EDIT: I should probably specify this as well, so we're not discussing two different things. I am not arguing that God doesn't exist, nor that he doesn't have a purpose for us. What I am arguing is that regardless of whether he exists or not, and regardless of whether a purpose exists or not, God cannot act as a foundation for worship.
Your whole premise is flawed since you never considered the purpose. Why did God create man as man presently is? That is the real question.
No, all-caring was included in the argument, and that would lead to a purpose. If that's so, then God would want to spare us needless suffering. Which he has not done.
Once again, that leads me back the original point. He is either not all-powerful, or not all-good.
If he is not all-good but all-powerful, then he created the whole world knowing we and all forms of life in it would suffer greatly (murder, war, betrayal, physical pain, etc.) when he could have avoided it entirely. Since he is all-powerful, what purpose could he possibly give us? A test doesn't make any sense, since he will know from the start whether we (his creations) can complete the test or not. Anything that depends on us doing something for him cannot be the reason we exist, since he, as the all-powerful creator, will know from the start whether we can perform said task or not.
If he is all-good but not all-powerful, then he cannot have created us. True, he could still be here and try to make our lives better, and since he's not all-powerful he might be restricted in great ways with what he can do. What what kind of God is he then?
If he's neither, then he might well have created us, but there would be no difference between him and an alien with immense technological capabilities.
But alright, suppose the purpose we were created for is some nebulous concept that cannot be grasped by a human mind. Even if such a purpose exist, it is a purpose for God, not for us. How does the theoretical existance of such a purpose provide any basis for human worship?
In all of these cases in fact, the questions is what basis this provides for a religion, and for practiced worship of the deity.
You forgot the pie. I'll take it you didn't get the idea. At all.
I believe I did.
In this case, mom is god, and the pie could be considered the world I guess, or anything a human desires.
Your argument is that the mother cannot be held responsible for the actions of her child, since she specifically told him not to eat more than one piece of the pie. Which seems reasonable enough.
The problem with the analogy, which is why I also didn't mention the pie, is that the mother is not perfect, and did not create her child in the same sense that God would create man. She raises her child under imperfect circumstances and with imperfect knowledge. The child is also an entity of it's own, which is why the blame here can be placed on the child.
Consider then a computer program. If you create a computer program, and it doesn't do what you've designed it to, then it is entirely your fault and not the program. Free will is the counter-argument to this, which brings us back to the point I made above about god being either all-powerful or all-good.
How did you get to the last part? About religion helping to fool people? Because God doesn't exist or is imperfect? What if He/She exists then?
You stated that the purpose of religion was to guide and help people. Traditionally, this is supported by "God decrees it". Since you stated that religion was just a tool that could be used right however, I assumed that God was not a necessary part of it: If God does exist, fine. If he doesn't, we can spread the teachings of the religion anyway, since it's a good message. If this is the case, then it's really the message in itself that's good, and God just a story used to convince people of the usefulness of the teachings. Whether he exists or not becomes irrelevant.
I might have misunderstood you there, but that was how I interpreted your original sentence about religion being a tool.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Your whole premise is flawed since you never considered the purpose. Why did God create man as man presently is? That is the real question.
No, all-caring was included in the argument, and that would lead to a purpose. If that's so, then God would want to spare us needless suffering. Which he has not done.
Eh no. Man was created and he leads his life as he wishes. Suffering is the consequence of man's actions. That's all there is to really, at least in my opinion. You'll understand better when I explain further.
If he is not all-good but all-powerful, then he created the whole world knowing we and all forms of life in it would suffer greatly (murder, war, betrayal, physical pain, etc.) when he could have avoided it entirely.
Since he is all-powerful, what purpose could he possibly give us? A test doesn't make any sense, since he will know from the start whether we (his creations) can complete the test or not. Anything that depends on us doing something for him cannot be the reason we exist, since he, as the all-powerful creator, will know from the start whether we can perform said task or not.
Religion is not about what makes God happy or not. I thought I already made myself clear on that. It's a way of life- a discipline. A test(or game as I would rather call it) makes all the sense in the world if you consider free will. Some may reach the goal faster than others and there are many paths to reach that goal.
What you are referring as an all-powerful creator, I call it the Source whereby all life forms have originated. The presence of man on Earth is his own choice and he has simply forgotten how to get back to the Source. You get beings throughout our history that know where they've come from and seek to remind us of our origin and that's what we've come to call as gods. That's also how there happens to be so many religions with varying approaches.
Worship of that god or Source would presumably help us find our way back.
God created man because man wanted to.
That's my take on the matter anyway.
If he is all-good but not all-powerful, then he cannot have created us. True, he could still be here and try to make our lives better, and since he's not all-powerful he might be restricted in great ways with what he can do. What what kind of God is he then?
If he's neither, then he might well have created us, but there would be no difference between him and an alien with immense technological capabilities.
But alright, suppose the purpose we were created for is some nebulous concept that cannot be grasped by a human mind. Even if such a purpose exist, it is a purpose for God, not for us. How does the theoretical existance of such a purpose provide any basis for human worship?
In all of these cases in fact, the questions is what basis this provides for a religion, and for practiced worship of the deity.
The basis of religion is to provide a discipline to reach the goal. But like I said there are many paths to that.
You forgot the pie. I'll take it you didn't get the idea. At all.
I believe I did.
In this case, mom is god, and the pie could be considered the world I guess, or anything a human desires.
