the word 'fornicate' comes from the latin word for bridge, fornux, because illicit lovers used to meet under bridges to do their deeds.

HydroAC, I actually agree with you on some of the things you questioned about my post. I also enjoy saying "I don't know" to many of life's questions and I really enjoy looking for answers to complex, wonderful things found on Earth. This discussion started with someone claiming to be aetheist and I was keeping it in that realm. Saying I dont know and looking for the answer only increases my awareness of how awesome and greater than myself God is.
When questions arise, problems occur, or bad things in life happen, you naturally question it or look for an answer. Saying "I dont know" isnt what I was referring to as sad. Science is not inheritly (sp) bad. Relying solely on science to seek your answers and rejecting any ideas as to a higher power, that is what I think is sad.
Also, aetheism, regardless of who may post on this forum, tends to stem either from this complete dependence on intellectualism and science, or from some anger and disbelief at some incidence in your life, resulting in rejection or denial of a God. Not always, but most of the time. Of course, no one on this forum would fall under either of those categories, and I'm sure they will let us know, but I've done extensive councilling, outreach, and discussions to see it myself time and time again.
I wholeheartedly believe in witnessing, which some people feel as forcing my beliefs on others. I would never "force" anything I believe on someone. All I can do is rationally discuss with someone what I believe in and let God do the rest. But, I do feel its my duty. If you felt you knew something that would improve someone's life (or afterlife), would you not want to share it? Not force it, but share it? Discussing religious ideas with an aetheist is one of the most difficult things to do. You are on completely different grounds to start. It is like explaining the importance of good shoes to someone who doesnt believe they even have feet.
I have a hard time keeping up with the forum to read all the posts due to scheduling so I probably won't be able to keep discussing it here, but lest anyone think I am saying my mind then ignoring replies, you can always ask for my email and I would be happy to continue that way.

You have it half right. Yes the Papelcy did kill a few people for saying the say the Earth revolved around the sun, but it was known and accepted by the church that the Earth was round. Mr. Columbus really was just (for the lack of a better term) lucky that there was a land mass half way to the East Indies, cause he miscalculated the size of the world by around one half. (At that time they had a fairly accurate idea of how big the world is.)

Christ isn't God's creation, He is one Person of the Holy Trinity. So you can say that God sacrificed Himself for the renewal of His creations. Death was only one part of the plan, to show that with His Resurrection He has power over death and the importance of death is obsolete. The most important part is the Resurrection and it wasn't done to make people live in fear but live in hope.

If there is somthing i do not understand, i will keep on thinking about it untill i come up with an answer! Some questions have floated around in my brain for 10 years before i finally thought of a possible answer. And then even when i do think of a possible answer, it will probably change every now and then over time, which just serves to remind me never to be too confident of my own wisdom!

I am happy to put forward my 'theories' if anyone has somthing they would like to ask that dousn't make sense about God?

WoW ... nice to see someone else has stumbled on what I call "the bubble theory" ... which is similar to your words in basis, but expounds upon the dynamic aspect. I.E. - the physics of the individual's aura and the influence it exerts on other individuals' "auras" and how they combine to change the next interaction ... it get's quite complicated ... but then, a mere Human trying to explain how God actually makes it happen is maybe relatively kind of like a bacteria trying to explain why a galaxy spins ...


You're still alive, ain'tcha? ^-^

Well religion is a pretty strightfoward social institution which developed as a coping/explanatory mechanism. It has pretty much outlived its usefullness (as we learned more about how the world actually works and didn't need to make up stories about ti anymore), but because of its nature it will stick around for a few more centuries before people completely give it up for dead (the way people indoctrinate their children is just scary). Not sure why people cannot see how silly it is. No one takes belif in the Easter bunny or Santa seriously, and that is if anything, more plausible.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to recognize that if they were born in Iran instead of Dallas they would not be a Christian, and its only a hop skip and a jump from there to understanding that all the reasons you don't currently believe in Islam also apply to Christianity (and vise versa of course). But in my experience with religious people is that they go at great lengths to not think about these things, because their childhood has made their faith too important to their worldview to seriously question.

Not that its not possible one of the thousands of religions that have existed on earth is true. There is just no reason to expect them to be, particularly when they are so easily explained in other ways. I hope we find some aliens soon (though I doubt it), as that might finally put the nail in this decrpid coffin.

