Whats so good about religion?

[Frigidus]

We can say with close to certainty that something has mud on it, but what makes mud so dirty in the first place?

I'm not sure, but I think it's probably the dirt in it.

Hey, that's cheating!

[muy_thaiguy]

We can say with close to certainty that something has mud on it, but what makes mud so dirty in the first place?

I'm not sure, but I think it's probably the dirt in it.

Hey, that's cheating!

That's not cheating! That's using your resources!

[bradleybadly]

We can say with close to certainty that something has mud on it, but what makes mud so dirty in the first place?

I'm not sure, but I think it's probably the dirt in it.

Well, at least you've got a sense of humor. I haven't commented in this thread so much as I've been reading along. Frigidus was one of the few people who actually made any sense to me in the Gay Marriage discussion so I followed him over here to see what he had to say. In the process, I run into a pretty cool God-worshipper. Nice to read both of your posts.

[WidowMakers]

def. Clean

1)Free from dirt, stain, or impurities; unsoiled.
2)Free from foreign matter or pollution; unadulterated

A human definition, a human perception. It's all in our head when it comes down to it.

Well we are after all human. We have definitions for everything. Are you saying all human definitions are not worth anything now? With this logic, everything we all do is just a matter of perception and all relative.

I wish you guys would stop dodging the real questions and topic. Why is it that hard to answer the real questions and issues here?

=======================================================================
Now the level of dirtiness something has may be an opinion, I agree with you on that, but it is still not clean.
So again my point is, something can only be dirty if the concept of clean is defined.

-Dirtiness is, by definition, the absence of clean.
-Just as darkness is the absence of light
-Just as Cold is the absence of Heat.
-Just as evil is the absence of good.

============================================================================

Who then determines the best society. If society said slavery was ok, would it then be ok? Or what about human testing for societies sake? Is everything justified if society says it is? And who is society? The majority? The powerful? The rule makers? WHO? Or is it only relative to where and when you are born and live?

But if everything is relative, which you say it is, then the person who is wronging you can justify their actions. Who are you to say they are wrong? By you saying someone is morally wrong, you are in fact saying that there are absolutes. And absolute morality is what you are arguing against in the first place.

=========================================================================

-People are evil or bad because they are not good. People lie, steal, kill, cheat, are dishonest, slander, are jealous, envy, covet and deceive just to name a few.
Are any of these things good for society? Then why do we all (as human beings) have these feelings? Are these bad or wrong feelings?

If there is no Moral Absolute, then all of these feelings are completely justified rationally be each individual on an individual basis based on the events at the time.

Was Hitler evil? Who says? He did not think he was wrong?
Many people in the world through past events and history have done unspeakable things.
Where they all rationally justified at the time? They think they were. SO who decides?

When children are born, why do they disobey their parents or lie to them. Ignore their rules or hit each other. Children are selfish little people. Who taught them that stuff? I have a 2 year old and she tests our rules all of the time. Why is it that she has to be told to be nice to others and does not need to be told to be selfish. It is human nature to not be good.

Absolute good is required to judges all actions of everything else. For if there is no measuring stick (absolute good) to look to, how can you say I am bad or good if everything is relative.

- And as far as creation goes, “God did it” is an explanation. It is just not one you want to believe. Why can’t creation be true? Is it because science can’t prove it? Who says everything is provable? Since no man is all knowing, no one can say that everything in the universe is provable by science. And this gets back to my post about scientism being a religion or faith in science above all else.

WM

[tzor]

So again my point is, something can only be dirty if the concept of clean is defined.

-Dirtiness is, by definition, the absence of clean.
-Just as darkness is the absence of light
-Just as Cold is the absence of Heat.
-Just as evil is the absence of good.

I strongly disagree with your argument here. The items you list are not binary but fall within a spectrum. Therefore it is necessary to compare them to the set of actual numbers.

