The Religion Debate Thread

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:56 pm

Jake wrote:Baseless and proofless eh? Well, what do you believe then? Sorry for diverting the topic, but where do you(or anyone who shares your views) think our universe came from?

The universe could have come from anywhere or had any cause. We have absolutely no leads on that sort of question. To start making up random scenarios that could possibly explain things is really kind of pointless in my opinion when any cockamanie theory you could come up with is just as likely as the next.

As for love: altruism helps a social species survive.
DOOM!
User avatar
Tolomus
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:54 pm
Location: UK

Postby Tolomus » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:27 pm

So a jewish person is also a christian then?

OK, that was a stupid comment I made. Sorry.

As to this question about the begginings of the universe, I like to think that it is of course a possibility that it was created by God, but I also think that it could have a more scientific explanation. New, impossible sounding things have been discovered as truth throughout human history, so perhaps in the future the same will hold true for the origins of the universe.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. It is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Only I will remain.
trage
Posts: 887
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:11 pm

Postby trage » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:36 pm

Ok obviously many of the scientific theories out there are wrong because they rely on the fact that there has to be another universe before this. Such as the big bang theory, and yes being Christian means you believe that Jesus was god's son and that he died for our sins, and about how religion has kill more people than science. That is BS. Ok what created the weapons that kill people? I am pretty sure it was science. What is it that started the first simple weapons? I think it was science. Religion has started some wars, but there is no way it killed more people than agrivation. Many of the major wars that were started were not started by religion.
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:42 pm

oh yes, let's all abolish science then. we can go back to hunting and gathering and live until we're 30 if we don't get eaten frist by large animals.
science killing people and religion killing people are two completely different things. science is just the collective advancement of human kind as we increase our knowledge base and understand things better. science is a means to do things.
religion on the other hand is a motive. religion has been the cause of tremendous hatred and senseless violence through history. science has allowed people to kill better, but religion is why they've done it.
DOOM!
User avatar
Tolomus
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:54 pm
Location: UK

Postby Tolomus » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:45 pm

Ok obviously many of the scientific theories out there are wrong because they rely on the fact that there has to be another universe before this. Such as the big bang theory

Yes, but what I am saying is that it may be incomprehensible to people now, but in the future there could very easily be an explanation as foreign to us as in the past when it was suggested that the earth was round.

About this science thing, science cannot be blamed for creating the weapons that are used to kill, but rather the people behind them. Many such people are motivated by religion, not all, but many.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. It is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Only I will remain.
User avatar
new.vogue.nightmare
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:55 am
Location: Right behind you. No, really.
Contact:

Postby new.vogue.nightmare » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:50 pm

kroner wrote:oh yes, let's all abolish science then. we can go back to hunting and gathering and live until we're 30 if we don't get eaten frist by large animals.
science killing people and religion killing people are two completely different things. science is just the collective advancement of human kind as we increase our knowledge base and understand things better. science is a means to do things.
religion on the other hand is a motive. religion has been the cause of tremendous hatred and senseless violence through history. science has allowed people to kill better, but religion is why they've done it.


Hatred isn't the only result of religion though. Most religions, with the exception of fanatical sects, attempt to teach their followers to repect one another and to promote peace. They also give hope to their followers, and a sense of meaning to life. Are you saying that Mother Theresa was a hateful killer? Or the Dalai Lama?
Sicofonte wrote:SLURP, SLURP, SLURP...


<Kimidori> esperanto is sooooo sexy^^^^
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:06 am

no, of course i'm not saying that all religions breed hate or that all conflict is the product of religion. the aspects of some relgions that teach peace have positie effects on their followers.
but i also think there is a fundamental contradiction in teaching people understanding and sympathy through a doctrine that essentially says "we are right and you are wrong in our crazy interpretation of the universe".

and buddhism is not a religion!!!
DOOM!
User avatar
new.vogue.nightmare
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:55 am
Location: Right behind you. No, really.
Contact:

Postby new.vogue.nightmare » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:12 am

Actually, it kind of is considered a religion. I think you're thinking of Confucianism. That was more a school of philosophy if anything.
Sicofonte wrote:SLURP, SLURP, SLURP...




<Kimidori> esperanto is sooooo sexy^^^^
west
Posts: 4649
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23 pm

Postby west » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:25 am

Science doesn't kill people. Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people, twisting science or religion to suit their purposes. People use science as a method and religion as an excuse.

