# Classmates got upset about religious discussion



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

In my sociology class it was pretty funny to hear everyone get upset when the professor said you can't prove that God exists - well, she said it more along the lines of, "Is there any way we can prove of God?". Some of the classmates starting saying the obvious stuff you hear like they can "sense" him... one even said because of the mountains (?).

In response I said, "Your feelings don't prove that God exists. In that case, I can say Buddha, Zeus or my own inner 'senses' can say he doesn't. Btw, which God are you talking about?"

This one older lady sitting by me was like "Oh no, I can't believe we are discussing this!" As if she's offended by someone stating that there is no proof of God, and a few others were visibly shaken by the question.

Lol, I mean, really? Just goes to show you religion is a no-no topic not even educated adults can handle. And it also goes to show how restricted people are by religion and it's dogmatic views; are afraid of thinking for a change. Since when is it wrong to question things? Isn't this how we evolve as a moral society? Religion is like a piece of candy to baby-like adults in which once you take away they start becoming upset.

Religion should be questioned. Why shouldn't it be? Oh yes, because people get butt hurt or offended if their precious God may not exist. Sorry, but I want truth not what I'm told. Faith is no evidence. Having read a book that someone wrote a long time ago is no proof of God. This is no proof of God. 

On the contrary, the teacher said "Can you prove in the Big Bang?". If she asked me personally I would be honest and say I don't have enough research done on the subject to say - unlike religious people who cherry pick the "nice" parts of the bible and forget about the slaughtering of innocent children, slavery, etc, etc. I'll admit what I don't know. I don't know for sure if there is a God but I also can say there is no evidence either.

It bothered me.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

Yeah, that attitude irritates me like crazy. I understand theres a time a place for certain discussions, but there are some people who get offended at the very thought of questioning god or having a religious debate. And only religion has obtained this special status, even with politics your allowed to have discussions and critique other view points especially in a classroom setting. I don't mean to sound condescending, but when I hear people react that way to those kind of questions, it just comes off as insecurity to me. Why else react that way? Why should religion hold special status like that?


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Yes, when I hear people react that way when given other points of views that point to no evidence of God, I think of them as defending not their God but more so of themselves and their feelings.

What is ironic, most controversial things start off this way. When someone is bold enough to go against what the masses think, at first it is scorned, but later in history we call these renegades pioneers of their time. I feel religion is the same way and a part of me thinks it is beginning to fall to truth like other false notions have throughout history.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

bwidger85 said:


> What is ironic, most controversial things start off this way. When someone is bold enough to go against what the masses think, at first it is scorned, but later in history we call these renegades pioneers of their time. I feel religion is the same way and a part of me thinks it is beginning to fall to truth like other false notions have throughout history.


Exactly, and thats another reason why the new atheist movement is important. Another thing, that kind of bothers me is that many people who don't believe in god have adopted the attitude, that religion should just be left alone and not challenged at all in any way. While, I completely agree with not going around preaching to people who aren't interested or trying to shove your message down people's throats, I do think it is important that people write books relating to atheism and that they have these discussions in public forums. Religion is an institution that effects the lives of so many of us, the idea that it shouldn't be challenged at all, is baffling to me. And people don't take this position on anything else.


----------



## Crystalline (Dec 1, 2008)

I count myself lucky to be studying in a very liberal area (SF). I've had three of my four profs this semester openly voice their lack of regard for religion in a non-hostile fashion (one even asked the class to bear with him as he went over Christian subjects in our module as he knew there were a lot of people who would find it annoying). Such a refreshing change from the religion-permeated lectures and activities in my native country. (We did have a crazy creationist woman who was attacking both the prof and our classmates on the subject of secularism/religion in Western civilization and basically chalking the failures of the Roman Catholic Church up to adhering to a "false message"...seriously). We are getting somewhere, it only takes time for the thinking to change. Which is why I agree with The Silent 1's statement about new atheism being crucial.


