic. I've always been curious why people knock catholics... i'm starting to think my church/family must have been different from ordinary ones.

Share this post


Link to post

Science is trying to disprove God for a reason and God planned it. I mean, think about it, what was the sin of Adam and Eve? They ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which freed them from their ignorance. As human-kind itself advanced in it's knowledge of the world and beyond, it lost scope of what created it in the first place. As they delved deeper into God's structure of creation, they began to dismiss God's influence on creation. These theories and "evidence" don't disprove shit, they just explain how things work and how God set things up. You would think that an all-powerful being would be able to fool the scientific community into thinking it knows what it really doesn't understand.

For all we know, all things that we have carbon dated could be inaccurate or divine intervention could have taken place. Maybe science is not only God's way of giving us a glimpse of His awesome power but to weed out the unfaithful. I believe an all-powerful being makes sense, I mean, if the universe is as old as we say it is and evolution is real (I think it is, though this doesn't really disprove God, it just means he made a bunch of animals and they changed on their own accord) then wouldn't it be logical that life that got a head start on life here could have eventually evolved into something beyond what we can comprehend?

Anyone who opposes a gentle religion is foolish. What is so harmful if somebody believes that a mystical being wants them to not be assholes? Religion gives people moral codes to adhere to and inspiration. Religion has pulled men from the deepest agony, it helped them go on when they felt it was hopeless. What's so wrong with that?

The possibility of God scares people for some reason, I think because they can't imagine anything more advanced than humanity. It is people like this that believe that we are the only life in existance in the entire vastness of space, which we haven't even begun to truly explore. For all we know, we're could be pretty new in the whole galactic scheme of things. Who knows what God cooked up before he decided to make the fucked up creature called Man? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there, Hell, look at the reaction to the discovery of cells and other microscopic organisms.

Honestly though, I could care less if somebody believes in God or not, it's their choice and it's not my soul on the line.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×