God - do you believe?

[Jamie's left hand]

You seem to be challenging scriptural literalism, which is a bit different than knowing whether or not there is a God.

Now, saying there is a God doesn't actually buy people much, as it isn't proof the rest of us can rely on. That's why the truth is incommunicable.

You seem to be championing secularism, which actually is the best way to do things whether or not there are gods.

I think it is okay to offend people's religion as much as it is okay to offend people's political views

For example i detest the Republicans which isn't too bad but if i was to detest Religious beliefs that's secularism

[Larry of the Lawn]

If only 'lost' was real - still taking flights to try and find that island

I tried but couldn't find Oceanic airlines. Just gonna have to sit here and drink my Dharma beer, pondering the existence of man in relation to his Creator Jacob.

[polishgenius]

Oh my that was a joke next time i will put brackets telling you

It wasn't though, was it. It was you backpedalling furiously because what you thought was a topic that would give you a handy place to sneer condescendingly at the dunderhead religious has led you to being intellectually outmaneuvered by every person who's looked at it on both sides of the fence.

So if the Church got disestablished, you'd be happier with it? Not that it will happen while the Queen is alive - by all accounts, she feels very strongly about her role as Defender of the Faith. And the new Archbishop of Canterbury is from the evangelical wing of the church as well, so that's not making me any more sympathetic towards it.

I'd be happier with it, yeah, most definitely. I wouldn't necessarily leap at it with open arms, but it'd definitely catch my attention.

Could always have been there

Why is that in any way more acceptable than 'something/someone created it'?

[Ser Greguh]

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough, I meant that we shouldn't say God is fake or God is real, because some people are very sensitive to these topics, we should stick to saying I believe he's fake or I believe he's real etc.

What if I'm very sensitive to the topic of being told I can't point out what is, to me, an excruciatingly obvious lie?

[Jamie's left hand]

For the purpose of our discussion, please don't assume that God is fake or real. This discussion is based on beliefs not truth. This is after all, a very touchy subject

If only it was based on truths :(

[TheMysteriousOne]

What if I'm very sensitive to the topic of being told I can't point out what is, to me, an excruciatingly obvious lie?

Well, I don't know what to say to that. I don't want to limit anyone's views or what they believe or what they want to say. Its just that religion is a very touchy subject. I mean this whole discussion, which has been good so far, could turn out to be very aggressive if we start saying that God is fake or God is real.

[Jamie's left hand]

Steady State theory? That's been pretty much discredited.

As discredited as god?

But both cannot be unproven - it's just an idea

[ljkeane]

My big problem with the latter is the Queen- in generaI think a centralised leadership is important and when it centers on the Queen, however symbolic the connection is now, it doesn't sit right with me.

I think it's all complete nonsense but as centralised leadership, symbolic or otherwise, goes the Queen seems preferable to the current Pope to me.

[Sci-2]

I think it is okay to offend people's religion as much as it is okay to offend people's political views

For example i detest the Republicans which isn't too bad but if i was to detest Religious beliefs that's secularism

Uh, I'm not talking about being offensive or inoffensive. (Note my Dr. Mengele reference on page 1.)

I'm talking about secularism as an ideal for how society should be run. Given our current understanding of the universe, it's better for society to be secular even if there is a God.

You seem to be starting out with a position -> God is fake -> which is fine. But trying to prove or disprove this is a pointless subject. What you seem to be saying is that since no one can prove God, making laws in accordance with His/Her/Its/Their will is pointless.

[Ser Greguh]

Well, I don't know what to say to that. I don't want to limit anyone's views or what they believe or what they want to say. Its just that religion is a very touchy subject. I mean this whole discussion, which has been good so far, could turn out to be very aggressive if we start saying that God is fake or God is real.

I'm just pointing out the flawed nature of using the fact that people get worked up about something as a legitimate metric to constrain a debate. With that rule in place, I could choose to get worked up about anything I wanted to and thus constrain the rules of any discussion as I saw fit. I would say it is rather the onus of those that would participate in such a discussion not to do so if they can't avoid getting aggressive. "This offends me" is not a workable trump card with which to win a disagreement.

[Prince of the North]

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this has already been addressed but here's a little food for thought from W. I. Thomas that I think is pertinent:

"If we believe something to be real then it is real in its consequences."

;)

[Maltaran]

As discredited as god?

But both cannot be unproven - it's just an idea

Steady State can be proved false, inasmuch as the observable evidence points to a finite universe beginning with a Big Bang. The existence of a deity is an untestable hypothesis, and therefore bad science.

[Jamie's left hand]

It wasn't though, was it. It was you backpedalling furiously because what you thought was a topic that would give you a handy place to sneer condescendingly at the dunderhead religious has led you to being intellectually outmaneuvered by every person who's looked at it on both sides of the fence.

Right i originally stated i said god (singular) because i didn't expect there to many Muslims or Hindu's or people of other religions on this forum. Mostly because it is an American group and the vast majority of Americans are Christians, Jew's, Catholic's etc believing in one god.

I then said 'might be against their religion' as is homosexuality, drinking, drugs and converting. As well as a huge variety of books which are anti islam etc - since ASOIAF is not i did not genuinely believe it was 'against their religion'

Why is that in any way more acceptable than 'something/someone created it'?

