U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2019, 08:50 PM
 
244 posts, read 43,209 times
Reputation: 115

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...? View Post
While this is true Heela, we should all look at the bright side.

At least most Religions (in particular the Major one's), hold true to their Dogma, Doctrine and Fundamentals and do not attempt to ratify/add/eliminate/change/evolve them if changing times threaten the existence of the Religion and/or start to result in a falling off of members/congregants. They at least have the decency to allow a Religion seemingly falling into obsolescence die a natural and dignified death.

My thoughts are they realize if they did this, it would likely cross a line or boundary of absurdity from which there may be no point of return.
Yeah, I'm normally a glass-half-full kinda person, so I'd like to join you in looking on the bright side. Problem is, some of the religions are taking a few thousand years to die that natural and dignified death! (I predict that comment will bring some accusations of "anti-theism," while others will cite that longevity as evidence of validity)

And don't look now, but there seems to be a fair amount of flexibility in adding/eliminating/evolving those dogmas and doctrines, to keep up with the changing times you reference. There are reportedly many fewer believers now who believe there is a literal hell, some churches are backing off the persecution of gays, you can now be a "New Testament Christian" so you don't have to explain the OT, etc, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2019, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,182 posts, read 5,859,232 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster View Post
Yeah, I'm normally a glass-half-full kinda person, so I'd like to join you in looking on the bright side. Problem is, some of the religions are taking a few thousand years to die that natural and dignified death! (I predict that comment will bring some accusations of "anti-theism," while others will cite that longevity as evidence of validity)

And don't look now, but there seems to be a fair amount of flexibility in adding/eliminating/evolving those dogmas and doctrines, to keep up with the changing times you reference. There are reportedly many fewer believers now who believe there is a literal hell, some churches are backing off the persecution of gays, you can now be a "New Testament Christian" so you don't have to explain the OT, etc, etc.
I truly think think the observations in your second paragraph are the reasons for your frustrations in the first paragraph.

Religions will do anything to stay relevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 03:28 PM
 
8,784 posts, read 2,186,678 times
Reputation: 6053
To understand all this better, I think studying the Sumerian civilization would be the best thing, after all they were the FIRST civilization.


The only problem with this...some of their beliefs and theories were pretty bizarre, but I guess anything is possible ultimately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 04:04 PM
 
38,679 posts, read 26,025,628 times
Reputation: 5947
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster View Post
Yeah, I'm normally a glass-half-full kinda person, so I'd like to join you in looking on the bright side. Problem is, some of the religions are taking a few thousand years to die that natural and dignified death! (I predict that comment will bring some accusations of "anti-theism," while others will cite that longevity as evidence of validity)

And don't look now, but there seems to be a fair amount of flexibility in adding/eliminating/evolving those dogmas and doctrines, to keep up with the changing times you reference. There are reportedly many fewer believers now who believe there is a literal hell, some churches are backing off the persecution of gays, you can now be a "New Testament Christian" so you don't have to explain the OT, etc, etc.
It has nothing to do with the fate of religions and everything to do with understanding God and our role in God's existence. It is an evolutionary process as is all life. It is the intransigence and perversity of humankind and its myriad agendas that interfere with the evolution of our understanding of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2019, 05:08 PM
 
12,121 posts, read 4,600,353 times
Reputation: 1280
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster View Post
[Disclosure: I am a long time lurker, an occasional contributor, but never a thread starter. Ongoing discussion in another thread spurred these thoughts, which I started to post there but will move here, rather than derail that thread any further.]

An interesting exchange in another thread hinged on our current knowledge of cosmology. See for example, #781, 784, 786, 788, 791 in: Why people hate atheists

Nothing terribly new or controversial there. I view these as honest assessments of the uncertainty surrounding the origins of the universe. But for me, this really highlights the shaky ground on which religion(s) and any (all) of their various god-beliefs stand.

