| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| glacial906 |
Posted - 06/24/2004 : 01:20:18
I have been thinking alot about religion lately. I don't know why. I just feel like it's the time in my life when I should quit straddling the fence and choose what exactly I believe.
Usually when I have a problem with deciding between one thing or another I like to get advice from both sides. The same can be said of this particular problem. But, what do you do if you want to believe in God, but the opposing evidence against God seems overwhelming, and you find yourself simply unable to put your faith in something so intangible? There is NO way for me to get a definitive answer on this one, and that is what is so scary. There have been times when I have wanted to believe in God, because it would seem very comforting to know that I could pray for guidance, or peace of mind or whatever. And I know plenty of people who do believe who tell me about difficult times in their lives, and after they pray either things get better, or God's plan for them is suddenly revealed. But then I think about all the inconsistencies with the Bible, and how totally illogical and anthropomorphic God actually is, and I find myself shying away from the whole idea.
Why is it that Christians villify atheism and science so much? If there is a Creator, why can't he have made the universe in the way that we now study science? (That is, why can't God have created evolution to advance species; made the Big Bang to create the cosmos, etc.)
Why would God deliberately allow inconsistencies in the Bible to confuse potential believers? Why would God have made the entire Earth 6000 something years ago, and then planted all the dinosaur and prehuman primate bones and then expect us to come up with all sorts of contingencies -- that fly in the face of rational hypotheses, mind you -- to explain where all these things came from? It just doesn't make sense to me.
One last thing: all of the answers that I've ever read in books or online, or gotten actual responses to for these questions have all been something like: "Well, it's not our place to question. Just believe, and all will be explained, if it is God's will." Well that just doesn't cut it anymore with me. Religion will attempt to satiate your desire for knowlege with the same tired hyperbole that it's used for millenia. Namely, just don't ask any questions. Or they will generalize all atheists and agnostics as denying the existence of God because "their hearts have hardened to the Lord," or "they have not truly given themselves to God." I don't consider myself a bad person for having doubts (and believe me, having been brought up Baptist it's an accomplishment having gotten this far...)
Yet, at the same time, I sometimes find myself worrying that if I were to die today I'd go to Hell.
Take me, break me, tell me a good one and maybe I'll cry
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/08/2004 : 08:27:51
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
No Monsieur, you said animals weren't 'rational'.
Now you're changing the story. ;)
I'm sure there are examples of non-human animals displaying self-awareness. Save me some time and lemme know what your next criterium is, i'll get you proof of both at once. =P
(The self-awareness one might be tough tho...i bet you couldn't actually prove another human that didn't speak the same language as you was self-aware..)
I think it would be great if all creatures were vegan, and who the hell knows, maybe some day we'll be able to communicate with other species, and this might eventually be a reality.
For now tho, it does nothing to diminish the fact that we as humans living in the 'modern world' have absolutely no need to consume the flesh or fluids of other creatures.
 Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer!
Self awareness and rationality are closely related through the concept of language.
Two questions Dave :
1. Do you think ALL animal species are self aware and able to communicate. Is there a hierarchy?
2. Some animals DO eat other animals, right? So, if we are nothing but animals, and not superior to them, then why shouldn't we eat them? It would be very natural.
Once again, don't think I'm trying to convince you about anything. My own opinions are not so clear. But I think it's interesting to discuss it with someone who defends his opinions, like you do. |
| floop |
Posted - 07/06/2004 : 16:22:17
dave, as a practicing vegan, i'm curious what you think about vegan hot dogs?
while there are plenty of vegan inventions i like (i like the gardenburger patties sometimes, for instance), i think the vegan hotdogs taste like severe ass. those have a long way to go. |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 23:29:33
No Monsieur, you said animals weren't 'rational'.
Now you're changing the story. ;)
I'm sure there are examples of non-human animals displaying self-awareness. Save me some time and lemme know what your next criterium is, i'll get you proof of both at once. =P
(The self-awareness one might be tough tho...i bet you couldn't actually prove another human that didn't speak the same language as you was self-aware..)
I think it would be great if all creatures were vegan, and who the hell knows, maybe some day we'll be able to communicate with other species, and this might eventually be a reality.
For now tho, it does nothing to diminish the fact that we as humans living in the 'modern world' have absolutely no need to consume the flesh or fluids of other creatures.