It's a scientific theory not involving magic

[Jamie's left hand]

I tried but couldn't find Oceanic airlines. Just gonna have to sit here and drink my Dharma beer, pondering the existence of man in relation to his Creator Jacob.

The man in black won that battle

My fav character was Eko, closely followed by Des - i'm glad GOT has filled the hole left by Lost.

[Jamie's left hand]

Uh, I'm not talking about being offensive or inoffensive. (Note my Dr. Mengele reference on page 1.)

I'm talking about secularism as an ideal for how society should be run. Given our current understanding of the universe, it's better for society to be secular even if there is a God.

Yes, obviously that would be a much better way for society to be run. Hopefully in my lifetime it will happen. Although on my deathbed i will pleading for the existence of a god

[Jamie's left hand]

It wasn't though, was it. It was you backpedalling furiously because what you thought was a topic that would give you a handy place to sneer condescendingly at the dunderhead religious has led you to being intellectually outmaneuvered by every person who's looked at it on both sides of the fence.

Right i originally stated i said god (singular) because i didn't expect there to many Muslims or Hindu's or people of other religions on this forum. Mostly because it is an American group and the vast majority of Americans are Christians, Jew's, Catholic's etc believing in one god.

I then said 'might be against their religion' as is homosexuality, drinking, drugs and converting. As well as a huge variety of books which are anti islam etc - since ASOIAF is not i did not genuinely believe it was 'against their religion'

[Jamie's left hand]

Right i originally stated i said god (singular) because i didn't expect there to many Muslims or Hindu's or people of other religions on this forum. Mostly because it is an American group and the vast majority of Americans are Christians, Jew's, Catholic's etc believing in one god.

I then said 'might be against their religion' as is homosexuality, drinking, drugs and converting. As well as a huge variety of books which are anti islam etc - since ASOIAF is not i did not genuinely believe it was 'against their religion'

Meaning at a joke

[TerraPrime]

What I'd most like is for the Catholic church to change. I see signs of it, especially knowing the Catholics of my generation. If our mindset keeps up, and carries through on a wider scale, it's going to be difficult for leadership positions to remain as they are in the next few decades.

Vatican II was not, far as I can tell, a bottoms-up movement for change. And that was your last reform. I suppose the RCC moves at its own speed, but I certainly wouldn't bet on seeing things like ordination of women, relenting on contraceptives or divorces, or stepping back from anti-gay rhetorics, for as long as I live (so, next 40 to 50 years).

But I still maintain that there are so many flavors of Christianity out there that it's not very convincing to read that you can't find something that can convince you to abandon it. I mean, if your point is you'd prefer to stay Catholic and hope that it changes, then fine. It's your call. But to say that you can't find a good alternate? That just doesn't ring true to my ears.

[Fiddler]

Honestly? I don't know.

On one hand I want to believe in some form of soul and an afterlife. Mainly because I would like to think my loved ones who have passed are happy somewhere and I have a crushing fear of what happens when one dies.

On the other hand its easy to see a lot of issues with different religions to be comfortable believing in god.

I have seen some things over my 36 years that I have never been able to explain. Some good and some bad. So its hard to really put down my belief and say this is what I believe in.

As to the idea that its a waste of peoples lives to believe, I don't understand that opinion. Why is it a waste? How are we to determine that they are wasting their lives?

A quick story:

My mother was not a "religious" person. While she went to church when I was young, it was never an every week thing or something that was ever mentioned much. She believed in god, but wasn't overt about it. It was just something she believed in and left it at that.

My mom was diagnosed with Leukemia when I was 26. It was a very difficult time for her. She had to spend 6 months in a hospital. She went through several rounds of chemo. Multitudes of painful tests. Indignities that people shouldn't have to go through. Extreme pain that nothing would stop.

Through it all, the one comfort she had besides her family, was her religion. She started reading her bible more. She started speaking to a pastor from our home town. She was able to make peace with her situation and be more comfortable with the horrors that were going on around her.

When it was finally determined that the bone marrow transplant wasn't enough to save her, she was at peace and comforted by the thought of her loving god waiting for her. When she finally passed it was with a calmness that helped my family deal with lossing her in a small way.

In the end, whether I believe in god or not, the belief that my mother had was a good thing. So, while I do believe religion has been used as an excuse to do horrible things throughout history, its also helped to do great acts of kindness and we can't just condemn all religions without thinking of the greatness that has arose from it at one time or another.

Besides, in my experience, people are going to do horrible things for a multitude of reasons and if religions never were around i am sure people would just find other reasons to persecute others.

To sum up my long and winding post:

I don't know what to believe, but have no problem if you want to believe or not. If you have faith and believe and it brings meaning to your life, who am I to judge?

[sologdin]

Why did we stop talking about mushrooms?

no idea. but i can fix it, and loop it back through the marxist reading of religion, raised, supra, by our kindly interlocutor.

herr marx wrote, famously, in full context:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

(contribution to a critique of hegel's philosophy of right, "introduction" (1844) emphasis original).

herr marx also wrote, much less famously:

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

(das kapital, I, "afterword" (1873)).

accordingly the secret gnosis of marxism is the following syllogism:

1 - the holy empire is controlled by fungal deities.

2 - religious adherence in the holy empire to the fungal deities constitutes illusory happiness.

ergo: the holy empire must be abolished so that true service under the fungal deities might commence.

so that settles quite a few things on my end. the only remaining question is whether the fungal deities are cthulhoid or not.