-Clean is actually the absence of surface impurities, therefore Clean is 0, dirty is the set of counting numbers which does not include 0
-Darkness is the absence of light and so implies the relationship I descibed above. However one can also argue that darkness is a ralative term as all bodies emit various levels of black body radiaton so that what I will describe below applies.
-Heat is a spectrum (the set of counting numbers) but cold is relative. You don't have to be a temperature of absolute zero to be "cold." Therefore cold is the set of counting numbers below the current average termperature of a system.
-Evil is not the absense of good. We can consider Good the set of counting numbers 1 ... infinity. What is 0? A rock is zero and a rock is neither evil nor good. Evil is instead the set of negative counting numbers. It is not then an absense of good, but a force in the opposite direction; good moves away from self and towards others, evil moves away from others and towards the self.

[Snorri1234]

So again my point is, something can only be dirty if the concept of clean is defined.

-Dirtiness is, by definition, the absence of clean.
-Just as darkness is the absence of light
-Just as Cold is the absence of Heat.
-Just as evil is the absence of good.

I strongly disagree with your argument here. The items you list are not binary but fall within a spectrum. Therefore it is necessary to compare them to the set of actual numbers.

-Clean is actually the absence of surface impurities, therefore Clean is 0, dirty is the set of counting numbers which does not include 0
-Darkness is the absence of light and so implies the relationship I descibed above. However one can also argue that darkness is a ralative term as all bodies emit various levels of black body radiaton so that what I will describe below applies.
-Heat is a spectrum (the set of counting numbers) but cold is relative. You don't have to be a temperature of absolute zero to be "cold." Therefore cold is the set of counting numbers below the current average termperature of a system.
-Evil is not the absense of good. We can consider Good the set of counting numbers 1 ... infinity. What is 0? A rock is zero and a rock is neither evil nor good. Evil is instead the set of negative counting numbers. It is not then an absense of good, but a force in the opposite direction; good moves away from self and towards others, evil moves away from others and towards the self.

Well said.

[Snorri1234]

-Hey man societies are different. Who then determines the best society. If society said slavery was ok, would it then be ok? Or what about human testing for societies sake? Is everything justified if society says it is? And who is society? The majority? The powerful? The rule makers? WHO? Or is it only relative to where and when you are born and live?

Rationality determines the best society. It's Kant's "Formula of universal law", which makes the claim that you should apply a law to everyone and see if it works. Murder is not ok, because if everyone could murder then society would crumble. Slavery is not ok, because a society couldn't function if eveyone was both slave and master at the same time.

Also, there are a few rules that every succesfull society has. Those rules are there because they work, not because God put them there.

But if everything is relative, which you say it is, then the person who is wronging you can justify their actions. Who are you to say they are wrong? By you saying someone is morally wrong, you are in fact saying that there are absolutes. And absolute morality is what you are arguing against in the first place.

Except that Moral Relativism doesn't mean there are no morals and morally wrong doesn't exist, it means that morals aren't the same everywhere and that this leads to the conclusion there are no absolutes. This leads to making morals which are rational and agreeable. Religions are actually pretty much formed by the same process. Noone likes being stolen from or killed, so it's decided that noone is alllowed to steal or murder. It's only after that that people bring religion into it.

Take for example Moses and the commandments. Were all his followers killing eachother all the time before he came down from the mountain, or were they like any other community and peacefull to eachother? Because if the latter were the case then there is no reason to claim those rules are absolute. If evil is the absence of good, then they would've killed eachother because they weren't aware of good yet.

-People are evil or bad because they are not good. People lie, steal, kill, cheat, are dishonest, slander, are jealous, envy, covet and deceive just to name a few.
Are any of these things good for society? Then why do we all (as human beings) have these feelings? Are these bad or wrong feelings?

I have no idea what you mean by this. Are lying, killing, cheating and slandering feelings?

If there is no Moral Absolute, then all of these feelings are completely justified rationally be each individual on an individual basis based on the events at the time.

Except you can't actually rationally justify feelings. That's impossible.

Was Hitler evil? Who says? He did not think he was wrong?

But he was wrong though. Jews are not less than other people, and other people are not less than the germans.

Many people in the world through past events and history have done unspeakable things.
Where they all rationally justified at the time? They think they were. SO who decides?

They weren't rationally justified, so it doesn't matter what they think. The fun thing is that ratio itself decides. You can't be rationally racist, because you cannot rationally claim that one people is better than the other. Because who decides what is better?

It is human nature to not be good.

No, it's human nature. Period.