The one thing everyone can (or should) agree on is that WE DON'T KNOW. So there's a good starting point, and I would argue that really should be the ending... or at least the temporary holding... point, until we know more. Gradually, given time and tools and understanding, we will learn more... and we are. So far, so good.

BUT... humans aren't comfortable with that uncertainty. We want answers. So some of us start to invent answers. If they were understood to be preliminary hypotheses that could be tested, no problem. But they are not... they are unverified and unverifiable (at least to date), yet are presented (or received) as fact. That's a problem.

SO... from that rational, supportable, solid starting point, we leapfrog ahead by leaps and bounds, moving from "we don't know" to --> god(s) --> with such-and-such attributes --> who created the universe --> and created us for a special purpose --> and wants us to behave in certain ways --> and will reward or punish us after we die --> as long as we worship it in certain ways --> and lets us know all that by communicating with some but not all of us --> and is all powerful --> but works in mysterious ways that pass all human understanding (except for those lucky ones who DO understand and can translate for the rest of us) --> and on and on and on and on and on. And on some more.

All the while, the obvious, rational, observable fact remains that ALL of those steps after the very first one are man-made inventions, filling in those blanks beyond "we don't know." It is mind-boggling to me how we got from "we don't know" (period) to arguing the nuances of what this entity, created by our own imagination, wants us to do with our lives... all without a single shred of evidence (outside of our own imaginations) to support any of it. Just think about it: we have moved from "we don't know" to "God says he wants us to eat fish on Fridays (or never, depending on where you live) so we can join Him in heaven." A man-made entity using man-made words to describe man-made actions resulting in a man-made outcome.

The question in the title ("How did we get from here to there?") is rhetorical, I suppose. Maybe there is nothing to be discussed. We obviously didn't get here overnight (unless you count the night Joseph Smith dug up those golden plates), and I can see all the reasons why humans created gods and religions, as exemplified by the thousands there are of each. But I continue to be amazed at how many blanks we have permitted ourselves to fill in, beyond that first "I don't know."

claims that offer a explanation, offer a mechanism, make predictions, and are repeatable are more valid than claims without them.

its that simple.

that is an unbiased starting point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 07:27 PM
 
244 posts, read 43,209 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It has nothing to do with the fate of religions and everything to do with understanding God and our role in God's existence. It is an evolutionary process as is all life. It is the intransigence and perversity of humankind and its myriad agendas that interfere with the evolution of our understanding of God.
Perhaps, but this has not been an "evolutionary process" in the sense of iterative steps that move us ever closer to the truth or any kind of a final conclusion (e.g., testing hypotheses, weeding out false explanations, retaining and refining those that work, etc, etc). Rather, it has hinged on someone coming up with an explanation that takes root, captures imagination, whatever... and then if enough people seem interested (or a king/emperor says "this is what we're going to believe now..."), we have another religion, with its own variations and explanations and idiosyncrasies.

"Our understanding of God..." has little to do with real understanding, and much to do with whomever can spin the latest and greatest story that appeals to people at the time. In that light, I see no more reason to think that current beliefs (whatever they are) are any closer to understanding god(s) than were those of ancient Greeks, Romans, Norse, Persians, Mayans, or Native Americans.

Last edited by HeelaMonster; 03-11-2019 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 01:23 PM
 
36,918 posts, read 9,944,046 times
Reputation: 4947
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Not exactly. You missed a few points here.

There is nothing wrong in admitting that "we don't know".

* BUT *

We DO know a few things BEFORE we say "we don't know" <<~~ This is the key.

So lets dive into it.

First - Lets take religion and theology out of it.


Scientifically, logically, intellectually and philosophically thinking: If we start the process of reverse engineering and take the route of going back and start finding out and say that,

"OK, this thing came before this thing, and this came before that, and this thing came before that, and this came before that... and we keep on going, and going and going gazillion of years past the Big Bang .... then we may probably see two scenarios.