Your argument is that the mother cannot be held responsible for the actions of her child, since she specifically told him not to eat more than one piece of the pie. Which seems reasonable enough.
The problem with the analogy, which is why I also didn't mention the pie, is that the mother is not perfect, and did not create her child in the same sense that God would create man. She raises her child under imperfect circumstances and with imperfect knowledge. The child is also an entity of it's own, which is why the blame here can be placed on the child.
Consider then a computer program. If you create a computer program, and it doesn't do what you've designed it to, then it is entirely your fault and not the program. Free will is the counter-argument to this, which brings us back to the point I made above about god being either all-powerful or all-good.
You've added too much to my simple analogy. The knowledge that the mother based her advice on was perfect. She knows how much the child should eat and how much the brat shouldn't.
Whatever ensued is nobody but the child's fault since the choice was his. You could blame the pie for making you sick (people readily attributing everything to uncontrollable desires) or you could blame the mother for cooking the pie in the first place (blaming the Source for creating something you might have used well).
Simple as that.
All-powerful and all-good god has been explained above.
How did you get to the last part? About religion helping to fool people? Because God doesn't exist or is imperfect? What if He/She exists then?
You stated that the purpose of religion was to guide and help people. Traditionally, this is supported by "God decrees it". Since you stated that religion was just a tool that could be used right however, I assumed that God was not a necessary part of it: If God does exist, fine. If he doesn't, we can spread the teachings of the religion anyway, since it's a good message. If this is the case, then it's really the message in itself that's good, and God just a story used to convince people of the usefulness of the teachings. Whether he exists or not becomes irrelevant.
Religion without god or gods is no religion at all. Your assumption was unfounded since I specifically said that the goal of religion is God or the Source.
Religion is a tool because I don't think it is the only way back, plus there are numerous examples of how much shit religions around the world had direct implications in because some dumbasses wrongly used it; further impressing on the concept of it being a tool or means to achieve something.
That's about it.
Eh no. Man was created and he leads his life as he wishes. Suffering is the consequence of man's actions. That's all there is to really, at least in my opinion. You'll understand better when I explain further.
Alright, I mistakenly assumed you were arguing for something akin to an Abrahamic god, which doesn't seem to be the case. It makes most of the rest of my post irrelevant to the subject. Let me see if I understand you correctly then.
You are saying that we have a free will and that God, or the Source, is not all-powerful. There is a goal to be reached in life, and it is up to us humans as individuals with free will to reach that goal ourselves as best we can. All life comes from the Source, though no one knows of this. Originally, man was part of this source, however for some reason we wanted to live on Earth. Some beings however remember, and they try to lead us back to it. I assume Buddha, Jesus and similar would fall into this category, yes? Religion is the teaching that tells people how to reach the goal, that is to return. People are also fully autonomous: the child taking the pie is fully responsible for his own actions.
There are a lot of assumptions here, both that you do and that I have to make. This source is a very nebulous concept which you don't specify any further. You refer to it both as a place and as an equivalent to the highest god. What is it and how do you know it exists? Also, the statement that we all come from there seems very specific. Which would also require some sort of knowledge in order to explain that. And what do you mean when you say that we all came from there? Do you mean that humans dropped down on Earth one day, did life come from there, or is consciousness from there? Is it compatible with a universe several billion years old, or does it require a radically younger earth?
As for the goal, religions tell us what this goal is it appears. This takes us to the central question of credibility. If, as it seems, many religions can take us to the same goal, but through different paths, then it becomes important to determine whether a religion is true (i.e led by a being who realizes we've come from the Source) or false (just a fraud). How then do we determine this? And if we can't, how will people actually what to do? Or worse yet, how can one know that not all religions are frauds?
Religion without god or gods is no religion at all. Your assumption was unfounded since I specifically said that the goal of religion is God or the Source.
You can hardly blame me for not understanding what you meant when you only just mentioned the Source in your latest post.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
What is it and how do you know it exists? Also, the statement that we all come from there seems very specific.
It is very specific indeed. What is it and how it exists are irrelevant unless you want to plunge back into the debate of God's existence which you pointed out earlier as not being within the context of this discussion.
My own philosophy and concept can be seen as nothing more than a mere hypothesis taking in a large amount of variables to rationalize the world and its ways but to each his own.
Trying to go back to the beginning like you are trying to do is equivalent to asking-
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Never mind God or man's origins, here's a question that screws everybody over. So you'll understand why I find it futile to test my 'hypothesis' in this manner.
As for the goal, religions tell us what this goal is it appears. This takes us to the central question of credibility. If, as it seems, many religions can take us to the same goal, but through different paths, then it becomes important to determine whether a religion is true (i.e led by a being who realizes we've come from the Source) or false (just a fraud). How then do we determine this? And if we can't, how will people actually what to do? Or worse yet, how can one know that not all religions are frauds?
Man has feelings and he has faith. In other words he has the capacity to tell who's the fraud and who isn't. No doubt this will be a nebulous concept again for you but I can explain no further alas. Actually I can but I would find it infinitely boring to go into a discussion of what is good and what is bad.
Religion without god or gods is no religion at all. Your assumption was unfounded since I specifically said that the goal of religion is God or the Source.
You can hardly blame me for not understanding what you meant when you only just mentioned the Source in your latest post.
I actually said way earlier that the goal of religions is God(my first post replying to Equi), which is why I pointed out your assumption was unfounded.
It is very specific indeed. What is it and how it exists are irrelevant unless you want to plunge back into the debate of God's existence which you pointed out earlier as not being within the context of this discussion.