I have spoken.
I'm not dead; I'm dormant.
User avatar
new.vogue.nightmare
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:55 am
Location: Right behind you. No, really.
Contact:

Postby new.vogue.nightmare » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:33 am

*starts a religion to |west| and a branch of science devoted to studying him*
Sicofonte wrote:SLURP, SLURP, SLURP...




<Kimidori> esperanto is sooooo sexy^^^^
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:55 am

The hypothesis of vortices is pressed with many difficulties. That every planet by a radius drawn to the sun may describe areas proportional to the times of description, the periodic times of the several parts of the vortices should observe the duplicate proportion of their distances from the sun; but that the periodic times of the planets may obtain the sesquiplicate proportion of their distance from the sun, the periodic times of the parts of the vortex ought to be in the sesquiplicate proportion of their distance. That the smaller vortices may maintain their lesser revolutions about Saturn, Jupiter, and other planets, and swim quietly and undisturbed in the greater vortex of the sun, the periodic times of the parts of the sun’s vortex should be equal; but the rotation of the sun and planets about their axes, which ought to correspond with the motions of their vortices, recede far from all these proportions. The motions of the comets are exceedingly regular, and are governed by the same laws with the motions of the planets, and can by no means be accounted for by the hypothesis of vortices; for comets are carried with very eccentric motions through all parts of the heavens indifferently, with a freedom that is incompatible with the notion of a vortex.

Bodies projected in our air suffer no resistance but from the air. Withdraw the air, as is done in Mr. Boyle's vacuum, and the resistance ceases; for in this void a bit of fine down and a piece of solid gold descend with equal velocity. And the parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the earth's atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws.

The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokratwr , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God1 usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him2 are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

Hitherto we have explained the phænomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes use to do), but according to the quantity, of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances. Gravitation towards the sun is made up out of the gravitations towards the several particles of which the body of the sun is composed; and in receding from the sun decreases accurately in the duplicate proportion of the distances as far as the orb of Saturn, as evidently appears from the quiescence of the aphelions of the plants; nay, and even to the remotest aphelions of the comets; if those aphelions are also quiescent. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phænomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phænomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phænomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.

And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which Spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates.
grayjaket
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:16 am
Location: Kentucky

Postby grayjaket » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:56 am

ephiroll wrote:Basically, I beleive that religon is a refugee for the weakminded and insecure who are unable to deal with life's problems on their own, and lack the ability to be their own master.


The world would be a happier place without any kind of religon, and religon has ALWAYS proved to be wrong when compared to real science. Religon is nothing more then a relic carried over from a more ignorant and superstitious time in human history.
But that's my two cents.


I wouldn't say weakminded, but even I agree with that last bit. We aren't able to deal with life's problems on our own. God helps us out. The world would be a miserable place without religion. Man would still find reason to have wars, only now, millions of people wouldn't have any hope at all. I don't know about you, but I like hope. Which I have. I also have a purpose. That I like. I also have security. That's nice too. Oh, and one more thing. I have no idea where you got the "religion has ALWAYS proved to be wrong wen compared to real science" A guess maybe? I don't know if you knew, but there are things in the Bible that have proved SCIENCE wrong. :)
I just can't stop coming back....
User avatar
Sho
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 4:05 am

Postby Sho » Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:03 am

Eeek. . . Sir Isaac Newton. . . *hides*

@Jake: How does the Bible prove science wrong? The Bible is a book. A book cannot prove anything wrong in and of itself, it can only state arguments. Arguments in and of themselves cannot prove or disprove anything without evidence.

I would have to agree with |west|'s statement. Science is a tool. Nuclear power can be used either to destroy cities or to generate electricity. Science is not inherently good or evil. Similarly, religion means different things to different people. Religions can cause inhumane wars or inspire humanitarian efforts. Religion is not inherently good or evil. Neither are there any inherently good or evil religions. Christianity was a driving force behind the Crusades. It is also behind a large portion of the humanitarian aid in the world today.
User avatar
Sho
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 4:05 am

Postby Sho » Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:08 am

As for Buddhism, it's less like a religion than almost any other religion. First of all, the various sects are so differentiated that they have almost nothing in common. In addition, the part of Buddhism that gets popularized the most is its lessons about lifestyle and thinking, as opposed to most religions, where the first thing is "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" or "There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet" or whatever. This may be because of the differentiation, which has the effect of reducing the core common to all or most Buddhists to those human values.
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:10 am

Since I didn't think people were actually going to look up General Scholium, I thought I would post it for them.

Principia is also good so maybe I should post that too. :twisted:

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest