What does religion DO?

[Hapsburg]

Because the other two things he mentioned (moral and economic control) are so vague, I'll respond to this part:

Religion is all about...subversion of females.

You mean besides the various religions that affirm equality of the sexes and have roles of authority for females alongside males?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grim_Reaper,

Jan I suggest a remedial reading comprehension course for you if you fail to understand what I am saying.

What makes you think i don't understand what you,re saying?

You are doing the same thing to every poster that does not agree with you.

Doing what?

And you were right you cannot carry on an intelligent non biased discussion

So i'm only right on things you deem right?

...as like I said you have been deluded as I once was the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you will be.

Your problem is, you cannot explain yourself, and retreat to your safety
zone, pretending to have tried to reason with me, then throwing you arms up.
What points you have raised are weak cliches.

And yes it is a scary thought that everything you have believed in for so long is in fact a pipe dream.

Why is it a pipe dream?

Just step back and look around you compare your thoughts about religion and God to every one else and I do mean every one else's including all the cults that are part of the same delusion you will see that every single one of them and I mean every single one will have the same idea's towards a supreme being.

And what idea is that?

And what makes them different from any main stream religion at the root and no difference is what you will find.

See above.

jan.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Here is some proof for you it is called inbreeding if as the bible states we came from a single man and a single woman that means that woman had to have sex with her offspring in order to profligate the species and the off spring HAD to have sex with each other and so on and so forth that is called inbreeding and the link below explains that. Enjoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Any objective data.

Cop out.

Wrong again.

Doubt it.

How about eye witnesses?
Observable effects?

Are you prepared to believe eye witness accounts? Why?
Observable effect like what?

Hardly.
Subjective is rarely evidence.

So when you stated eyewitness account as evidence
you didn't mean it?

Anyway you said;

Something that can be shown to subjectively exist. That can be independently verified. Post 133

Was that a massive typo, or something?

Greedy pig happens to be a human perspective.

Most likely from humans who have first hand experience of pigs.

Because, as previously stated, Jesus is only one aspect of religion.

Elementary mathematics is only one aspect of mathematics.

Because it's not how it reads to me.
You explained YOUR personal take on it.

Seeing as I gave an explanation of my personal take on it,
I was wondering if you give an explanation of yours.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Cop out.

You mean it's a cop-out because there isn't any objective data?

Doubt it.

It doesn't matter whether you doubt or not.

Are you prepared to believe eye witness accounts? Why?

Depends on the event/ duration. Most probably not unless they were repeated. Because eye witness accounts are generally unreliable.

Observable effect like what?

Repeatable, testable events.

So when you stated eyewitness account as evidence you didn't mean it?

Repeatable.

Anyway you said;
Was that a massive typo, or something?

Um, which part of "independently verified" did you not get?

Most likely from humans who have first hand experience of pigs.

It's still merely a human perception, not necessarily the actual case.

Elementary mathematics is only one aspect of mathematics.

So?
Jesus is not religion. What Jesus did (if he actually existed) is not what religion does.

Seeing as I gave an explanation of my personal take on it,
I was wondering if you give an explanation of yours.

I thought it was obvious: the "bad guys" are burnt. I indicated that directly after the quote.

 

[wynn]

Bottomline: The idea of eternal damnation is present in our culture. Since the threat is about something serious, it behooves to take it seriously.

As you are affected by the thoughts and perceptions of others, this cannot be resolved by religious dialougue.

What do you mean? How is it to be resolved?

Basing a counterargument on a poor translation of the Bible does seem a bit lighthearted, as the threat of eternal damnation is as serious as anything can get, so one would hope for a better counterargument, a good philosophical one at least.

Would it make any real difference?

I would hope so. At the end of the day, it is logic that can (with some effort) trump everything else in my mind.
I am not saying though that this is the best solution, it sometimes takes me hours to get my marbles back into the bowl, so to speak.

Would it allow you to understand that it doesn't matter what he, or she, says?

Well, by way of an elaborate interaction of logic and practice, I conclude that it is probably best to trust (particular) scriptures, at which point what people say would be put into context as provided by that scriptures, and after that, it probably wouldn't bother me so much what people say.
(This is what actually tend to happen, it does take some time and effort. Sometimes, I have to write out whole dialogues to resolve an internal or actual conflict.)

Folks don't seem to differentiate between God, and man.
They don't seem realise there is a difference between matter and spirit.

And this shows in the way they present theistic (supposedly theistic) doctrines?

In the example I gave, did you notice that the reaction was due to the action?
Do you think the pain you would have felt was a fair reaction?
Do you think you would have learned a lesson from that action and reaction?

I haven't thought of it like that, thank you.

My first reaction is to answer Yes to the first and No to the second, and Maybe to the last.