----------



## Propaganda (Oct 26, 2010)

I am new to my state and school and so far there has very little mention of god in the classes. However, I noticed one thing so far; when there is mention, mostly someone doing a little preach spout, the class becomes really quite. I personally laugh, not loud though.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Propaganda said:


> I am new to my state and school and so far there has very little mention of god in the classes. However, I noticed one thing so far; when there is mention, mostly someone doing a little preach spout, the class becomes really quite. I personally laugh, not loud though.


Yes, religion for the most part at my college is what it is in real life in that people keep it democratic as to not offend anyone.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I don't think it's healthy to not question things. There is so much cruelty in the world because of people never questioning tradition and religion.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

komorikun said:


> I don't think it's healthy to not question things. There is so much cruelty in the world because of people never questioning tradition and religion.


I agree 100%. Lately I've been thinking about participating in ideas that make me feel uncomfortable as it may teach me a new perspective (i.e. listening to people with ideas that offend me more, etc). Really, I don't know why an idea would offend me unless grossly monstrous.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

You're teacher was only half right. You can't prove the existence of an ill-defined concept, but you can prove that an ill-defined concept of God exists. That doesn't really make sense but you get my point.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

kev said:


> You're teacher was only half right. You can't prove the existence of an ill-defined concept, but you can prove that an ill-defined concept of God exists. That doesn't really make sense but you get my point.


Yeah, but does an ill-defined concept prove anything? Not really, unless given enough evidence to support it. To me, an "ill-defined concept" is the same thing as faith in this example, unless I am mistaking your interpretation of what "ill-defined" is.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

bwidger85 said:


> On the contrary, the teacher said "Can you prove in the Big Bang?". If she asked me personally I would be honest and say I don't have enough research done on the subject to say - unlike religious people who cherry pick the "nice" parts of the bible and forget about the slaughtering of innocent children, slavery, etc, etc. I'll admit what I don't know. I don't know for sure if there is a God but I also can say there is no evidence either.
> 
> It bothered me.


Evidence of God can be shown through individual's testimonies. People being healed. God can also change people. Hardened hearts become soft. The bitter become nice.


----------



## Propaganda (Oct 26, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> Evidence of God can be shown through individual's testimonies.


Like how we believed long ago that dragons were real and would consume a ship too close to the edge of the flat world?

Or like how we don't believe people whom seen alien space craft and how we dismiss eye witnesses of Big Foot?

Why is there no (perhaps little) personal testimonies from predominate atheists counties like Japan and Korea?

There is no doubt people feel emotions when thinking about an über daddy (traditional German usage), but to blindly contribute these emotions to a magic undetectable unexplainable presence is unfounded. (harsher word deleted for diplomatic purposes)


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

lol @ "uber daddy"


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

millenniumman75 said:


> Evidence of God can be shown through individual's testimonies. People being healed. God can also change people. Hardened hearts become soft. The bitter become nice.


Testimonies are not measurable evidence. There is no evidence to show God heals anyone. The rest is just wishful thinking.

I heard testimonials that Allah was real. I heard testimonials that big foot was real. That doesn't make it true because there is no evidence.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

You guys are thinking way too hard - trying to explain the universe is like trying to count to infinity - one mississippi two.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

millenniumman75 said:


> You guys are thinking way too hard - trying to explain the universe is like trying to count to infinity - one mississippi two.


Millennimman, with all due respect (because I think your a nice guy), it's a lot better to admit what we don't know then to say we know something that we cannot prove.

Since when was thinking a bad thing?


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I believe God exists.

Do I have any proof that he does? No. But neither can I prove that aliens exist, but I'm sure somewhere out there, some sci fi buff will be disputing that.

Some day we will have it all explained to us. Until then, all we can do is try to learn, and cope with life, and understand what we do know. All that is unknown, we will learn eventually. No point in fighting over it.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

bwidger85 said:


> Millennimman, with all due respect (because I think your a nice guy), it's a lot better to admit what we don't know then to say we know something that we cannot prove.
> 
> Since when was thinking a bad thing?


Faith is just the belief in things unseen. People in this thread make it sound like everything has to be explained. It's like these scientists just can't admit that not everything can be explained.

The spiritual realm is just different, that's all. It's not that easy to explain.



WintersTale said:


> I believe God exists.
> 
> Do I have any proof that he does? No. But neither can I prove that aliens exist, but I'm sure somewhere out there, some sci fi buff will be disputing that.
> 
> Some day we will have it all explained to us. Until then, all we can do is try to learn, and cope with life, and understand what we do know. All that is unknown, we will learn eventually. No point in fighting over it.


This is correct.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Basically, what your saying is that _somethings_ can't be explained and therefor it's true...

Under that premise of thought I can literally say *anything* and it'd be true.

Anything.

That means I can say that my God is the only true God but he is a giant reptile, and under that premise of truth being truthful with no evidence, you would have to agree with me. I can't explain it, so in turn it's true.

If you can't see a problem with this then I don't know what to say. It's cool though. If it makes you feel good then I have no problem with it, but to come on the atheist support forums and debate is to ask for rebuttal.

If religious people really want to keep their faith then my best adivce is to ignore everyone else and continue to believe regardless of what might be shown otherwise, and I'll be fine with that until they come to me preaching to me about something I do not believe. I will not go to the christian part of the forums any longer because I respect that, but while you debate on an atheist support section of the forum, I feel I have the premise to say that God is equal to believing in tacos that rule the world because both cannot be proven. I can say tacos live in the "taco realm" and you'd have to believe me under the premise of no proof. I think God is equal to a spiritual taco....because he is regarding proof under the christian premise.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Now that I think about it though, I should of probably kept my mouth shut in class... the guy really wasn't pushing any beliefs on me... the teacher did repeatedly ask the whole class if they could prove of God, and I think I felt pressured to speak when that happened, but I can't really remember now...

In any case, I'm kind of glad people are allowing debates of religious beliefs more openly on parts of the forums here because it has taught me it really isn't worth the effort to try to convince someone else of your beliefs if they don't push it upon you to. I'll try to remember that as I go through life.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

The Silent 1 said:


> Yeah, that attitude irritates me like crazy. I understand theres a time a place for certain discussions, but there are some people who get offended at the very thought of questioning god or having a religious debate. And only religion has obtained this special status, even with politics your allowed to have discussions and critique other view points especially in a classroom setting. I don't mean to sound condescending, but when I hear people react that way to those kind of questions, it just comes off as insecurity to me. Why else react that way? Why should religion hold special status like that?


Indeed. It annoys me as well, which is why I challenge religion at speak up against it whenever I can.

Everything is open to enquiry and challenge, regardless if people like it of not.

I think theists react the way they do as a challenge on their God is a direct challenge on them, as they personalise their idea of God to match their own ideas and values. Many people don't like being personally challenged.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> What is ironic, most controversial things start off this way. When someone is bold enough to go against what the masses think, at first it is scorned, but later in history we call these renegades pioneers of their time. I feel religion is the same way and a part of me thinks it is beginning to fall to truth like other false notions have throughout history.


Indeed, it's on the way out for sure. Just give it time.

Religious leaders are in fear of atheism as the more atheists there are the less power they have. Atheists were obviously persecuted as heretics and executed by the Catholic church for hundreds of years, and atheists are still jailed and executed in most Muslim countries. Their days are numbered though.

In Europe we had the Enlightenment in the 18th century which was a revolution in leaving the idea of God being the answer to just about everything and the start of the road to atheism becoming the norm.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> Faith is just the belief in things unseen.


Or some could say faith is the belief in things that aren't real as they have no evidence.



> People in this thread make it sound like everything has to be explained. It's like these scientists just can't admit that not everything can be explained.
> 
> The spiritual realm is just different, that's all. It's not that easy to explain


Regardless of if everything can or can not be explained, everything should be open to attempts to explain. We should never stop trying.

Someone giving up simply because they 'don't know' isn't human and a very lazy way of thinking. It's human nature to inquire and expand knowledge through hard work and use of the great mental faculties we have evolved.

People shouldn't just make do with the first archaic story they are told and then refuse to change it despite overwhelming contradictory evidence (for some aspects of belief at least). That's no way to move forward and progress.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

ugh1979 said:


> Or some could say faith is the belief in things that aren't real as they have no evidence.
> 
> Regardless of if everything can or can not be explained, everything should be open to attempts to explain. We should never stop trying.
> 
> ...


We don't "give up"; we just know we don't have to worry about it.

We move forward just like everybody else; it's just a different path.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Faith is just the belief in things unseen. People in this thread make it sound like everything has to be explained. It's like these scientists just can't admit that not everything can be explained.


Actually scientists do admit they can't explain everything, and when they come to that realization they simply say "I don't know". They may come up with scientific ideas, but contrary to popular beliefs scientists do admit when they don't know something. They don't do as the theists do and say, I can't explain everything so I'll take a leap of faith and say it was god. Honestly I can turn that last statement around and say "Its like these theists just can't say the words, I don't know, so they say god instead.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> We don't "give up"; we just know we don't have to worry about it.
> 
> We move forward just like everybody else; it's just a different path.


Fair enough. I'm glad not everyone thinks this way though otherwise we'd still be living in the medieval times. That was the golden era of religion when 'not worrying about' the big questions was in it's prime.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

The Silent 1 said:


> Actually scientists do admit they can't explain everything, and when they come to that realization they simply say "I don't know". They may come up with scientific ideas, but contrary to popular beliefs scientists do admit when they don't know something. They don't do as the theists do and say, I can't explain everything so I'll take a leap of faith and say it was god. Honestly I can turn that last statement around and say "Its like these theists just can't say the words, I don't know, so they say god instead.


Exactly. God of gaps is a weak cop out answer.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

ugh1979 said:


> Fair enough. I'm glad not everyone thinks this way though otherwise we'd still be living in the medieval times. That was the golden era of religion when 'not worrying about' the big questions was in it's prime.


Well, we certainly wouldn't have to have created the nuclear bomb over it, either.



ugh1979 said:


> Exactly. God of gaps is a weak cop out answer.


No, it's not. It's knowing when there are things we shouldn't have to get into.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> No, it's not. It's knowing when there are things we shouldn't have to get into.


What things shouldn't we have to get into? And why not say "I don't know" rather than assume a god? I feel like people equate faith with being humble, but I disagree. I think its humble to admit we don't have the answers to everything. I think doubt is humble. And I see nothing wrong with wondering if there is perhaps more than we can see in this universe. But faith isn't any of those things, it requires you to believe in a specific answer without evidence, to assume certain things. I understand the people who are wowed by our universe who want to believe it has a greater purpose. I don't think its wrong to ask those questions, but I don't think we should assume certain answers.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> Well, we certainly wouldn't have to have created the nuclear bomb over it, either.


I'm happy for the nuclear bomb to be developed along the way in exchange for the standard of living we now enjoy due to science.



> No, it's not. It's knowing when there are things we shouldn't have to get into.


I don't think anything shouldn't be examined and worked out so it's a God of gaps to me. If you don't fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

The Silent 1 said:


> What things shouldn't we have to get into? And why not say "I don't know" rather than assume a god? I feel like people equate faith with being humble, but I disagree. I think its humble to admit we don't have the answers to everything. I think doubt is humble. And I see nothing wrong with wondering if there is perhaps more than we can see in this universe. But faith isn't any of those things, it requires you to believe in a specific answer without evidence, to assume certain things. I understand the people who are wowed by our universe who want to believe it has a greater purpose. I don't think its wrong to ask those questions, but I don't think we should assume certain answers.


I can also understand the reason theists believe, but I think they aren't seeing the bigger picture, and obviously theists may say the same. So I agree as the previous poster, I agree to disagree. Sometimes that is all you can do.


----------



## Glacial (Jun 16, 2010)

bwidger85;1059575402This one older lady sitting by me was like "Oh no said:


> People should at least be mature enough to discuss religon. If some people in the class are religious, this actually would give them an opportunity to share their reasoning and further enforce their faith.
> 
> *Sorry, messed up quote.


----------



## offbyone (May 5, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> Well, we certainly wouldn't have to have created the nuclear bomb over it, either.
> 
> No, it's not. It's knowing when there are things we shouldn't have to get into.


So, with the supposition that god exists, it is science's fault that the nuclear bomb was created and humans do bad things? I truly never have understood how religious people can excuse god from allowing bad things if he is supposed to be benevolent and all powerful. He's either a big prick, not all powerful, or there is something inconsistent with the thinking.

I know this is a heavily retread area of argument, but it just has never made any sense to me. The common "we cannot know God's intentions" explanation is just such a cop out too because then by the same process you can't know of his benevolence either.

I keep editing this but I guess it just falls down to believers and nonbelievers. I need something tangible for belief. It doesn't have to be 100% conclusive, but it needs to be there, it needs to be repeatable and it needs to be verifiable. If I can't poke at it, either figuratively or literally, I have no reason to trust in it.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Saving Face said:


> People should at least be mature enough to discuss religon. If some people in the class are religious, this actually would give them an opportunity to share their reasoning and further enforce their faith


Or maybe they don't want to discuss religion as they know they won't be able to answer many of the questions that would come up in a debate and therefore be made to look bad?

Ignorance is bliss for many and they don't want to be challenged with or even think about the scientific alternatives which so often contradict their theistic beliefs.


----------



## tyleote (Dec 4, 2011)

Faith is belief in the unseen... How can we believe in the unseen? Well, that's easy guys - our elders pass down their knowledge to us, the young and ignorant generations... it's not really our job to start from scratch trying to de-mystify the world - STAY MYSTIFIED!!!! life is much better lived as an innocent sacrificial pawn, all we can do is try to learn, and cope with life as is and wait until the end of our lives on earth. Remember, if you start to question god you might lose what you are here to do... serve our god in this life so we can be rewarded in the next like we're promised!!! like eternal happiness! answers to all our questions! getting to live with everyone you knew who has died! Streets paved in gold! see? staying mystified and ignorant is good. 

Now why in the world would you chance messing all that up, just to figure out if it was real or not?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

tyleote said:


> Faith is belief in the unseen... How can we believe in the unseen? Well, that's easy guys - our elders pass down their knowledge to us, the young and ignorant generations... it's not really our job to start from scratch trying to de-mystify the world - STAY MYSTIFIED!!!! life is much better lived as an innocent sacrificial pawn, all we can do is try to learn, and cope with life as is and wait until the end of our lives on earth. Remember, if you start to question god you might lose what you are here to do... serve our god in this life so we can be rewarded in the next like we're promised!!! like eternal happiness! answers to all our questions! getting to live with everyone you knew who has died! Streets paved in gold! see? staying mystified and ignorant is good.
> 
> Now why in the world would you chance messing all that up, just to figure out if it was real or not?


"staying mystified and ignorant is good." :lol

The scary thing is many theists are either forced to be that way by their religious government or are gullible enough to believe what their evangelical preacher or whatever has told them.

Unfortunately the truth is beyond most people levels of intelligence so it's easy to understand they will opt for simple stories to explain the universe.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

bwidger85 said:


> Religion is like a piece of candy to baby-like adults in which once you take away they start becoming upset.
> 
> Religion should be questioned. Why shouldn't it be? Oh yes, because people get butt hurt or offended if their precious God may not exist. Sorry, but I want truth not what I'm told. Faith is no evidence. Having read a book that someone wrote a long time ago is no proof of God. This is no proof of God.
> 
> ...


Great to hear that this kind of thing may be what teachers are doing these days. It's healthy in a sense, if discussion is completely open. You hit the nail on the head there with your idea about adults growing up in a culture where any threatening views are rejected outright being a bad thing.



bwidger85 said:


> Yeah, but does an ill-defined concept prove anything? Not really, unless given enough evidence to support it. To me, an "ill-defined concept" is the same thing as faith in this example, unless I am mistaking your interpretation of what "ill-defined" is.


It's a fact that we don't know everything about our lives and what effects we have on the world each day. That's how we can live; we just have to trust our biological and social tools to do things using good guesses.

But the notion we can't all prove science has been right in every scientific study.. now that's a different ballgame and we should never be confusing one statement or notion for another, no matter how similar it seems.

Scientific studies i.e. getting all the detailed basis for modern technology and understanding about space, cannot be theoretically "disproved" with such a vague and broad statement.

Our weakness as humans is we can only use such primitive thinking tools to begin with. From a purely scientific basis, then, it's very plausible we created such notions as the bible and stories in each culture about god(s) to serve a need;

1. direct psychological suitability in humans to worship a figure of social authority or "higher power" that emerged/evolved in us "after we evolved past fish and into apes"

2. since our thinking is limited by vague generalizations the figure of God helps us manage our lives i.e. the modern western world settling for morality as some sort of guide to life. Think about American culture and values. What are the most public messages any country gives to other nations. This is our modern meaning of life.

In the future, robots will rule the world and they will be mankind's successor. It's kind of obvious I'd say, today, but I'm talking as someone who's always kept up with science and technology. So there are a lot of people in the world who haven't, and they will take all of this as a blasphemic blow to their character. Well, what did I say about thinking tools? That's the reality of our modern world. Morality is there because it suits everyone at the same time. It's a position we have conceded towards.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

tyleote said:


> Faith is belief in the unseen... How can we believe in the unseen? Well, that's easy guys - our elders pass down their knowledge to us, the young and ignorant generations... it's not really our job to start from scratch trying to de-mystify the world - STAY MYSTIFIED!!!!


To presuppose on these notions i.e. "our forefathers are right; don't question them or defame them" is an example of social psychology at work.

What happens if we take a human being out of society, then? He isn't at a position where he can so defame his previous generations. Such notions about needing to stay mystified have nothing to do with the meaning of life but the meaning of life within a society that must keep change from happening.

Which such an individual will find, ultimately, meaningless.

Presupposing anything like the above is to deny outright any meaning of life or reality for that matter, and to put above it social values which are just emergent values that have come along with us through biological and social transformations dynamically interacting.

Well, since it can all be explained using psychology, that proves that such fears built into our existences in a social sense, are valid.

But they're old and irrelevant now because humans roam the earth. That they should build our meaning of life is a *new and separate* point of consideration.

So yeah anyway, basically; purely logically based thinking disproves that we should inherently accept such biological factors as a basis for the values system in our society. But of course, none of us no matter how smart, are above everyone else to make such a decision that affects everyone. *And on that basis, we're stuck here forever*, slowly going in circles with our small minded political debates over the same sets of issues, never progressing. Because progress means sacrifice of things in the process of change. None of us are big enough to admit we are flawed as intelligent beings and are completely open to change. Even if we were, it would require everyone to do this at once because we have "democracy"; "human rights" or extreme morality. *Here I present to you the cause for all power based conflict in the world*.

Well, I could probably teach stuff myself heheh.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Unfortunately the truth is beyond most people levels of intelligence so it's easy to understand they will opt for simple stories to explain the universe.


I wouldn't word it like that, I'd say we don't have the resources to educate everyone :yes Religion works beautifully on this basis: the concept of God is a metaphor for the laws of the universe.

But, the world of the bible becomes harmful when it's taken literally. I guess whichever geniuses that wrote it, didn't realize we would become so far away and so near depending on the bible at the same time, in that we have a lot of people near both ends of that scale today.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> I wouldn't word it like that, I'd say we don't have the resources to educate everyone :yes Religion works beautifully on this basis: the concept of God is a metaphor for the laws of the universe


Not everyone has the type of mind that ever thinks about physics and the nature of reality. It doesn't matter how much education you some people, they will still be disinterested in it and choose to believe other simpler explanations.

Especially older people who have the idea of a God's universe so engrained on their minds. It's a lot easier with younger people who have far more open minds in general.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Well, we certainly wouldn't have to have created the nuclear bomb over it, either.


From an external perspective it's really sad that we've come to this. And as far as it goes, nobody can produce anything better than the Bible to save humanity today.

Ultimately even though we have things like Youtube and we have nations with masses of power, our fundemantal flaws as humans will make these things useless. What good is a public speaker; a world-wide message or brand, if it can be demonized and if it can damage?

That's the key to the Bible's success, the key that still marks it disturbingly above our society's intelligence levels. A book can't be criticized for things that are ultimately about being human. Affairs, homosexuality. Even in accusation we jump to destroying that person's image/record/dignity in our heads for a single moment. Something "of old" can't be argued with, is only made stronger by new theories that fail along the way, because the road is long.

So yeah I guess we are pretty stupid to have powerful weapons without first figuring out why we even need them. Truly need them. We're still in politically hot water every day. But people without such concerns will drive their own concerns. The nature of humans is such that while we don't consider all relevant things we can never make sound judgement. Hence the requirement in the bible's "lore" to make certain every man fears god. Fear necessitates every single person to consider God in every judgement.

In straying from this path we've created a monster. So in that regard, I couldn't agree more.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Not everyone has the type of mind that ever thinks about physics and the nature of reality.


And we can't place anyone higher than anyone else in society, because that led to bad things last time. See a huge problem somewhere in there? :b


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

millenniumman75 said:


> Evidence of God can be shown through individual's testimonies. People being healed. God can also change people. Hardened hearts become soft. The bitter become nice.


Yeah there's a real potential for great.. great care of other human beings, that's possible with religion. I understand as a society we also aren't mature enough to do this of out of the kindness of our own hearts, unless it's been taught to us. The "power of God" in that sense is truly incredible. Let's not forget that. There are things our current understanding of the world, i.e. science, can't do for us personally. Sometimes yes, psychologically, having someone there to say "God forgives you" and "it's okay, you are going to heaven" will do more than (understanding the world as it is) will ever do for you. Well, you'll have to take my word for it..


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Not everyone has the type of mind that ever thinks about physics and the nature of reality. It doesn't matter how much education you some people, they will still be disinterested in it and choose to believe other simpler explanations.


Yeah. well, can't exactly help being psychologically inclined to need certain things, can we. So I guess that really calls for an understanding of the bigger picture. Which, while we operate under several other layers of false pretense e.g. nationalist identity, is going to take a lot of effort to bring to surface in popular opinion and popular culture. Pretty screwed, aren't we. lol


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> And we can't place anyone higher than anyone else in society, because that led to bad things last time. See a huge problem somewhere in there? :b


Who said anything about ranking people? Everyone is exactly equal in my opinion. (To the extent I never call anyone Sir and despise the monarchy among many other things )

What I was saying though is some people just aren't smart in that way. They could be very smart at other things though. I like to think people have numerous spheres of intelligence about subjects rather that one standard intelligence level.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Yeah. well, can't exactly help being psychologically inclined to need certain things, can we. So I guess that really calls for an understanding of the bigger picture. Which, while we operate under several other layers of false pretense e.g. nationalist identity, is going to take a lot of effort to bring to surface in popular opinion and popular culture. Pretty screwed, aren't we. lol


We can only hope that in time people will learn to ask more questions about reality and educate themselves if it's not done at school level.

Asking about the nature of reality was/is of course a taboo subject in many cultures, but taboos are made to be broken in my opinion, and culturally we are all diluting to become a more global culture so hopefully we see the taboo's forgotten about.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Who said anything about ranking people? Everyone is exactly equal in my opinion.


Well I'm talking about placing a given person's opinion or wisdom higher than another. If we can't do that, which we can't because of our current issues i.e. we can't get past "my God is better than your God; my country is better than your country".. then we are stuck in terms of making progress because there is no way of telling for sure that any given person is *ever* right about something. If we accept everyone holds different truths, that will get society nowhere ultimately. And we just go in circles solving small problems, ignoring and getting swept up by the big ones. I'm talking about politics now.. sorry.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Asking about the nature of reality was/is of course a taboo subject in many cultures, but taboos are made to be broken in my opinion, and culturally we are all diluting to become a more global culture so hopefully we see the taboo's forgotten about.


Yeah. Have you seen this?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Well I'm talking about placing a given person's opinion or wisdom higher than another. If we can't do that, which we can't because of our current issues i.e. we can't get past "my God is better than your God; my country is better than your country".. then we are stuck in terms of making progress because there is no way of telling for sure that any given person is *ever* right about something. If we accept everyone holds different truths, that will get society nowhere ultimately. And we just go in circles solving small problems, ignoring and getting swept up by the big ones. I'm talking about politics now.. sorry.


The more evidence there is for something the more 'right' it is.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Yeah. Have you seen this?


I like Michio Kaku.  He has a good ability to illustrate complex theoretical physics.

I've seen Michio Kaku speak about the same thing on the video on a documentary I watched a couple of years ago. It's very interesting and sounds valid to me.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> The more evidence there is for something the more 'right' it is.


This (the modern approach to finding truth) is what I mean. By that logic, homosexuality is wrong if most of the world is against the thought of it. That doesn't make it invalid when it has been acceptable in the past, though: war is the same. In past (or future) times if public opinion is different to now then at that time, we can say, those popular opinions apply as ground truth because that's all that ever matters.

Well, everything is theory & opinion, and [then] what "is" just "is" and always has been, regardless. We'll find no absolute truth that hasn't been all around us to begin with.

..but we look for a new kind of 'truth' and a righteousness based on the values we've built.

So, how do you find what's really true? It never ends. because we can't face such a real truth to begin with. Being human is neglecting a rational view of reality; looking for something[a truth] that's never been there. We live in a fantastical dream.


----------



## meeps (Dec 5, 2011)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> This (the modern approach to finding truth) is what I mean. By that logic, homosexuality is wrong if most of the world is against the thought of it. That doesn't make it invalid when it has been acceptable in the past, though: war is the same. In past (or future) times if public opinion is different to now then at that time, we can say, those popular opinions apply as ground truth because that's all that ever matters.


popular opinion is not evidence.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

qweewq said:


> popular opinion is not evidence.


I should have given some good examples, sorry.

Not scientific evidence, no. Oil becomes useless the minute we start a nuclear war and everyone dies. Purely scientifically, it was never worth comparatively more than anything else (because without humans to roam the earth.. what is the system of value?)

In this way, yes, as far as our use of things and as far as variable values of modern society.. yes, popular opinion is truth. If most people in the world think it's okay to feed cat food to cats(edit: in that they won't get bad health problems from low quality meat), then that's what we go along with and there's no room to argue that it's wrong. The manufacturers go and make it, and we feed it to our pets. Thus, in terms of human activity, it must be true and right. Because what else do you propose? that everything, every notion in our world and system of values.. is ultimately undecided?

"Truths" in this sense have only ever been something we can carry with us for the rest of our lives. We aren't scientific, we're emotional and social. We don't deal with ground truth.

(Well.. this is a philosophy I'm still developing and it would be great to continue this kind of discussion if anyone is interested.)


----------