My own philosophy and concept can be seen as nothing more than a mere hypothesis taking in a large amount of variables to rationalize the world and its ways but to each his own.
It is not necessarily irrelevant. Let us for the moment assume that the Source does exists. That still does not explain how man came from there, what part we are of it, and why we want/should return to it and what that actually entails. All central questions here if I want to understand your point of view.
Trying to go back to the beginning like you are trying to do is equivalent to asking-
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Never mind God or man's origins, here's a question that screws everybody over. So you'll understand why I find it futile to test my 'hypothesis' in this manner.
On a personal level sure. But if you're arguing against someone elses opinion on the matter, you will have to explain how it all comes together, or explain how the point is irrelevant to the argument. Otherwise it's impossible for me to understand what you mean, and it renders your own arguments against any other viewpoint difficult to understand, since everyone else has no idea of what you're basing your retorts on.
In my mind, you've established that there is some form of connection between man and the Source, and that man wants to return there, however you give no more indication of what this means. Either you know what it is yet have not told me, in which case there's information here relevant to the argument, or you don't know what the connection is, in which case it must be irrelevant to the point you're making. This does not appear to be the case however.
Man has feelings and he has faith. In other words he has the capacity to tell who's the fraud and who isn't. No doubt this will be a nebulous concept again for you but I can explain no further alas. Actually I can but I would find it infinitely boring to go into a discussion of what is good and what is bad.
Anything that anyone has ever believed to be a religion has by definition been a religion then? Christianity, Hinduism, norse mythos, greek mythos, even cargoism must thus all be valid religions. Since the only method by which we can determine the truthfulnes of a religion lies in people's own perception of it, any religion with believers must thus be a true path towards the goal. It should also be impossible to create a fraudulent religion for the sake for acquiring fame, wealth or personal worship, since people will obviously see through the sham.
If this is true, then one must accept that even crazed and obscure cults present just as valid a path towards this goal, provides that someone believes in them. Since the human being can believe in most anything it seems, any path could fill this role. How then does religion perform any function, or help people, if any path will ultimately work?
If this is not true, then mans feelings and faith are not enough and there must be some other measure to judge a religion by. Otherwise, you know that other people can be wrong in their perceptions, even though they think they're right, and so you could be subject to the same exact problem: you could believe you were right when in fact you are not. The only way to determine this is by some other source of knowledge through which we can compare separate religions and beliefs by.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
It is not necessarily irrelevant. Let us for the moment assume that the Source does exists. That still does not explain how man came from there, what part we are of it, and why we want/should return to it and what that actually entails. All central questions here if I want to understand your point of view.
Alright I'll do you a favor and put it into words. Mind you, words have their own limitations(a good example being the second part of your post where you've gone completely off track) but I'll give it a go anyway.
Life or man's existence is essentially a game. For simplicity's sake, let's refer to the Source as a collective consciousness. Man(?) originated as a thought within that consciousness.
Now that thought was not instantaneous. As it shaped itself, the universe was created and Earth came to be and lifeforms appeared and eventually man(I still think we came from monkeys) got into the picture.Why I think man is the central figure here is because he's the animal that pretty much rules the Earth. Whether he is the culminating point though of that thought, I wouldn't know. I'm looking at the present.
Why we would want to return is the reason we decided to play that game in the first place. To find our way back despite the prevailing conditions.
Am not sure if I properly expressed myself there but the way it's laid out in my mind makes perfect sense.
It should also be impossible to create a fraudulent religion for the sake for acquiring fame, wealth or personal worship, since people will obviously see through the sham.
Now Phrozen, you are just being silly, really. I said man had the capacity to tell the difference. Not that he'll always do so.
If this is true, then one must accept that even crazed and obscure cults present just as valid a path towards this goal, provides that someone believes in them. Since the human being can believe in most anything it seems, any path could fill this role. How then does religion perform any function, or help people, if any path will ultimately work?
If this is not true, then mans feelings and faith are not enough and there must be some other measure to judge a religion by. Otherwise, you know that other people can be wrong in their perceptions, even though they think they're right, and so you could be subject to the same exact problem: you could believe you were right when in fact you are not. The only way to determine this is by some other source of knowledge through which we can compare separate religions and beliefs by.
A path that works grants you rewards. Anything varying from peace of mind, acceptance, healing powers to the increased ability to manipulate people. Yep, even the last one is a 'reward' depending on the path you've chosen. In other words, you level up. You can discern this by meeting higher-level people than you, an almost palpable difference that cannot be mistaken and the reasons whereby I think why Jesus and Buddha were considered such awesomesauce.
Am not sure which religion said it(having myself read a bit of everything), but there was a note on the 'dark' path whereby rewards come faster and are more easily discernible but where it is very easy to stagnate and revel in your newly acquired power instead of moving forwards(towards the Source).
Hope I have answered some of your questions. :sorcerer:
If this is true, then one must accept that even crazed and obscure cults present just as valid a path towards this goal, provides that someone believes in them. Since the human being can believe in most anything it seems, any path could fill this role. How then does religion perform any function, or help people, if any path will ultimately work?
If this is not true, then mans feelings and faith are not enough and there must be some other measure to judge a religion by. Otherwise, you know that other people can be wrong in their perceptions, even though they think they're right, and so you could be subject to the same exact problem: you could believe you were right when in fact you are not. The only way to determine this is by some other source of knowledge through which we can compare separate religions and beliefs by.