Upon second thought, I am finding it hard to imagine the actual situation that your questions envision, as far as hell is concerned.
I imagine that if I really loved God, but then somehow betrayed Him, I think I would deem the consequences of that betrayal (hell or at least samsara) to be fair. I imagine hell as a place or state of heightened consciousness and intense suffering.
Whereas without love for God, I imagine hell and samsara just seem absurd.

Threats and damage don't seem to work on me very well. I may change my behavior because of them (so it looks like I have learned the lesson). But I am suspicious of of everything I have "learned" under threat or damage, because that knowledge is blunt and impersonal somehow.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

You mean it's a cop-out because there isn't any objective data?

No, your reluctance to give clarification on what you regard
as "objective date" given the subject matter.

Depends on the event/ duration. Most probably not unless they were repeated. Because eye witness accounts are generally unreliable.

What do you mean by "event"?
Why would it have to be repeated

Repeatable, testable events.

Such as?
And what would convince you that it was God, and not
some trick, or force of nature (previously unknown)?

So when you stated eyewitness account as evidence you didn't mean it?

Repeatable.

Are you a parrot?
I thought part of the modern atheist characteristic was the ability to
think for themself.

Ucm, which part of e"independently verified" did you not get?

Sorry, I thought that was one of your fillers.
Okay. Independantly verified by whom?
Who do you think is capable or qualified to confirm the existence of God?
And why do you think they are?

It's still merely a human perception, not necessarily the actual case.

If you're not prepared to accept the word of those who know about pigs firsthand, what is your criterea for establishing knowledge in general?

So?

Elementary mathematics is non different to mathematics, it's just a question
of advancement

Jesus is not religion. What Jesus did (if he actually existed) is not what religion does.

That's a silly observation.
And why did you state "if he actually existed", why wouldn't he exist??

I thought it was obvious: the "bad guys" are burnt. I indicated that directly after the quote.

Well its quite clearly not obvious, which is why I asked you to
explain your reasoning.
Can you please explain your reasoning, so we can see what you see?

Thank you in advance.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, your reluctance to give clarification on what you regard as "objective date" given the subject matter.
What do you mean by "event"?

Something that couldn't accounted for by science: i.e. evidence that it was "god" that did it.

Why would it have to be repeated

Because a one-off event is reliant on whatever was noted at the time, and people are unreliable as to what actually happened.

Such as?
And what would convince you that it was God, and not some trick, or force of nature (previously unknown)?

How about the Earth standing still in orbit?

Are you a parrot?
I thought part of the modern atheist characteristic was the ability to think for themself.

Since you seem not to get the point the first time I state it it requires iteration.

Okay. Independantly verified by whom?
Who do you think is capable or qualified to confirm the existence of God?
And why do you think they are?

Not the existence of god AS god but the details of the event that couldn't be anything else.
By whom? Enough separate detailed verifiable accounts.

If you're not prepared to accept the word of those who know about pigs firsthand, what is your criterea for establishing knowledge in general?

So now you're claiming it's a noted and confirmed actuality?
Hmm, much like the phrase "sweating like a pig", perhaps.

Elementary mathematics is non different to mathematics, it's just a question of advancement

Strawman.
Or maybe I can claim that churches are also an aspect of religion and draw comparisons along the lines of "religion is made of stone and has spires and illuminated windows".

That's a silly observation.

Considering that you seem to think that what Jesus did (or is purported to have done) somehow conflates to what religion did/ does it's needed saying.

And why did you state "if he actually existed", why wouldn't he exist??

Why wouldn't he?
There is next to no evidence that Jesus actually existed as a real person.

Well its quite clearly not obvious, which is why I asked you to
explain your reasoning.
Can you please explain your reasoning, so we can see what you see?

John 15:6 (KJV) "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
Nothing in there at all about waiting until they've died naturally before burning them (cremation).
Regardless, you're focussing on ONE quote instead of the subject: Believe or suffer.

 

[Doreen]

Something that couldn't accounted for by science: i.e. evidence that it was "god" that did it.

Well, we do have evidence that cannot be accounted for by science. Or science would be finished.

How about the Earth standing still in orbit?

You mean if it didn't kill you? Really, you could not, over time, be convinced to a significant degree, by less dramatic experiences? And how would you know?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

What do you mean? How is it to be resolved?

It appears that even though you are aware that no scriptoral injuction
claims that you will not be damned to hell purely for the act of not believing
in God, the claims of Christians continue to disrupt that awareness.
As for how it can be resolved, I really don't know, as it is something that is
personal to you.

I haven't thought of it like that, thank you.
My first reaction is to answer Yes to the first and No to the second, and Maybe to the last.

This is how nature works. There is no discrimination, you act in a certain way, you get a reaction. Transgression, is about going against the law of
nature, as everything we do, is met with a subsequent reaction. The point of
religion is to act in such a way, as to reduce transgressions, to give us the oppotunity to develop understanding of God, by removing anxieties that allow
us to act in negative ways. From there we can have a clear concience, and mind, the two ingredients necessary for high thinking.

Of course this is not as easy as it sounds, because it has to be real. There must be a transformation (born again).

Upon second thought, I am finding it hard to imagine the actual situation that your questions envision, as far as hell is concerned.

If we work of the principle that nature is indescriminate, and works strictly
according to the principle, 'to every action there is an opposite and equal reaction'. Then I guess we can assume everybody and everthing is in the exact situation it is meant to be. And as we act, the future is always set accordingly. That being the case, if we suddenly become aware that we are in hell, then our concuousness will be attuned to that condition, so in effect the reality will be there, as it is now.

We suddenly become aware at an early age, that we are actually alive.
We didn't question our existence, or how we came to be, we just accepted
it.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well, we do have evidence that cannot be accounted for by science. Or science would be finished.

Pfft yes.
My apologies, it's been a bad day.
Something that directly contradicts science would be a better phrase.

You mean if it didn't kill you?

Well if it killed us all then it wouldn't really be "observable" would it.
(Yeah, quibble about the wording, you know what I mean).

Really, you could not, over time, be convinced to a significant degree, by less dramatic experiences?

Depends on the event/ experiences.
And yes there very probably are less dramatic ways of "doing it".

And how would you know?

Know what? That we're standing still in orbit?
Hmm, Sun not moving perhaps? Everything else moving faster than it should?

 

[Doreen]

Pfft yes.
My apologies, it's been a bad day.
Something that directly contradicts science would be a better phrase.

Well, that happens too. Unless you mean contradicts the scientific method of gaining knowledge.

But current scientific knowledge has challenges. Not everything fits together perfectly or is accounted for. There are still anomalies. This does not mean 'science is wrong'.

But maybe you could give me an example of what would contradict science?

To put it another way the results of the double slit experiment contradicted science, at the time. Then they fussed and thought and mulled and came up with new theories. Not that the smoke has settled from that one.

Know what? That we're standing still in orbit?

No, I meant how would you know what would convince you.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Unless you mean contradicts the scientific method of gaining knowledge.

No I meant directly contravenes known science.

But maybe you could give me an example of what would contradict science?

Ice cubes forming in boiling water - consistently and repeatedly, perhaps (it's smaller/ less obviously spectacular than the Earth standing still, too).

No, I meant how would you know what would convince you.

Ha! Nice one. Having had a few of my previous convictions, um, "re-arranged" for me recently I think I'll just have to say that's a far more subtle question than I can do justice to at the moment. (Don't take that as a cop-out, so much as a "That deserves far more thought than I'm capable of at the moment. But I'll certainly make an effort, and a mental note, to get back to that. Definitely worthy of a thread or two on its own, methinks).

 

[Doreen]

No I meant directly contravenes known science.

This implies you think that all phenomena currently fit current theory. I doubt this is the case. I assume scientists are still trying to fit some phenomena in with theory, adjust theory, put forward new theory to cover trouble spots, things that do not fit, etc.. I mean if we look back in the history of science we would instances where phenomena contravened then current knowledge and after some period of time adjustments were made, some huge.

Ha! Nice one. Having had a few of my previous convictions, um, "re-arranged" for me recently I think I'll just have to say that's a far more subtle question than I can do justice to at the moment. (Don't take that as a cop-out, so much as a "That deserves far more thought than I'm capable of at the moment. But I'll certainly make an effort, and a mental note, to get back to that. Definitely worthy of a thread or two on its own, methinks).

I respect that answer. And you are right, at least as far as it is a tangent. I think people believe things that work - or seem to - rather than always trying to do some kind of double blind test or other control based testing. I mean who wants to wait around? Who has the resources? Who doesn't appeal to authority, at least as far as themselves, on some issues - diet, politics, psychology, social behavior, etc.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This implies you think that all phenomena currently fit current theory. I doubt this is the case. I assume scientists are still trying to fit some phenomena in with theory, adjust theory, put forward new theory to cover trouble spots, things that do not fit, etc..

Is there not a difference between "doesn't fit" and "directly contravenes"?
Science indicates (effectively states?) that some things are simply not possible.

 

[Doreen]

Is there not a difference between "doesn't fit" and "directly contravenes"?
Science indicates (effectively states?) that some things are simply not possible.

Sure. But some things fit so poorly they revised theory. The indivisible atom.
I think entanglement presented problems for locality, also. As a couple of examples off the top of my head. I am sure there are examples from other fields. Stuff has been directly contravening all along. This is one of the ways scientific knowledge evolves. Scientific knowledge was not 100% correct in the past. Has it reached that stage now?

I believe as late as the 50s steady state theories of the universe predominated. Evidence has since pointed to a beginning of the universe (and time itself) as odd as that is for everyone but very open minded creationists - sorry for the oxymoron, but I had to get the irony in there.

It was considered impossible for the behavior (life experiences) of a parent to be passed on genetically to children and grandchildren. This was universally dismissed as Lamarkism. The field of epigenetics has grown up around cases that directly contravene this dismissal, albeit not in the way Lamark suggested. The grandmother who smokes when pregnant affects her granddaughter's traits.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Something that couldn't accounted for by science: i.e. evidence that it was "god" that did it.

For us to percieve such an account, would mean that it is in accordance with nature, and as such science would analyze all the natural events that surrounded the account. Much like it does with human origins.

Because a one-off event is reliant on whatever was noted at the time, and people are unreliable as to what actually happened.

Do you believe the multiple accounts of the apparitions of Mary (Jesus' mother)?

How about the Earth standing still in orbit?

Like I said, science would look for answers in the natural effects that would occur after, before, and during, such an event.
What else could it do?

Not the existence of god AS god but the details of the event that couldn't be anything else.

You obviously haven't thought this through properly.
For reasons I've already stated.

By whom? Enough separate detailed verifiable accounts.

You mean people or organisation, where people are qualified, and equipt to
make the diagnosis?
What kind of people or organisations would these be, and what would their
qualifications have to entail?

So now you're claiming it's a noted and confirmed actuality?
Hmm, much like the phrase "sweating like a pig", perhaps.

In my experience there is usually truth in these sayings. But fair enough,
I'm not gonna dwell on that, as it's not important.

Strawman.
Or maybe I can claim that churches are also an aspect of religion and draw comparisons along the lines of "religion is made of stone and has spires and illuminated windows".

Actually churches are an aspect of religion, as are mosques, synagogues, and temples. They are usually built to special specification, in service to God.

John 15:6 (KJV) "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
Nothing in there at all about waiting until they've died naturally before burning them (cremation).
Regardless, you're focussing on ONE quote instead of the subject: Believe or suffer.

Is he talking about the branches being cast into the fire
or people who don't abide in him?

Are you seeing the whole quote as a metaphor, or are you being selective?

jan.

 

[Lori_7]

Here is some proof for you it is called inbreeding if as the bible states we came from a single man and a single woman that means that woman had to have sex with her offspring in order to profligate the species and the off spring HAD to have sex with each other and so on and so forth that is called inbreeding and the link below explains that. Enjoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

adam and eve's sons took wives.

 

[LColburn86]

Whats the big deal about them marrying thier relatives? They are SO many things in the Bible that are more taboo than that. The Bible also says that Adam and Eve were over 900 years old by the time them died. A lot of people try to say that the time they measured in was not years but that does not account for the time spans of people closer to present who were only 90 when they died and have several children. Either they were 900 or the people who had several children were 2 or 3 years old. Just not an important fact, especially considering the Bible never directly says they were direct relative. Just that Cain left the land, and when He arrived in at the new place He married a woman who was from there.

 

[wynn]

It appears that even though you are aware that no scriptoral injuction
claims that you will not be damned to hell purely for the act of not believing
in God, the claims of Christians continue to disrupt that awareness.
As for how it can be resolved, I really don't know, as it is something that is
personal to you.

That "not" is redundant?

And I don't think it is merely personal, it is part of our culture. Millions of people believe that eternal damnation is the fair punishment for not believing in God as the Christians direct; and the Christian rendition of the Bible is the source for this.

Whether this is scriptural or not is by now beside the point. The idea became firmly a part of our culture and has some relevance in it.

This is how nature works. There is no discrimination, you act in a certain way, you get a reaction. Transgression, is about going against the law of
nature, as everything we do, is met with a subsequent reaction. The point of
religion is to act in such a way, as to reduce transgressions, to give us the oppotunity to develop understanding of God, by removing anxieties that allow
us to act in negative ways. From there we can have a clear concience, and mind, the two ingredients necessary for high thinking.

Of course this is not as easy as it sounds, because it has to be real. There must be a transformation (born again).

If we work of the principle that nature is indescriminate, and works strictly
according to the principle, 'to every action there is an opposite and equal reaction'. Then I guess we can assume everybody and everthing is in the exact situation it is meant to be. And as we act, the future is always set accordingly. That being the case, if we suddenly become aware that we are in hell, then our concuousness will be attuned to that condition, so in effect the reality will be there, as it is now.

Would you say that a stay in hell removes anxieties?

We suddenly become aware at an early age, that we are actually alive.
We didn't question our existence, or how we came to be, we just accepted
it.

I distinctly remember that moment, I was about four years old or so (I still had quite a big head), as I intently looked into the mirror, and wondered "What is this? How is this?" We had a big mirror in the hallway, and I often loked into it, up close.