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| begeegs |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 08:51:48
quote:
Originally posted by NimrodsSon
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
I wouldn't blame all our problems on religion. Some religions, especially eastern mystical religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. are very peaceful and do encourage things like stewardship of the environment. I would, however, go so far as to say that Christianity and the religions it stems from are the causes of most, if not all of the world's problems, and I don't think that's an exaggeration. It certainly sounds silly and naive, but if you look back in history at the very root of all the world's problems, I'd say that Christianity, Judaeism, and Islam would play a very important role in 95% of them.
ˇViva los Católicos!
True, they do. At the moment there is a line of "Christian" thinking in the US that is incredibly commerical especially with the 700 Club merging with Fox. Suddenly, God has commerical value. But it doesn't end there because there are bastardized versions of the Muslim faith and Judiasm, although not as commerical, equally as mis-guided as the people who think that they should pray to the television set while the smiling "priest" rakes in their dollars.
It was enough for me to try to find something new outside of ancient texts. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/05/2004 : 03:25:13
I've never said that animals didn't have any intelligence - it's self awareness I was talking about. The fact that a dog can recognize an object that is not familiar to him has nothing to do with this.
Once again, Dave, I have nothing against your commitment to animal rights. But this only makes sense if we are self-aware and responsible beings - and animals are not. Because if animals are morally responsible, than why shouldn't they become vegans themselves... |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 07/04/2004 : 21:11:24
Here's a neat bio on him:
http://www.jcf.org/about_jc.php
I'm rather unfamiliar, tho the TV show sounds pretty neat..i've heard of it, tho i don't think i've seen it.
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| VoVat |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 17:42:05
I've heard of him and his work, but I haven't actually read anything by him. Maybe I should look into that.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 17:03:48
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
[quote]On a more serious note, since Tre mentioned Krishna, I've always kind of wondered whether there's a connection between the words "Krishna" and "Christ." They're both incarnations of God, after all.
VoVat, are you familiar with Joseph Campbell? He was an amazing social anthropologist, and traced many of the world's religions and myths, and their connections. Very very interesting and wonderful guy, and findings.
 |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 16:52:36
I guess Krishna is a Hindi or Sanskrit word, whereas Christ comes from the ancient Greek. There may be a connection stemming back to Alexander the Great (I think he made it over to India) but I would imagine its purely linguistic rather than having any religious significance.
I may be wrong, its been known.
Kind regards,
Simon
Admissions |
| meifen |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 16:51:04
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Monsieur
What you are saying right now is that there is a language animals have that we are not able to understand. This is, of course, not impossible, and it can also be applied to objects.
Most of what you two are talking about is going over my head, but undoubtably animals have languages we don't understand. How do elephants decide which way to go to find water? How do dolphins coordinate herding tuna? How do ants communicate the location of food? They communicate with other using sounds and chemicals. Does not qualify as language?
Also there has been a long history of saying that humans are different animals because of X and then some animals are shown to posses X. Tool use is an example and I think rational is as well. In my opinion, we're smart social animals, but we're still animals.
I recall a professor having told us once that a certain breed of money or apes (big difference, i know, but I can't remember ALL the details), have at least like 20 different calls to signal for danger - different kinds, food - again different calls to communicate more precisely, etc. I just think it's interesting, cuz there is still so much we do not know. Kind of unrelated but I work with people with disabilities and have often though about how they were treated through history. Often times they were considered sub human and definetely had no rights. Now even animals have rights. I wonder what it will all look like later on.
Ever gone to the zoo and gone into the "ape house" or whatever little land they are given? Looked at their faces...?
Don't really believe in God. (sorry God). Heaven? A little convenient. Give money to the church all your life and do good and shit and when you die, you just go somewhere better.... I could go on ranting, but I wont. I was raised Methodist, and I have no problem with others of other religions etc. To each his own as far as I'm concerned  . It just seems that all signs point to ... no. 
-----------------
"You think you're so cool cuz you can pee with your penis...!" -Rob Schneider |
| VoVat |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 16:48:54
quote:
Sorry, I suppose some might not know what a grand slam is. In American baseball, a grand slam is scoring the maximum amount of points in one hit, or otherwise known as a bases loaded home run. So, what I meant by "grand slam" was a winning argument.
It's also a breakfast platter at Denny's.
On a more serious note, since Tre mentioned Krishna, I've always kind of wondered whether there's a connection between the words "Krishna" and "Christ." They're both incarnations of God, after all.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 16:25:40
Hey Monsieur, sorry to bring your world crashing down around your shoulders, but many non-human animals are quite capable of reason, and have demonstrated it.