You are one smart cookie, Becephalus. IMHO (in my humble opinion) they are all true, in one way or another. I respect that tremendously, especially when I think of all the agony and suffering each society went through to make advancements. Too bad we can't just take all the good discoveries from each one and combine them into something realistic and constructive, in spite of bigotry or selfishness or whatever.

Religions developed in unique, ever-changing environments that can no longer be duplicated exactly (that would maybe be like trying to put genie back in the bottle, or trying to put the smoke back into the fire). The same is true for Humans. If I had been born in France, I'd be 'white-skinned savoir-faire french dudelet' too ... and so would anyone else on the planet, all ignorant pretensions aside. What's important is that we're all Human, and the rest is just window-dressing. (man, you guys really make me think ... I'm getting a headache  )

A god created this planet and universe only to allow child molestation, rape, murder, torture, starvation, and homosexuality just so that one insignificant race (humans) that just happened to appear on the planet due to evolution and spend exponentially more years existing in one form or another long before your religion was made up so that we could all "stop" it?

The fact is humans have invented gods, goddesses, spirits, and religions for many millenia and worship has gone on in one way or another. Only christianity, it seems, recently spang up and has cut a bloody gash through history trying to maintain that it is the only religion and that the world was just recently made up by some magical white guy in the sky, which consequently, we have recently found out that it's just an atmosphere for our planet.

If I were to create a universe, I certainly wouldn't waste the time creating infinitely larger-than-required space to put a single planet that, thanks to religions such as christianity which put immediate human wants and desires above all else and preach individualism and ignorance to truth, the planet's biosphere is going down the crapper faster than ever before.

No, if I were a magical white guy in the sky, I wouldn't make up illogical rules and completely nonsensical stories showing how angry, jealous, and ignorant I can be. No, I would create a world and take care of it.

As an intelligent person, I cannot swallow any of this. Make a universe just to make a single inhabitable world just to create horrible things just so humans can stop them just so god can get mad and mass-murder everyone on the planet in a revelation comprised of ludicrous deaths just so that his followers can say, "I told you so"?

It doesn't take a wise man to see that these concepts, these stories, they are all straight from the mindset that was around back when the god and the religion was created. It's a form of control. How many times have you heard "Jesus loves you"? Jesus loves you, unless you aren't saved, in which case, you go to hell and it's your fault. God loves you, too, you know. But unless you believe in Jesus, you're going to die and go to hell and be tortured for eternity by "the devil". Wait... unless you're jewish! Right? Jewish people get into heaven without having to believe in Jesus because they know he was just a great (but derranged) prophet. But that's odd... because the newer chrisitian religions say all the jews are screwed because they killed Jesus and they don't believe he is the son of god. Oh, but countless other religions believe that you have to talk in tongues, or come to church every week, or ask another human for forgiveness to go to heaven. In fact, certain christian religions believe that if you aren't baptized then you're going to hell and that goes for newborn infants. Others claim this is ridiculous and that all the babies will instantly go to heaven because God loves them and they are innocent.

The moral of the story is: Judaism and Christianity are just ways of helping certain people feel better about themselves. It helps them feel like their existance has meaning. What happens here isn't important. My life begins once I'm done driving my SUVs, littering, chopping down trees to build my oversized home, walking past homeless people, watching TV, laughing at others' misfortunes, making as much money as I possibly can, talking about people behind their backs, downing another race, turning a blind eye to people who need my help because . None of that matters just so long as I am forgiven right before I die.

I met my wife again, recently. We remembered each other and have been inseperable since. I never believed in any of this reincarnation stuff until the day I ran into her and we remembered each other. It's completely unexplainable but its true. No fables. No white guys in the sky. No religions. No reason. Just a phenomenon that happened between two people. There is a higher power, a force that binds everything together. Probably not a god. Certainly not the mainstream "God" that we get shoved down our throats on a daily basis. The "signs" in your lives; they are there whether you talk to thin air at night or not. Spirituality has been around much longer that "God", "Jesus", Christianity, and Judiasm combined. In fact, any religion that tells you to place humans above the plants and animals of your planet is a dead giveaway. It is soley because of the plants and animals that the planet continues to support life! It all works like a well-oiled machine... all except for the humans. They developed religion. Their religions say not to worry about what happens to the planet because those humans are going to heaven anyway.