What do you mean some other measure to judge a religion by? Do we judge a religion by mans feelings and faith? If so then how do we determine wether it fails or not? lets say that we do that by looking at the religion's teachings and writings first, and then on the outcome or "result" of this specific religion on humanity. This some other source of knowledge which we can use to compare religions by, sounds like a bad idea to me. Does it really matter who is right and who is not? you present "not being right" as a problem and that is wrong in my opinion. People always created conflicts because of "right and wrong", it is the worst thing that we could ever do and we keep doing it (humanity as a whole). Judging by these ideas, we could say that alot of the religions we know of today have failed.
I personally believe that judging wont help. Its about the individual, and if the individual of some group lives a peaceful life without haarming the other life forms around him. He could never be wrong. Then comes being productive and creative which are the "tools" that we can use to evolve. So basically if you decide to worship the tree in your backyard and you live just like the average christian lets say, you are as right and as good as him. And if there is a "goal" both of you will reach it.
Am not sure if I properly expressed myself there but the way it's laid out in my mind makes perfect sense.
I think I understand you better. Essentially what you're proposing is is a very specific version of a deistic "being" that existed prior to time began, and which still exists. I am intrigued however as to how you've come to the conclusion that this is how you believe everything works.
Now Phrozen, you are just being silly, really. I said man had the capacity to tell the difference. Not that he'll always do so.
If the only two tools with which we can judge a religions truthfulness by are feelings and faith, then if those two are not near perfect we can't really be said to even have the capacity at all now can we? One person will swear on his life that religion A is the right one, and another that religon A is definitely not the right one. How do we get past that? And if we can't, then we really don't have the ability to judge whether a religion, or in this case some sort of prophet, really is a god or not.
You can discern this by meeting higher-level people than you, an almost palpable difference that cannot be mistaken and the reasons whereby I think why Jesus and Buddha were considered such awesomesauce.
Take this for example, I'd call them merely charismatic. And that's exactly my point. If we only have our own feelings as a compass, how do we know we're not being fooled?
I am getting a little confused here though. Once again it seems as if you're saying that any path will work. Where do gods and religions fit into this then?
What do you mean some other measure to judge a religion by? Do we judge a religion by mans feelings and faith? If so then how do we determine wether it fails or not? lets say that we do that by looking at the religion's teachings and writings first, and then on the outcome or "result" of this specific religion on humanity. This some other source of knowledge which we can use to compare religions by, sounds like a bad idea to me. Does it really matter who is right and who is not? you present "not being right" as a problem and that is wrong in my opinion. People always created conflicts because of "right and wrong", it is the worst thing that we could ever do and we keep doing it (humanity as a whole). Judging by these ideas, we could say that alot of the religions we know of today have failed.
Mind you Jamoose that the argument was meant under the premise that all religions are a path means to reach the Source as laid out by Nekrodrac.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
If the only two tools with which we can judge a religions truthfulness by are feelings and faith, then if those two are not near perfect we can't really be said to even have the capacity at all now can we?
You've forgotten the rewards Phrozen- the leveling up part which can serve as a means for self-evaluation. But let us verily ignore them for a moment.
You seem to have gotten confused by something quite simple. You can have the capacity to eat 10 pies (pie again) in a row but you do not do it everyday. The capacity to do something does in no way entail an automatic course of action to justify that capacity in all instances. There needs to be conditions to be fulfilled for you to demonstrate that capacity- such as fasting a day before or not drinking any water when eating or similar factors.
A simpler example would be that you have the capacity to see different colors but with sunglasses on, you won't be able to, though your capacity has remain unchanged.
Back to our topic, man has his feelings and faith to guide him but these have to be-
(a)perfect or near-perfect(like you said)
(b)the dominant factor in the decision process.
And no, (a) does not have (B) accounted for, due to man having a plethora of feelings that can affect his decisions(in relation to the example above, it will be the different conditions not met).
I am getting a little confused here though. Once again it seems as if you're saying that any path will work. Where do gods and religions fit into this then?
Well you'll remain confused if you think that God is that level 99 char with uber gear, infinite life and omniscience and omnipotence skillz. Because the presence of such a being would mean a completely meaningless life whereby everything is premeditated and fate is inevitable. Free will is not a choice in this setting since each and every single one of your actions are known beforehand.
But I say that man is responsible for every bit of shit that he causes.
Obviously you can just disbelieve in God to keep things even simpler but so many things remain unexplained and life is just as pointless as the one with the omnipotent and omniscient God, if not even more so.
Just ask yourself- what is your purpose here on Earth? If you are truly happy with the answer, then thumbs up for you my good sir.
I know I'm happy with mine.
PS: I can't believe you asked me that question about gods and religions after all I'll have barked about.
Religions represent known paths or at least the knowledge of one. A path is good as long as it brings you towards the Source.
Edit- I can't remove that silly 'cool' emoticon. There's b in brackets there.
My only question for everyone here is, how do you know you are right? Show me absolute proof that there is, or isn't a god.
that is the one reason i'm neither religious nor atheist. i'm agnostic
everyone can see indications of the existance of God or things that say otherwise but for now there is no absolute proof and it comes down to what we think. I'd rather keep my mind open for now
If there is never proof (which there never will be) for one way or the other, are you okay with living your life without taking a stance on either side? Let's say God exists, and let's say it's the Christian God, are you okay with the way you believe as compared to if he didn't exist?
If he doesn't exist you're line of thinking doesn't really matter in an eternal since, but if he does, then it does.
Since no one knows, why not just live by what God wants, just in case he is real. Except a 'just in case' attitude isn't what God wants either...
If there is never proof (which there never will be) for one way or the other, are you okay with living your life without taking a stance on either side? Let's say God exists, and let's say it's the Christian God, are you okay with the way you believe as compared to if he didn't exist?
If he doesn't exist you're line of thinking doesn't really matter in an eternal since, but if he does, then it does.
Since no one knows, why not just live by what God wants, just in case he is real. Except a 'just in case' attitude isn't what God wants either...
Just wondering
A just-in-case attitude/belief won't cut if for society. Humans are driven by their desire, improvement, whatnot, a just-in-case aspect shows willing submission and most people won't simply accept that, one of the reasons why Christianity is controversial because it wants its followers to be submissive (you must believe in one God, the only God, the one true God, the Christian God).
And even the Christian God did exist I would happily live in Hell knowing I did not submit to a God whose concept of compassion is that of absenty to his followers.
The problem with believing "Just In Case" is because the Christian deity will know if your believing just to be safe. And what if it's the Buddhist deity? Or a Wiccan deity? Or a Shinto Deity? What if you believed in the Jesus "Just In Case" and it turned out that Jesus was a lie and Kami is pissed at you?
The way I figure it is, I'm a good person. If whatever deity is upset that I didn't worship him, ignoring the good things I've done, then he doesn't deserve to be worshiped. If he is glad that I was a good person, then it didn't matter. And if he didn't exist, I was a good person and my memory and honor will still be there.
Since no one knows, why not just live by what God wants, just in case he is real. Except a 'just in case' attitude isn't what God wants either...
Because even if we knew god existed we'd never know how to follow him because there are so many religions out there.
Also because even if we knew god existed we have 0 obligation to follow him and if he is to request of us anything via fear of punishment he's just a dick. It's honorable human nature to fight and oppose such a dick, it's cowardly to bend down to such a dick out of fear, which is pretty much what Christianity is all about these days.
I try to judge the world and my actions in it by the most basic things possible. Some Christianity lines up with it, some does not at all.
So many religions out there... Well, if you're gonna argue against a religion, argue against it, not just argue that since there are so many religions this one is very unlikely to be right. I can do the same with science theories...
Well, if he created you then you have all the obligation to follow him. He the big boss, El presidente. He'll let you do whatever you want, but, if after knowing what he wants and expects from you and you don't do it, it's your own fault you wind up burning.
So many religions out there... Well, if you're gonna argue against a religion, argue against it, not just argue that since there are so many religions this one is very unlikely to be right. I can do the same with science theories...
Please do.
Just know that you'll probably fail since theories have been tested several times and are unlikely to be as weak as religious fairy tales that require faith more than anything else.
Well, if he created you then you have all the obligation to follow him. He the big boss, El presidente. He'll let you do whatever you want, but, if after knowing what he wants and expects from you and you don't do it, it's your own fault you wind up burning.
Obligation? Own fault?
It's quite easy to understand why religions are regarded as obsolete if they produce such thinking.
El presidente can go suck it as far I'm concerned.
Man walking with dinosaurs theory vs. Man didn't walk with dinosaur theory... There is evidence for both of those, backed with science, and are completely opposites of each other.
Yes, obligation. If God exists (the christian God) then you have an obligation. Because if God exists, then you're a sinner who had someone die for your sins. You have an obligation to follow God and not reject his son he gave for you.
Dude. If you go kill someone who's fault is that? God's? Yeah-no. You made the choice. If I give you a knife and you kill my mom, is it my fault my mom died?
Man walking with dinosaurs theory vs. Man didn't walk with dinosaur theory... There is evidence for both of those, backed with science, and are completely opposites of each other.
Yes, obligation. If God exists (the christian God) then you have an obligation. Because if God exists, then you're a sinner who had someone die for your sins. You have an obligation to follow God and not reject his son he gave for you.
Dude. If you go kill someone who's fault is that? God's? Yeah-no. You made the choice. If I give you a knife and you kill my mom, is it my fault my mom died?
Woah, hold the phone. If the Christian God exists then automatically I sinned? So if Christian God exists then new born babies sin with no say? Or are you talking about future sin? If so then where does Catholicism/Christianity emphasis on free will come to play? Obviously I sinned by just existing and that makes me bad [insert sarcasm].
As for having someone die for my sins, I had no say in Jesus' death I guarantee you that even my ancestors had no say. Come to think of, I'd say that during around Jesus' time around 95% of the world had no idea who Jesus was and didn't have any say on his death.
And according to my Christian/Catholic knowledge, didn't Lucifer (now Satan) bet God in saying he can turn humans to his side and at the end of the world he will have more believer/followers in him than God? If this is indeed true then the concept of 'Christian sin' is played by on a bet by God and Satan?
Wow, no. You willingly sin, not automatically. The bible teaches that 'original sin' is not right and that sin is not passed on, for example, your dad's sins are not passed to you. You only sin when you make the choice to. God knows at some point everyone will sin, not that he forces us, just that we will give in to our selfish desires.
Actually you did have a say in Jesus' death since he died for your sins. Jesus wouldn't have had to had died for humanity if mankind would have never sinned out of their own free will. So Jesus died for you, you had a say in it, you just refuse to think that your sin should be connected to his death.
DOn't know much about Catholicism and am not going to argue in it's favor because they hare hypocritical and wrong in their doctrines. And God and Satan never made a bet, lol that's an absurd thing to say. When Jesus was tempted he refuted Satan with doctrine and by saying you don't tempt God (because he was God in the flesh). This bet things... seriously, why do you make up stuff that you don't even know is true then role with it?
No, all-caring was included in the argument, and that would lead to a purpose. If that's so, then God would want to spare us needless suffering. Which he has not done.
Once again, that leads me back the original point. He is either not all-powerful, or not all-good.
If he is not all-good but all-powerful, then he created the whole world knowing we and all forms of life in it would suffer greatly (murder, war, betrayal, physical pain, etc.) when he could have avoided it entirely. Since he is all-powerful, what purpose could he possibly give us? A test doesn't make any sense, since he will know from the start whether we (his creations) can complete the test or not. Anything that depends on us doing something for him cannot be the reason we exist, since he, as the all-powerful creator, will know from the start whether we can perform said task or not.
If he is all-good but not all-powerful, then he cannot have created us. True, he could still be here and try to make our lives better, and since he's not all-powerful he might be restricted in great ways with what he can do. What what kind of God is he then?
If he's neither, then he might well have created us, but there would be no difference between him and an alien with immense technological capabilities.
But alright, suppose the purpose we were created for is some nebulous concept that cannot be grasped by a human mind. Even if such a purpose exist, it is a purpose for God, not for us. How does the theoretical existance of such a purpose provide any basis for human worship?
In all of these cases in fact, the questions is what basis this provides for a religion, and for practiced worship of the deity.
I believe I did.
In this case, mom is god, and the pie could be considered the world I guess, or anything a human desires.
Your argument is that the mother cannot be held responsible for the actions of her child, since she specifically told him not to eat more than one piece of the pie. Which seems reasonable enough.
The problem with the analogy, which is why I also didn't mention the pie, is that the mother is not perfect, and did not create her child in the same sense that God would create man. She raises her child under imperfect circumstances and with imperfect knowledge. The child is also an entity of it's own, which is why the blame here can be placed on the child.
Consider then a computer program. If you create a computer program, and it doesn't do what you've designed it to, then it is entirely your fault and not the program. Free will is the counter-argument to this, which brings us back to the point I made above about god being either all-powerful or all-good.
You stated that the purpose of religion was to guide and help people. Traditionally, this is supported by "God decrees it". Since you stated that religion was just a tool that could be used right however, I assumed that God was not a necessary part of it: If God does exist, fine. If he doesn't, we can spread the teachings of the religion anyway, since it's a good message. If this is the case, then it's really the message in itself that's good, and God just a story used to convince people of the usefulness of the teachings. Whether he exists or not becomes irrelevant.
I might have misunderstood you there, but that was how I interpreted your original sentence about religion being a tool.
Religion is not about what makes God happy or not. I thought I already made myself clear on that. It's a way of life- a discipline. A test(or game as I would rather call it) makes all the sense in the world if you consider free will. Some may reach the goal faster than others and there are many paths to reach that goal.
What you are referring as an all-powerful creator, I call it the Source whereby all life forms have originated. The presence of man on Earth is his own choice and he has simply forgotten how to get back to the Source. You get beings throughout our history that know where they've come from and seek to remind us of our origin and that's what we've come to call as gods. That's also how there happens to be so many religions with varying approaches.
Worship of that god or Source would presumably help us find our way back.
God created man because man wanted to.
That's my take on the matter anyway.
The basis of religion is to provide a discipline to reach the goal. But like I said there are many paths to that.
You've added too much to my simple analogy. The knowledge that the mother based her advice on was perfect. She knows how much the child should eat and how much the brat shouldn't.
Whatever ensued is nobody but the child's fault since the choice was his. You could blame the pie for making you sick (people readily attributing everything to uncontrollable desires) or you could blame the mother for cooking the pie in the first place (blaming the Source for creating something you might have used well).
Simple as that.
All-powerful and all-good god has been explained above.
Religion without god or gods is no religion at all. Your assumption was unfounded since I specifically said that the goal of religion is God or the Source.
Religion is a tool because I don't think it is the only way back, plus there are numerous examples of how much shit religions around the world had direct implications in because some dumbasses wrongly used it; further impressing on the concept of it being a tool or means to achieve something.
That's about it.
You are saying that we have a free will and that God, or the Source, is not all-powerful. There is a goal to be reached in life, and it is up to us humans as individuals with free will to reach that goal ourselves as best we can. All life comes from the Source, though no one knows of this. Originally, man was part of this source, however for some reason we wanted to live on Earth. Some beings however remember, and they try to lead us back to it. I assume Buddha, Jesus and similar would fall into this category, yes? Religion is the teaching that tells people how to reach the goal, that is to return. People are also fully autonomous: the child taking the pie is fully responsible for his own actions.
There are a lot of assumptions here, both that you do and that I have to make. This source is a very nebulous concept which you don't specify any further. You refer to it both as a place and as an equivalent to the highest god. What is it and how do you know it exists? Also, the statement that we all come from there seems very specific. Which would also require some sort of knowledge in order to explain that. And what do you mean when you say that we all came from there? Do you mean that humans dropped down on Earth one day, did life come from there, or is consciousness from there? Is it compatible with a universe several billion years old, or does it require a radically younger earth?
As for the goal, religions tell us what this goal is it appears. This takes us to the central question of credibility. If, as it seems, many religions can take us to the same goal, but through different paths, then it becomes important to determine whether a religion is true (i.e led by a being who realizes we've come from the Source) or false (just a fraud). How then do we determine this? And if we can't, how will people actually what to do? Or worse yet, how can one know that not all religions are frauds?