Absolute good is required to judges all actions of everything else. For if there is no measuring stick (absolute good) to look to, how can you say I am bad or good if everything is relative.

The measuring stick is rational thought. You should really try to grasp what actual rational thought is, it's not mere thought. (like thinking it's a good idea to kill people who look at you in a funny way.)

- And as far as creation goes, “God did it” is an explanation. It is just not one you want to believe. Why can’t creation be true? Is it because science can’t prove it? Who says everything is provable? Since no man is all knowing, no one can say that everything in the universe is provable by science. And this gets back to my post about scientism being a religion or faith in science above all else.
WM

It is not an explanation like "because" isn't an explanation. It doesn't say how he did it, it doesn't answer the question about where god comes from, it doesn't tell us who this god-person is, IT DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING!

Also young earth creationism doesn't explain the countless discrepancies with scientific record, it's not that it isn't provable, it's that it directly contradicts science. Only people who say that God sparked the Big Bang(or wahtever) can call on the "science can't prove it" argument.

[suggs]

Germans are big, strong, powerful men.
They eat lots of dumplings.

[Napoleon Ier]

Germans are big, strong, powerful men.
They eat lots of dumplings.

No, no, no! They are fat Bavarian sausage-guzzling beer-swillers who wear tight lederhosen and spear babies on spikes for amusement.

[suggs]

Germans are big, strong, powerful men.
They eat lots of dumplings.

No, no, no! They are fat Bavarian sausage-guzzling beer-swillers who wear tight lederhosen and spear babies on spikes for amusement.

Aesthetically, I have to respect that.

[PLAYER57832]

[  And this gets back to my post about scientism being a religion or faith in science above all else.WM

Your post has been copied a number of times already, so I refrained.but, there are 2 points you keep missing.1.  You are the first person I have heard refer to this thing you call "scientism", but even if that is a true and accepted definition, it means nothing.    SCIENCE is NOT ANY ONE BELIEF.  SCIENCE is a METHOD OF PROOF.

The opposite of science is belief ... BUT science is NOT the opposite of RELIGION.Science is a method of proof.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If I add sugar to water, the molecules will disperse, will dissolve.   This is a FACT... it is true wherever sugar and liquid water can exist ... no matter your belief or religion.Similarly, genes determine what color eyes you will have, your hair, etc.  This is more complicated, but also FACT.     There are many, many, many, many things that science cannot and perhaps never will answer.    We know, for example, which genes contribute to dwarfism.  We know that Thalidamyde,  cause childrens limbs to be "flippers" .. and that AIDS is caused by a virus.  But, there are many, many, many other things that are completely unknown.

Where science leaves off, religion takes over.   For most thinking individuals, they work in conjunction, not separate.

2.Using a definition to "prove" most anything is a false debate tactic .. a deception.   Definitions are created by HUMANS to explain HUMAN CONCEPTS.   Is this the letter "t" because God so ordained?  Of course not.  And, if you write Chinese or Arabic, you will use completely different characters to represent entirely different sounds.  Yet, God's truth can be transferred within each.  Definitions change and evolve through time.  Take the word "Gay".  Even 50 years ago, most folks would have called someone who smiles a lot "gay".  Now, it means something entirely different.

If you wish to have your ideas considered, you must FIRST learn the definitions that the real world uses.  In most cases, those are NOT the definitions taught within the very narrow world outsiders call "fundmantalist Christianity".   You don't have to like that, but it IS the truth!  And, your words will be dismissed as idiocy unless and until you begin to understand those ideas you claim to rebutt.  Sorry to be so blunt, but you ignore lesser statements.

Understand... you wish to rebut ideas within science, certain established theories ... GO FOR IT!, but do so with intelligence and reality ... not deception. And learn to see the difference. Until then, you and those with similar ideas will be ridiculed by the vast majority.

[WidowMakers]

Sorry it has taken so long. I get involved in these discussions and really mean to respond but other things get in the way and the time it takes to properly gather my thoughts and write them down sometimes is much greater than anticipated.

I appreciate the response and think you misunderstood what I meant by scientism being a religion, but I will try to better explain myself. Forgive me for not being clearer in the first place.

1)
I think this is where you misunderstood me first. I agree that we (as humans) make the definitions we use. God did not say that the "t" was "t". There are many different languages and definitions. So we are in agreement that.

What I think you misunderstood was that I was defining scientism NOT science.

SCIENTISM as is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone.

SCIENCE refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Do you see where I am coming from? Both may seem similar but they are different. One is the system or tool in which we acquire knowledge. The other assumes that system can prove everything even without proof or testing but just faith that it can.

Just let me tell you about myself a bit. I have a degree in mechanical engineering. I love investigating and exploring new ideas. I desire to understand how things work. Shows on the Discovery Channel are some of my favourite TV programs. Understanding how things work is one thing I really enjoy. I love science! I appreciate science! Science has done incredible, and will continue to do incredible things for humanity!

So again I do not think SCIENCE is faith. However, believing science has ALL of the answers is not science, but faith in science to explain all. That is the problem with some people and how they feel about science. There is a difference. Now on to the next section…

2)
Science is based on proof. I agree with this entirely. I asked if anyone believes that science will eventually provide all of the answers to questions we have. You said probably not, it answers the questions it answers. So my new question is, if you think it can't answer everything, when will you stop looking for an answer to a question? If science can't answer everything, why can't the universe have been created by supernatural means that science cannot understand or test because those means are beyond them?

It has been said that creation offers no answers to how or why. Who says there are natural answers to these questions? Me? You? A professor of (pick a scientific field)?

Again I am not saying science is bad or that we should stop investigating things, I am asking when do we say, "maybe science can't explain this."?

By the definition above (SCIENCE), knowledge and data is collected through observation and experimentation and testing. Since we cannot create a universe or test what happened in the past, we cannot prove the universe created itself or the Big bang happened. It is just a theory. A theory based on the assumption that only naturalistic processes exist in the universe. Is that a correct assumption? I don't think so.

People in threads here and other places all over the world have said "I don't believe in God/god/creation/supernatural events… because they cannot be proven by science."
Well of course they cannot be proven by science. They, by their very nature, are outside of the natural world thus cannot be looked at with science.

So there are two views is see:

1) Everything in the universe is answerable with science. We will eventually know everything there is to know through revelation with scientific process. SCIENTISM
2) There are things outside of science (supernatural) that cannot be proven with science. These things must logically be discussed but "scientific proof" is not possible because these take place outside nature.

So a person can have: faith in science to prove all things or faith that something exists beyond science.
Take your pick.

WM

EDIT: You seem to have edited your post player. I have a copy of the original post you had and responded to that. I will read over that later to see if you edited the content and see if I have any other agreements or disagreements. Thanks

[MeDeFe]

I have a few questions.

What is "supernatural" even supposed to mean? What does it mean to be "beyond science"? If we some time get down to particles that are so small we cannot say anything else about them apart from how they bahave under certain circumstances, but no more because we cannot "look inside them" and say what is causing that behaviour, are those particles then "supernatural" because they cannot be scientifically explained, only described? Even though they exist in this universe and make up all matter.

And what would a non-naturalistic process be? Any process can be described and we can look at the causal factors that set the process in motion, as well as at the factors that caused the factors causing the process to come about. You keep saying that there are things beyond science, but you do not say what these things are, not even what they could possibly be. Are they really just "the things that are too small to be looked into"? That does not sound very supernatural to me.

[jonesthecurl]

When my mum said "your clothes are not clean"
I said "I don't know hat you mean"
She replied, "This is Mud.
I was told that by Gud.*
_and therefore there must be a Supreme Being"

*to make it rhyme, you must appreciate that my mum's a cockney...

[Frigidus]

I have a few questions.

What is "supernatural" even supposed to mean? What does it mean to be "beyond science"? If we some time get down to particles that are so small we cannot say anything else about them apart from how they bahave under certain circumstances, but no more because we cannot "look inside them" and say what is causing that behaviour, are those particles then "supernatural" because they cannot be scientifically explained, only described? Even though they exist in this universe and make up all matter.

And what would a non-naturalistic process be? Any process can be described and we can look at the causal factors that set the process in motion, as well as at the factors that caused the factors causing the process to come about. You keep saying that there are things beyond science, but you do not say what these things are, not even what they could possibly be. Are they really just "the things that are too small to be looked into"? That does not sound very supernatural to me.