(that should help stir the pot and get some action in this thread! hehe!)

Sure it is! It does say “Off topic”!



That's very nice, and inspiring.



Neat! I question the qualifications and ability of your Sunday school teacher. How can there be understanding without questions? In Christianity and Judaism you there is a written tradition and an oral tradition. There is also mythology. Some works of fiction have definitely polluted the oral tradition with mythology, such as Dante Alighieri’s “Divina Commedia.” It would even seem that some sects of Christianity have plagiarized Dante in their scriptures. When you go directly to the sources you will find that Satan is definitely not the being people imagine. Evil is also not the concept people imagine. The Quran handles this effectively, because it is a long and well defined poem, so that if it is changed the scheme is corrupted and the reader will be aware of the attempted deception. A way was found around this: you keep people illiterate and explain what it contains.

I have found in my experience that any institution that wants you to accept doctrine without question does not have your interests in mind and is seeking to exploit you. To give an example, supremacist groups (national, racial, cultural, religious, political) want members to blindly accept doctrine for the benefit of the organization. The promised membership rewards are frequently vague enough.

Once I believed in nothing. I felt a little like Hamlet. Ever read the “To be or not to be” speech? Great! Now do it again with a proper English dictionary and make sure you understand what it means. Hamlet asks himself: Why live to suffer? Why not end the suffering? He finds he is afraid of what may come after death due to the uncertainty. I realized I could not believe in nothing. Belief gives me hope. Hope leads me to dream. Dreams make me free. Lock me in a little box and I can dream. People without dreams are easy to control (misquoting the wolf in ‘The Never Ending Story’, by Michael Ende, great book).

Thomas Paine makes some persuasive and logical arguments against Christian beliefs in “The Rights of Man.” Be warned as this book contains extremely dangerous ideas.

However Paine fails to account for a key concept and virtue: sacrifice. What animal sacrifices? What law of nature defines this as a good survival tool? Within the fullness of my reason why would I sacrifice myself? Sadly animals make preprogrammed decisions, with some of the higher orders being able to store more complex behaviors in their brains. I argue that dying engaged in aggressive behavior is not sacrifice, these are survival strategies. The leopard that would fight the bear to defend her cubs would also abandon them in a fire. It would seem to me sacrifice is a human behavior. Sacrifice is a crappy survival tool: you die, your genetic line ends. People sacrifice for one thing: love. But why sacrifice? Why love? Why suffer? These are the why’s that challenge understanding and defy science.

I like the book ‘Watership Down’ by Richard Adams. The following is a quote from the cartoon film version:

Hazel (the hero): Lord Frith, I know you've looked after us well, and it's wrong to ask even more of you. But my people are in terrible danger, and so I would like to make a bargain with you. My life in return for theirs.
Frith (God): There is not a day or night when a mother doe does not offer her life for her kittens, or an honest captain of Owsla his life for his chief's. But there is no bargain. What is, is what must be.


Yes I think it should. I can't keep up with this thread!

The idea that religion was "developed as a coping/explanatory mechanism" is just speculation. You were not there, you have not spoken to Abraham, Moses, Muhhamed (I apologize if that is spelled incorrectly), Jesus, Buddha, or any other major leader. As such, any guesses at their motivation and intentions beyond what they or their contemporaries specifically wrote are just that, guesses.

You are making up ideas that fit your view of how things whould be, and accepting those baseless ideas as facts, despite a total lack of evidence to substanciate them. You are doing to religion exactly what you accuse religon of doing to mankind.



Why would the arrival of aliens destroy religion? So long as we are saying "what if there are aliens", what if those aliens are religous? Having them show up may even prove a group right. What if they got off the spaceship and started to pray to Mecca?

As for those speaking of God making a "big empty universe for just one planet", who said any such thing?

While it doesn't specifically says there are other planets with life, the Bible makes no inducation that we were the first planet with life He has made, that we are the only planet with life He has made, or that we are the last planet with life He will make.

You are declaring ideas that don't have a basis in scriptures, then passing judgment on religion based upon those ideas. If you are going to disagree with out beleifs, then you could at least disagree with our beleifs.

I respect and appreciate your opinion. However I did have this comic thought (fade out to a change of scene):

2359 Mankind is finally liberated from religion.
2360 The Drengin attacks humanity.

Human leader: "Why are you attacking us on our first contact?"

Drengin leader: "That's what we do! Conquer all known species when they are weak."

Human leader: "How long have you known about us?"

Drengin leader: "Oh, for about 1000 years."

Human leader: "But why attack us now? How are we weak"

Drengin leader: "Well you see last year you had God on your side."

I also think that this is a large part of why religion came about... but it will always be debatable.



Another debatable subject, it just is a matter of personal opinion. I d say the personal mythology (like big fish stories) can lead to religions being created.



Many antient people did not believe in what ever religion was around them. I d place a wager someone has aready stated something simular in the ancient past.



some people believe that Santa is a great spirit to emulate. There are even religions that don t really believe in the "deities" that they channel through themselves are really just an Idealized portion of themselves.



But not all people stay in the religion that they were brought up in. If this was true most atheist would still be apart of an "older" religion. (I say quote older cause you can say many ancient people could have been considered atheist)



I agree that no one religion is right but not for the reason you do. Its like saying that science proves a theory correct. Most of the time theories change *gasp* just like religious beliefs change. Most people if they find a better explaination for something will incorporate it into their beliefs.

In the beginning of time, man had no understanding of simple science, so he created a god of the sun , one for the moon one for water and so on and so on. As man's understanding increased he shed most of his gods in favor of one God, although different clans still could not agree on the name of this god. Today we have many religions all claiming to be the master religion. To some he is God, Alla or Jesus. Regardless, we still have a God fugure, because we still need protection from the things we do not understand.

Tell me, when man created a molecule using a quark collision acellerator, did he become a god to that new life? Or was he just a scientist.

When we compare this to the big bang theory, many similarity come to life. Even though the molecule only live for a few milliseconds, in our time, how long did it last in theirs?

Not all religions believe that there is a "water" god or a "sun" god. Some even don t have a "creator".



Ohh fun stuff! But let me add maybe that the gods (or god) may just be scientists in their own right...

As I said before, you have absolutly so evidence to support any of what you just said. You are using speculation mixed with rhetoric to create an unprovable scenerio for the sole purpose of explaining an otherwise (in your mind) unexplained event, while catering your answer to conform to your own pet theory about life.

You are doing exactly what you accuse religion of doing.

Actually, if you want to be more specific, what many people call "atheism" is really naturalism - that is, the denial of the existence any sort of spiritual or supernatural.

I would say this argument is the same for naturalists - I have met many who think religion is a horrible thing that should be gotten rid of, and work hard to convince people religion is an "old fashioned" thing that needs to go away.



Neither do most religions I know of - just because some religions have had some problems in the past does not mean the religion agrees with or teaches being militant.



Interesting logic - now, what if we were to include naturalistic explanations of creation in this argument? Statistically speaking, naturalistic explanations have no advantages over religious explanations in this regard.



Interesting assertion. Unfortunately, you were not there to witness this, so I would therefore classify it as a hypothesis rather than a fact.



Most of your arguments boil down to how some religions might be false, and deal largely with generalities and do not have any details on why a particular religion should be rejected. IMHO, none of the arguments are solid enough to change my opinions about my religion.



Religious people would say "God works. Science doesn't.". Your argument ends up being circular.

IMHO, science simply a way to explore our current physical world. It cannot and should not interfere with religious beliefs. I do not believe it conflicts with religion.



That's nice but:

-Not all atheists are like this.

-This is a rather "ignorance is bliss" way to handle things.



Tell that to the 110,000 Christians living in Iran . Sure, location is bound to a religion, and sure if you're part of a religion you're likely to stick with it.

But the same can be said for naturalism and other atheistic religions! I'd say that a person born into a family that teaches naturalism is very likely to have a naturalistic view of the world.



Agreed. It's some nice naturalistic speculation that makes atheists feel good, but it remains speculation.