Check out this story of Rico, a border collie from Australia who is quite adept at figuring out what we zany humans are trying to communictate:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=SCIENCE&oid=53538
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 11:57:30
'I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man - it's us'. - Konrad Lorenz
"Join the Friends of FB.net / and win your weight in cereals"  |
| darwin |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 11:45:20
quote:
Originally posted by Monsieur
What you are saying right now is that there is a language animals have that we are not able to understand. This is, of course, not impossible, and it can also be applied to objects.
Most of what you two are talking about is going over my head, but undoubtably animals have languages we don't understand. How do elephants decide which way to go to find water? How do dolphins coordinate herding tuna? How do ants communicate the location of food? They communicate with other using sounds and chemicals. Does not qualify as language?
Also there has been a long history of saying that humans are different animals because of X and then some animals are shown to posses X. Tool use is an example and I think rational is as well. In my opinion, we're smart social animals, but we're still animals. |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 11:30:12
I'd say we're all our own gods since we all have the fantastic power to change old things, to start new things, to create our life, our world, well, ourselves.
So the real question is, who gave us this power? God? Cosmic energy? Frank Black? Dave Noisy? Ohio Apl? GW Bush? One of them anyway...
"Join the Friends of FB.net / and win your weight in cereals" |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 10:04:25
And I have to go to the beach. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 10:01:47
Can we not use the concept of same-time wave and particle where we are here? We have been doing that for years, ever since we were aware of the concept. Other dimesions (mostly incomprehensible to the general way of thinking) work and effect where we are, and we use them within scientific parameters to shape our own rational and physical or 4-D world.
Most people have a very hard time understanding String Theory within the realm of their own rationale, but it arguably effects all that we know, and comprises the very fabric of the universe. I am not even saying that animals communicate or are self-aware in another plane - I am suggesting that they do have self-awareness within our context, we just haven't yet developed a means of understanding them -we need to add more words to the book, like we have many times over for other things.
This may or may not be relevant to the topic, but I would be happy to spend more time discussing it in this or another thread later. I need to get to work!
|
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 09:47:35
What you are saying right now is that there is a language animals have that we are not able to understand. This is, of course, not impossible, and it can also be applied to objects. I have a glass of beer in front of me right now, and noone can prove me that it is not aware of its being a glass of (tasty) beer. But as you very well pointed out, I am using a system of thought which, as Popper pointed out, doesn't include room for a concept from outside. In fact, its reality of being a glass of beer is MY relity, and it is perhaps something else. Perhaps a glass of beer doesn't exist. Wittgenstein attended a Russel's class and refused to admit that there were no rhinoceros in the classroom.
But we live in the world where a glass of beer is a glass of beer. It could be something else somewhere else. But we are here - Heidegger calls it 'da sein'. Animals may have a rational language somewhere else, but not where we are.
We can only use the words of our own dictionary. The existence of a larger dictionary would mean that things that are not, here, are, somewhere else - as there will always be somewhere else from here, for each here, that dictionary would include everything that is and that isn-t.
To sum this up, perhaps animals are self-aware somewhere else, but we are here. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 09:22:45
Monsieur, I believe the typical scientific approach to the possibility of animals having a thinking mind is myopic. The rational that is used to argue that animals do not rationalize is inherently flawed. Like Russel and Whitehead with Principia Mathematica trying to create a universe of logic which eludes all paradox. You are using a system of thought which does not include room for a concept outside of itself. You are expecting them to "appreciate" just as you "appreciate". I would just like to humbly posit that that there is a larger, multi-lingual dictionary, most of which we do not even have the faculties (yet) to read. I do think that animals quite possibly DO have self-awareness. But it's irrational to expect that they would have the same type of awareness.
It's like expecting our first "intelligent" extra-terrestrial acquaintances to be humanoid, and to have a way of communicating and thinking that is at all recognizeable within our realm of understanding.
As far as the Bible and its teachings of common sense, well, tens of thousands of years ago people were capable of keeping themselves from death most of the time. White willow bark didn't drop out of the sky with a script and indications from God attached to it. Trial and error is what keeps all living things moving forward. Observe/sense your environment, and respond accordingly with an intelligent process.
|
| The Calistanian |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 09:09:33
quote:
Originally posted by fudd
quote:
Originally posted by The Calistanian
When Adam sinned, by his own free will, he went against God's instructions, and therefore forfeited everlasting life on a peaceful earth. Since then, all his offspring have been riddled with inherited sin.
This is truly demeaning and offensive.
Haha...I guess I would find the fact that my ancestors would range from nothing to amoebas to chimps to be far more degrading, demeaning, and offensive.
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
| The Calistanian |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 09:07:38
quote:
Originally posted by apl4eris
quote:
Originally posted by The Calistanian
There's an intangible element to our existence as human beings that cannot be attributed to a mere happening existence. The ability to appreciate beauty, art, music, the wonderment of why we are here. This quality is unique to the human species. Animals do not have these things like we do. Sure, they may have these to an extent, but whatever they have is a miniscule fraction compared to a human's ability.
Calistanian, how do you KNOW that?
Why must assumptions about animals be made to justify humans (animals too) having a higher place in the order of things?
I guess maybe the fact that over 1000's of years they haven't been able to TELL us that, might be a clue. I would say it's a pretty good assumption.
Besides, I didn't say they DON'T have those capacities.
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 09:04:30
I think that people who violently attack religions are as narrow-minded as the Inquisition. So many things, so many human thoughts have been built on religions - you cannot be a humanist, you cannot escape nihilism, if you constantly attack everything that has to do with religion. |
| fudd |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 08:57:38
quote:
Originally posted by The Calistanian
The Bible gave the Israelites clean living standards long before there was given any verification of germs.
Trial and error. Eat this and you die. Eat that and you don't. Very effective. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 08:57:26
The fact that animals don't have a rational thought is very obvious - they don't have a rational language or logos. They only respond to a number of stimuli by a number of reactions. I already discussed this with Dave, and as I said before, this doesn't mean they are automates - animals are capable of sensitivity. They can feel. Being a rational being doesn't mean our place is higher, though. It does make us morally responsible.
But come on, apl, do you really think that the fact that animals cannot appreciate art is an assumption? I remember my Philosophy professor saying to us "each day, my dog takes his glasses and reads Le Monde".
Mun Chien, everything has to do with sex. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 08:42:46
quote:
Originally posted by The Calistanian
There's an intangible element to our existence as human beings that cannot be attributed to a mere happening existence. The ability to appreciate beauty, art, music, the wonderment of why we are here. This quality is unique to the human species. Animals do not have these things like we do. Sure, they may have these to an extent, but whatever they have is a miniscule fraction compared to a human's ability.
Calistanian, how do you KNOW that?
Why must assumptions about animals be made to justify humans (animals too) having a higher place in the order of things?
|
| The Calistanian |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 08:36:43
Faith is blind faith. I've said that before. Faith in creation is ultimately blind. Faith in the chance happening of life is blind. Neither circumstance do humans have the ability to re-create.
I study the Bible back to the original languages. The Bible stated the earth was a sphere long before humans could verify that knowledge. The Bible spoke of the water cycle long before humans could verify that knowledge. The Bible gave the Israelites clean living standards long before there was given any verification of germs.
When I take a walk to the park, I look at the surroundings. It's beautiful. I choose to thank God for that. When I see my beautiful daughter playing with our puppy, how happy she is, how happy I am to be able to observe and appreciate such a thing, I thank God.
There's an intangible element to our existence as human beings that cannot be attributed to a mere happening existence. The ability to appreciate beauty, art, music, the wonderment of why we are here. This quality is unique to the human species. Animals do not have these things like we do. Sure, they may have these to an extent, but whatever they have is a miniscule fraction compared to a human's ability.
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
| betty |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 19:04:15
oh how the pendulum swings!
for a while religion was the smotherer. now she's the crazy old aunt no one wants to admit to.
i enjoy the golden mean. just because people act stupidly in the name of religion does not mean that God, or the idea of God, is stupid.
why throw the baby out with the bathwater? truth isn't always literal. what are the books really saying? what truth? one, i believe, if understood would never inspire murder.
in our noncommital freakiness regarding the divine, we do a disservice to our children. grow up, people!
i love you.
warm wishes and fond regards,
betty |
| fudd |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 18:39:46
quote:
Originally posted by The Calistanian
When Adam sinned, by his own free will, he went against God's instructions, and therefore forfeited everlasting life on a peaceful earth. Since then, all his offspring have been riddled with inherited sin.