1 - We get into an infinite loop. We keep on going trillion and gazillion upon gazillion years of reverse engineering but it will never end because we are locked into an infinity.

2 - The second and more interesting possibility is that, say we actually DO FIND what started it all. Say we call it X.

So, in our process of reverse engineering, we reached to a point where there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!
And we see that X came first.

Now the question is: Who created X?

If X was created by something else then X is not the start and hence X did not come first. Which is not true because we know that X came first and there is nothing beyond X.

The other option is, X created itself.
This is ridiculous. You cannot decide to create your own self when you don't exist.

So the only logical answer is, whatever came first, whatever started it all (X, in this case), did not actually come. It was always there. It has no start. Nobody created it. It was always there.


If X is the creating FORCE that started it all then what is X?


This is where Atheists may part ways; however, I don't see how can they deny the existence of X, (whatever it is).

If Atheists deny the existing of X (The creating force that is running the show) then they automatically agree that the entire universe came from nothing, and everything in the universe came together all by itself.

And atheists are free to believe but IMO this is the intellectual difference between Atheists and believers.

Believers ponder upon X and try to figure out what is X?
Wel, you tell me - what do we have? Nature or God? Look around you. What exists? If nature, it doesn't need to be proved. If a god - where is it? And where id it come from? And Which God is it? That's three things you have to explain. Disbelief only has One.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 01:29 PM
 
36,918 posts, read 9,944,046 times
Reputation: 4947
And a P.s, Cardinals, old mate - don't even think of calling Nature 'God' and thinking you have thereby vaiidated a god - never mind a particular one. Not unless you want to become a laughing -stock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster View Post
Perhaps, but this has not been an "evolutionary process" in the sense of iterative steps that move us ever closer to the truth or any kind of a final conclusion (e.g., testing hypotheses, weeding out false explanations, retaining and refining those that work, etc, etc). Rather, it has hinged on someone coming up with an explanation that takes root, captures imagination, whatever... and then if enough people seem interested (or a king/emperor says "this is what we're going to believe now..."), we have another religion, with its own variations and explanations and idiosyncrasies.

"Our understanding of God..." has little to do with real understanding, and much to do with whomever can spin the latest and greatest story that appeals to people at the time. In that light, I see no more reason to think that current beliefs (whatever they are) are any closer to understanding god(s) than were those of ancient Greeks, Romans, Norse, Persians, Mayans, or Native Americans.
Congratulations - you just floored the Greatest Thinker on the board (if you don't believe it, he'll tell you so) quite simply and quickly. Because this great brain cannot tell the difference between logical reasoning and faith -claims.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 04:45 PM
 
38,679 posts, read 26,025,628 times
Reputation: 5947
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
And a P.s, Cardinals, old mate - don't even think of calling Nature 'God' and thinking you have thereby validated a god - never mind a particular one. Not unless you want to become a laughing -stock.
Forget about laughing stock, Arq and his cronies have the powers that be on their side and will ban you if you claim Nature is God. They have effectively stacked the deck against God and will punish you for expressing your belief. They consider that silencing technique a win. Pathetic! I don't know how these people live with themselves.
Quote:
Congratulations - you just floored the Greatest Thinker on the board (if you don't believe it, he'll tell you so) quite simply and quickly. Because this great brain cannot tell the difference between logical reasoning and faith -claims.
Yeah, you floored Arq by posting his favorite position. He boasts but doesn't really believe it. Your post makes him feel good about himself and his intellectual greatness in debunking and sussing everyone he disagrees with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:55 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,696 posts, read 681,794 times
Reputation: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Forget about laughing stock, Arq and his cronies have the powers that be on their side and will ban you if you claim Nature is God. They have effectively stacked the deck against God and will punish you for expressing your belief. They consider that silencing technique a win. Pathetic! I don't know how these people live with themselves.
You have not been silenced, you can always take your 'science' to the relevant section. I do not know how you live with yourself with your constant need to misrepresent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top