Sorry if I quoted from posts in a gazillion locations - I just chose random stuff to reply to . . .

you missed a subtle point of speech. he said "religion... which developed," not, "religion was developed." you way of talking about it makes it sound conscious and intentional. it is historically irrefutable that religious institutions evetually became such that they have consciously influenced people (on non-spiritual matters) and governments, served as police, judge and executioner.

that a religion of a particular era developed from religions of earlier eras is also irrefutable: christianity and islam from judaism; modern hinduism and buddhism from ancient vedic religion; and to a lesser degree of difference, protestantism from catholicism. this shows that religions do develop, but it doesn't show what they first developed from. what the earliest religions developed from is less clear, but the ideas about it are definately more than speculation. the theories about very early development of religions are typically based on material archaeological evidence and analysis of language and discourse.

for example, many historical scholars of india's religions believe that region's earliest creation myth, that of the Purusha man, probably was brought with traveling Aryans as they passed through modern Iran (another place they settled). these myths bear striking resemblance to what became judeo-christian creation myths (the separation of land from water and the belief that words were used in creation, most especially). this parallels linguistic patterns that identify Persian and Sanskrit as members of a language family shared by all of Europe. aztec creation myths and language are markedly different, not surprisingly. moreover, new religions start as cults. before there was christianity there were hundreds of jesus cults, and it wasn't until Emperor Justinian declared christianity the official religion of Rome that christianity was a religion (official or not) at all.

of course, you don't have to believe this stuff. some people refuse to consider evidence that they haven't themselves seen or found. to this i say: while i don't know how to be an archaeologist, that doesn't mean archaeological findings are unture or not worth considering. just because you haven't learned to look at things the way others have, doesn't mean they're not actually seeing what they're seeing. that'd be like saying just because a novice star watcher can't readily see the difference between galaxies, planets and regular stars, that those celestial bodies are in fact all the same type of thing.

personally, i think when a "new" religion starts, it's a form of social dissent. jesus was going against the mainstream jewish praxis. the buddha was going against a number of philosophical assumptions common in india. in any regard, many of the religions we can examine seem to begin with a single person (i'll say 'professor' as a person professing a belief, code of ethics, or whathaveyou). the professor takes on students who admire and agree with his/her teachings, who themselves become the next generation of professors. but as the teachings become more popular over time and more people follow them, the professors give way to insitutional pundits. the thing about institutions, once they exist, their first priority is to continue existing, regardless of what their foundational priciples were. teachings become dogma partly becasue being able to influence lots of people attracts anyone who'd want to do so, anyone who wants power.

but i think part of it also happens because of the followers. i think some people don't have a taste for introspection. they're content to be told what's right and how to live well without examination. they see the trappings of authority and assume that's good enough. this is when students become sycophants.

i think it happens in all institutions; i can definately see similar enough patterns in higher education, the workplace and government. i'd say it's a product of bureaucracy and complex social systems.

edit: i realized i went on a tangent and missed my original point. i don't agree with a statement like "religions developed to explain things and help people cope." no one set out and said, "i'm going to invent this thing i'll call religion, and it'll help people cope with problems and explain things." i'd say coping and explanation are two things religion does, but there wasn't ever a conscious design to religion. over time, these human needs have been filled by religions, but they have also been fulfilled by other institutions and individuals in different societies. this isn't the only thing religions do, and they don't always have to do them either.

it goes back to defining the concept of religion-in-general, which as i've tried to say, is difficult to do without relying on historical western assumptions. the above definition is functional (based on what it does), but it's no more accurate and comprehensive than defining religion substantively (based on what it is - i.e., "religion is based on faith").

I guess the problem is that that style of talking about religions often assumes that they were purely man-made inventions and doesn't acknowledge that many religions believe that their scriptures were inspired. This style of talking about religion often assumes a purely naturalistic explanation for religions that most people would disagree with. It's a style of speaking that appears purposefully euphemistic in order to avoid talking about controversial issues such as the inspiration of scriptures.

If Aliens Landed on Earth and said they started life here on Earth,,, then who started life on the Aliens planet?

All that happened is that the question of the begining of life has not been answered, just exported somewhare else!