This is truly demeaning and offensive. In the immortal words of Ian Anderson:
How do you dare to tell me
That I'm my father's son
When that was just an accident of birth
I'd rather look around me
Compose a better song
`Cause that's the honest measure of my worth
In your pomp and all your glory
You're a poorer man than me
As you lick the boots of death born out of fear
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 16:58:13
It was a faith and morals comparative not a religious breakdown of sex and the young, I believe in most religious history as soon as a girl came of age, well, hit puberty she was wife material... I guess I was deviating from the point, it just makes me sad. I'm no anti sex eiher but the way it is treated in the uk is to almost make it a thing to be ashamed of, or wrong, which is appealing to kids in the thrwos of teenage rebellion, which is depressing also.
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| mun chien andalusia |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 16:50:38
religion should have nothing to do with sex. if the kids of today are so superficial about it, it's not because they don't get a proper religious education but because their parents are too busy with other things and don't give them some morals.
 join the cult of errol\and you can have a beer\without having to quit smoking
|
| n/a |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 16:44:24
In this country with the muslim women I have met they chose to wear fully covered clothes, they weren't forced. There are some I'll grant you but it is more acceptable for them to make that choic for themselves when they "come of age" I also said a touch earlier in my religious rantings that I was sure this female abuse (where they have no choices at all) wasn't non existent. I have seen ignorant people down the road from me kick off at someone for dressing in the burkha (sp?) just because they did not understand.
And I'm not saying that these girls are asking for it, I'm no advocator of the it's ok to rape her because she was dressed like she wanted it. I just think it's a shame that sex is such a cheap commodity amongst youths.
Frank Black ate my Hamster
|
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 16:40:14
[quoteI do like giving my wife some lines from "Song of Solomon".
Like: "You are like a lovable hind" or "your hands are like doves" or "your breasts are like a cluster of dates" (sorry, Frank didn't make that one up).
[/quote]
How about, "you have a lovable hind".
Just making up for floop's absence.
Kind regards,
Simon
Admissions |
| mun chien andalusia |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 16:31:46
as i see it faith is blind by definition. since you can't prove the existence of god there is no alternative but take it as granted or not accepting it. practicing a religion is a whole other thing. i can't see why god should give men instructions about how they should dress or behave. if god exists i am sure that he don't gives a damn about your dress or your makeup.
join the cult of errol\and you can have a beer\without having to quit smoking
|
| Dave Noisy |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 16:22:45
Calistanian - re: blind faith...that *is* the problem. You're simply accepting what it says. Can you not see what's wrong with that?
Sure, some items in the Bible have been proven to be historically correct...but a bunch has also been proven otherwise.
Do you not see a problem with that?!?
Tre, a correction:
<< And don't harp on at me about brainwashing now, whats wrong with a muslim woman wanting to be modest and cover her self.>>
If i understand most Muslim countries, women are not allowed to wear whatever they like, out and about...and i think *this* is where the problem lies.
<< We are allowed to wear what we like and all too often you see young girls barely touching puberty dressing more and more like adult whores. I mean that too, look around at the children with their provocative dress and the attitude that it's ok! Is it any wonder that teenage pregnancy is not uncommon? Is it surprising that the prevelance of STD's is on the increase? Is it any wonder that paedophile cases are on the up and up? just saying...>>
Dood - this is soooo wrong.
You *cannot* put the blame on girls/women. They should be able to dress and express themselves however they like.
As i understand it, rapists, etc, think they need to be dominating. Not have sex.
Join the Cult of the Flying Pigxies - I'm A Believer! |
| The Calistanian |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 14:26:18
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
When I was at school my maths teacher was born again christian, a great guy I had a lot of time for him, we had some cool conversations. In my leavers book he put this...
psalms 37.4 Seek your happiness in the lord and he will give you your hearts desire
Proverbs 3:5,6 Trust in the lord with all your heart never rely on what you think you know. Remember the lord in everything you do and he will show you the right way
and finally..... Most disturbingly.....
Ecclesaistes 7:27 I found something more bitter than death - woman. The love she offers you will catch you like a trap or net and her arms around you will hold you like a chain. A man who pleases god will get away but she will catch the sinner
Frank Black ate my Hamster
Hehe...yeah, there's a lot of scriptures you can make fun of like that.
The word "woman", especially with the books Solomon had a big share in, like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, typically means prostitute. You have to go back to the Hebrew words for that. There's always some slight variation that a straightforward English translation doesn't take into account. I'll have to check that out though.
I do like giving my wife some lines from "Song of Solomon".
Like: "You are like a lovable hind" or "your hands are like doves" or "your breasts are like a cluster of dates" (sorry, Frank didn't make that one up).
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
|
|