You can hardly blame me for not understanding what you meant when you only just mentioned the Source in your latest post.
My own philosophy and concept can be seen as nothing more than a mere hypothesis taking in a large amount of variables to rationalize the world and its ways but to each his own.
Trying to go back to the beginning like you are trying to do is equivalent to asking-
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Never mind God or man's origins, here's a question that screws everybody over. So you'll understand why I find it futile to test my 'hypothesis' in this manner.
Man has feelings and he has faith. In other words he has the capacity to tell who's the fraud and who isn't. No doubt this will be a nebulous concept again for you but I can explain no further alas. Actually I can but I would find it infinitely boring to go into a discussion of what is good and what is bad.
I actually said way earlier that the goal of religions is God(my first post replying to Equi), which is why I pointed out your assumption was unfounded.
On a personal level sure. But if you're arguing against someone elses opinion on the matter, you will have to explain how it all comes together, or explain how the point is irrelevant to the argument. Otherwise it's impossible for me to understand what you mean, and it renders your own arguments against any other viewpoint difficult to understand, since everyone else has no idea of what you're basing your retorts on.
In my mind, you've established that there is some form of connection between man and the Source, and that man wants to return there, however you give no more indication of what this means. Either you know what it is yet have not told me, in which case there's information here relevant to the argument, or you don't know what the connection is, in which case it must be irrelevant to the point you're making. This does not appear to be the case however.
Anything that anyone has ever believed to be a religion has by definition been a religion then? Christianity, Hinduism, norse mythos, greek mythos, even cargoism must thus all be valid religions. Since the only method by which we can determine the truthfulnes of a religion lies in people's own perception of it, any religion with believers must thus be a true path towards the goal. It should also be impossible to create a fraudulent religion for the sake for acquiring fame, wealth or personal worship, since people will obviously see through the sham.
If this is true, then one must accept that even crazed and obscure cults present just as valid a path towards this goal, provides that someone believes in them. Since the human being can believe in most anything it seems, any path could fill this role. How then does religion perform any function, or help people, if any path will ultimately work?
If this is not true, then mans feelings and faith are not enough and there must be some other measure to judge a religion by. Otherwise, you know that other people can be wrong in their perceptions, even though they think they're right, and so you could be subject to the same exact problem: you could believe you were right when in fact you are not. The only way to determine this is by some other source of knowledge through which we can compare separate religions and beliefs by.
Life or man's existence is essentially a game. For simplicity's sake, let's refer to the Source as a collective consciousness. Man(?) originated as a thought within that consciousness.
Now that thought was not instantaneous. As it shaped itself, the universe was created and Earth came to be and lifeforms appeared and eventually man(I still think we came from monkeys) got into the picture.Why I think man is the central figure here is because he's the animal that pretty much rules the Earth. Whether he is the culminating point though of that thought, I wouldn't know. I'm looking at the present.
Why we would want to return is the reason we decided to play that game in the first place. To find our way back despite the prevailing conditions.
Am not sure if I properly expressed myself there but the way it's laid out in my mind makes perfect sense.
Now Phrozen, you are just being silly, really. I said man had the capacity to tell the difference. Not that he'll always do so.
A path that works grants you rewards. Anything varying from peace of mind, acceptance, healing powers to the increased ability to manipulate people. Yep, even the last one is a 'reward' depending on the path you've chosen. In other words, you level up. You can discern this by meeting higher-level people than you, an almost palpable difference that cannot be mistaken and the reasons whereby I think why Jesus and Buddha were considered such awesomesauce.
Am not sure which religion said it(having myself read a bit of everything), but there was a note on the 'dark' path whereby rewards come faster and are more easily discernible but where it is very easy to stagnate and revel in your newly acquired power instead of moving forwards(towards the Source).
Hope I have answered some of your questions. :sorcerer:
What do you mean some other measure to judge a religion by? Do we judge a religion by mans feelings and faith? If so then how do we determine wether it fails or not? lets say that we do that by looking at the religion's teachings and writings first, and then on the outcome or "result" of this specific religion on humanity. This some other source of knowledge which we can use to compare religions by, sounds like a bad idea to me. Does it really matter who is right and who is not? you present "not being right" as a problem and that is wrong in my opinion. People always created conflicts because of "right and wrong", it is the worst thing that we could ever do and we keep doing it (humanity as a whole). Judging by these ideas, we could say that alot of the religions we know of today have failed.
I personally believe that judging wont help. Its about the individual, and if the individual of some group lives a peaceful life without haarming the other life forms around him. He could never be wrong. Then comes being productive and creative which are the "tools" that we can use to evolve. So basically if you decide to worship the tree in your backyard and you live just like the average christian lets say, you are as right and as good as him. And if there is a "goal" both of you will reach it.
If the only two tools with which we can judge a religions truthfulness by are feelings and faith, then if those two are not near perfect we can't really be said to even have the capacity at all now can we? One person will swear on his life that religion A is the right one, and another that religon A is definitely not the right one. How do we get past that? And if we can't, then we really don't have the ability to judge whether a religion, or in this case some sort of prophet, really is a god or not.
Take this for example, I'd call them merely charismatic. And that's exactly my point. If we only have our own feelings as a compass, how do we know we're not being fooled?
I am getting a little confused here though. Once again it seems as if you're saying that any path will work. Where do gods and religions fit into this then?