Animals sacrifice all the time and the reason is (almost) always the same: conservation of their genetic material, be it manifest in a child, uncle, or third cousin thrice removed. Humans do this, too, and also (almost) always for the same reason as animals. Even if you throw yourself in front of a bus to save someone you don't know you are still saving your distant genetic cousin. From a genetic survival point of view this makes perfect sense - sacrifice will allow the genes to carry on even if the individual dies. There are numerous genetic survival techniques, and this is simply one of them. This has been readily explained by science, and the more we understand about genetics and its drivers the clearer the picture becomes.

Occasionally humans will sacrifice themselves for another creature (pet, lab rabbit), chia pet, or on a whim. Not sure about this one...

Hydro

I liked how Clarke dealt with aliens and religion in Childhood’s End. The aliens contacted us, but refused to show themselves. Eventually they did when we were ready **spoiler alert!** – and they looked like the Devil, completed with forked tail and horns. But by the time we were ‘ready’ most of the human social and physical ills had been remedied and religion had mostly died, and small children willingly crawled up into the devil’s benevolent (?) lap. Humanity's childhood was over once we left our weaknesses behind and we were then ready to move on. I won’t say any more in case you haven’t read the book, which I read 25+ years ago and should probably re-read.

Hydro

Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for the mutation and self glorification of religion since religious doctrine was originally a manifestation its oral history (especially for the oldest religions). Along the way it was edited, revised, borrowed from other mythologies (e.g. – plagiarized), was seemingly bent for political purposes, and recycled throughout its circuitous literary history. There is no need to witness it physically it since the religious written word of the past 3000 years is quite enough (and implying that you should is an interesting debating tactic).

Hydro

I would agree, and in many cases there is no reason for conflict between science and religion. In fact, my mentor (head of the geology department where I was an undergraduate) was a devout Methodist who had a very spiritual life, and is a man that I deeply admire. He was a paleontologist and had no problem with evolution – it was part of a coherent system for him.

But science will be in conflict with religion when it disproves 'facts' established by religious doctrine. I would be thrilled if religion and science could live happily side by side, but that is hard when fundamentalists of any sort will insist (for instance) the Earth is 6000 years old, the Grand Canyon was created by Great Flood, and that dinosaurs lived at the same time as man - and then try to teach this drivel in the science classroom and force this down a geologist's throat. Please.

The same goes for strident atheists (like Dawkins) who use their well crafted and coherent arguments and evidence as a club. It comes off as a bit preachy to me, even if I can’t find anything in his lines of evidence that I would identify as false or misleading (the same can’t be said for creationists, by the way – logic and evidence is not their strong suit).

Hydro

Hmmm ... interestingk. Then this thought I keep having this thought (from where?) that science wouldn't exist unless there were a reason (created by God?). I certainly didn't 'invent' it, and no one person, or even a group of persons, can honestly say they did all by themselves. (Same for Religion, or anything else, including Inspiration)

Using the old 'What If' method of pondering possible explanations (heresy?):

What If: God is sitting at the 'other end' of the Universe 'thinking' ... "I gave those Humans a way to understand and to grow and develop beyond their present limitations (science), but ... why aren't they paying attention? Maybe there IS a problem I need to address, PERSONALLY."

That would probably be welcomed by those persons or groups of persons that are desperate for attention, even negative attention if that's all they can get (childish?) ... but what about ... ?

What If Mr. (professor?) Darwin's 'discovery' of the Theory of Evolution fell in the same category?

I doubt I'm nearly as well informed as other Humans that contribute here (and thank you all, BTW!) ... and I sometimes express things "euphemistically" to avoid conflicts (which is only wise, considering most conflicts indicate a cover-up for a lack of validity imho) ... but, well ...

Let me share one more of my simple-minded "What If"'s ...
What If: One day (or night) a simian sat in a tree, watching the other animals go about business, and suddenly had this strange thought, or 'voice' inside the little melon on top. The simian said "hey, jaguar, did you hear that? hey, tree, did you hear that? hey, ..." and so on. Receiving no answer, the little simian assumed what each of the other creatures were saying in reply was "nope, I didn't hear it ... you must be 'So Spe-cial', little simian!" ... when in truth all the other creatures were thinking "Doh, of course we heard it. We've been in constant, instantaneous communication with "God" since like, forever, doh! It's about time you stopped jacking-off and listened up. When are you going to climb down outta that tree and get to work like the rest of us?"

Meant in the nicest, least confrontatioanl way, of course!