Indeed. I think that the idea that science can explain everything fell out of popularity a bit after the end of the enlightenment. I'd say that a third option would be something along the lines of "science is the limited view of the universe that humans use to alter the world around us, and that though it will never discover all that can be discovered, there are also no supernatural forces at work". That might not be the best definition, but it's the general idea.

[tzor]

What is "supernatural" even supposed to mean? What does it mean to be "beyond science"?

Supernatural is something that is currently beyond our understanding of nature. Something that is beyond science is beyond our understanding of science. Why are we in the picture? Because man is the measure and measurer of all things. Science (and by extension nature) is not an abstract concept divorced from the observer, it is a tool used by the observer to understand the world around him.

Using the term can be a cop out on both sides of the issue. We can simply assume the supernatural and not try to expand our understanding of the natural. Likewise we can dismiss the supernatural and not try to expand our understanding of the natural.

[MeDeFe]

So you're saying that the supernatural is really just a name for the things we cannot explain/describe? Not somehow inherently different from what is natural, just too small to be described or in a place where we can't perceive them at all. I don't know, that sounds like a philosophically very poor answer to me.

I'll just mostly disregard the first half of your post because it would be cruel to pick on it excessively, you're really saying that lightning and thunder were supernatural back when people couldn't explain them scientifically and now that we can explain them they aren't anymore.

[Simon Viavant]

This one isn't quite as entertaining as the Religion topic in the Legends of Elveron thread. Some whacko claimed that humans started hunting only because they made a hunting god first, and the same with agriculture and society. How should I know, maybe some supernatural power does exist, but I am 100% positive that the Christian god does not exist and I would bet $1,000,000 on that.

[MeDeFe]

Where's that thread?

[tzor]

I'll just mostly disregard the first half of your post because it would be cruel to pick on it excessively, you're really saying that lightning and thunder were supernatural back when people couldn't explain them scientifically and now that we can explain them they aren't anymore.

No that's exactly what I am saying. Let's use an easier example. Medicine, for example, was often derived from herbs and other natural ingredients. Do that in the middle ages and they would call you a witch for using the "supernatural" and burn you at the stake. Because we didn't know how they worked is no reason we can either dismiss them as having worked at all or make equally wild assumptions in the opposite direction.

Inbetween the domain of what we know and the domain of what we don't know is the domain of what we vaguely know. We can't explain everything, even asprin wasn't fully understood until many decades of use had passed, we only knew it worked. There is a tendency to either reject the vague stuff or to put it out of the range of discussion by theological edict.

Consider this bit of supernatural wisdom. Animals can detect earthquakes ... well that's because they have better hearing and could detect the audiable (to them) effects of the pre-conditions of the earthquake. The evolution of our knowledge is always a growing situation. Sometimes we prove the vague stuff right and sometimes we prove the vague stuff wrong. But the vague stuff is not a-priori wrong because we have not yet proved it.

[Neoteny]

"Supernatural" is, of course, the detergent that gets your clothes perfectly clean. (Not really, detergents act as they do because they possess both hydrophobic and hydrophilic domains, one of which attaches to dirt and other nastiness, and the other that allows it to be washed away with water)

Anyhow, I think debating the meaning of supernatural is a bit pointless, especially if we're going to consider it by Tzor's definition. We already have a phrase for that: "as yet unexplained." It's going along the same lines as calling the unknown "god." It's misleading at best, and wrong at worst.

[Frigidus]

This one isn't quite as entertaining as the Religion topic in the Legends of Elveron thread. Some whacko claimed that humans started hunting only because they made a hunting god first, and the same with agriculture and society. How should I know, maybe some supernatural power does exist, but I am 100% positive that the Christian god does not exist and I would bet $1,000,000 on that.

Indeed, I'd bet everything I had on the Christian god not existing. Heck, I'd get a loan and bet that too.

[t-o-m]

religion can give people comfort and a meaning to life e.g. in a numinous experience people may feel a meaning to life, and sercurity throughout life

[Dancing Mustard]

Oh no, you don't get me that easy Tommy old boy...

[t-o-m]

Oh no, you don't get me that easy Tommy old boy...

ive got a reallyyy goo idea on how to get people on it!

go check out my map, click my sig