Mind you Jamoose that the argument was meant under the premise that all religions are a path means to reach the Source as laid out by Nekrodrac.
You seem to have gotten confused by something quite simple. You can have the capacity to eat 10 pies (pie again) in a row but you do not do it everyday. The capacity to do something does in no way entail an automatic course of action to justify that capacity in all instances. There needs to be conditions to be fulfilled for you to demonstrate that capacity- such as fasting a day before or not drinking any water when eating or similar factors.
A simpler example would be that you have the capacity to see different colors but with sunglasses on, you won't be able to, though your capacity has remain unchanged.
Back to our topic, man has his feelings and faith to guide him but these have to be-
(a)perfect or near-perfect(like you said)
(b)the dominant factor in the decision process.
And no, (a) does not have (B) accounted for, due to man having a plethora of feelings that can affect his decisions(in relation to the example above, it will be the different conditions not met).
I agree. They had godly charisma.
Well you'll remain confused if you think that God is that level 99 char with uber gear, infinite life and omniscience and omnipotence skillz. Because the presence of such a being would mean a completely meaningless life whereby everything is premeditated and fate is inevitable. Free will is not a choice in this setting since each and every single one of your actions are known beforehand.
But I say that man is responsible for every bit of shit that he causes.
Obviously you can just disbelieve in God to keep things even simpler but so many things remain unexplained and life is just as pointless as the one with the omnipotent and omniscient God, if not even more so.
Just ask yourself- what is your purpose here on Earth? If you are truly happy with the answer, then thumbs up for you my good sir.
I know I'm happy with mine.
PS: I can't believe you asked me that question about gods and religions after all I'll have barked about.
Religions represent known paths or at least the knowledge of one. A path is good as long as it brings you towards the Source.
Edit- I can't remove that silly 'cool' emoticon. There's b in brackets there.
that is the one reason i'm neither religious nor atheist. i'm agnostic
everyone can see indications of the existance of God or things that say otherwise but for now there is no absolute proof and it comes down to what we think. I'd rather keep my mind open for now
If he doesn't exist you're line of thinking doesn't really matter in an eternal since, but if he does, then it does.
Since no one knows, why not just live by what God wants, just in case he is real. Except a 'just in case' attitude isn't what God wants either...
Just wondering
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
A just-in-case attitude/belief won't cut if for society. Humans are driven by their desire, improvement, whatnot, a just-in-case aspect shows willing submission and most people won't simply accept that, one of the reasons why Christianity is controversial because it wants its followers to be submissive (you must believe in one God, the only God, the one true God, the Christian God).
And even the Christian God did exist I would happily live in Hell knowing I did not submit to a God whose concept of compassion is that of absenty to his followers.
The way I figure it is, I'm a good person. If whatever deity is upset that I didn't worship him, ignoring the good things I've done, then he doesn't deserve to be worshiped. If he is glad that I was a good person, then it didn't matter. And if he didn't exist, I was a good person and my memory and honor will still be there.
Also because even if we knew god existed we have 0 obligation to follow him and if he is to request of us anything via fear of punishment he's just a dick. It's honorable human nature to fight and oppose such a dick, it's cowardly to bend down to such a dick out of fear, which is pretty much what Christianity is all about these days.
I try to judge the world and my actions in it by the most basic things possible. Some Christianity lines up with it, some does not at all.
Well, if he created you then you have all the obligation to follow him. He the big boss, El presidente. He'll let you do whatever you want, but, if after knowing what he wants and expects from you and you don't do it, it's your own fault you wind up burning.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
Just know that you'll probably fail since theories have been tested several times and are unlikely to be as weak as religious fairy tales that require faith more than anything else.
Obligation? Own fault?
It's quite easy to understand why religions are regarded as obsolete if they produce such thinking.
El presidente can go suck it as far I'm concerned.
Yes, obligation. If God exists (the christian God) then you have an obligation. Because if God exists, then you're a sinner who had someone die for your sins. You have an obligation to follow God and not reject his son he gave for you.
Dude. If you go kill someone who's fault is that? God's? Yeah-no. You made the choice. If I give you a knife and you kill my mom, is it my fault my mom died?
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
Woah, hold the phone. If the Christian God exists then automatically I sinned? So if Christian God exists then new born babies sin with no say? Or are you talking about future sin? If so then where does Catholicism/Christianity emphasis on free will come to play? Obviously I sinned by just existing and that makes me bad [insert sarcasm].
As for having someone die for my sins, I had no say in Jesus' death I guarantee you that even my ancestors had no say. Come to think of, I'd say that during around Jesus' time around 95% of the world had no idea who Jesus was and didn't have any say on his death.
And according to my Christian/Catholic knowledge, didn't Lucifer (now Satan) bet God in saying he can turn humans to his side and at the end of the world he will have more believer/followers in him than God? If this is indeed true then the concept of 'Christian sin' is played by on a bet by God and Satan?
Actually you did have a say in Jesus' death since he died for your sins. Jesus wouldn't have had to had died for humanity if mankind would have never sinned out of their own free will. So Jesus died for you, you had a say in it, you just refuse to think that your sin should be connected to his death.
DOn't know much about Catholicism and am not going to argue in it's favor because they hare hypocritical and wrong in their doctrines. And God and Satan never made a bet, lol that's an absurd thing to say. When Jesus was tempted he refuted Satan with doctrine and by saying you don't tempt God (because he was God in the flesh). This bet things... seriously, why do you make up stuff that you don't even know is true then role with it?
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep