Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 34

Author Topic: Religion  (Read 34374 times)

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #330 on: May 31, 2011, 09:44:50 pm »

Edit: The last one is basically going in circles about the burden of proof again.

The longer a Religious thread continues, the probability of repetition due to somebody ignoring previous debate approaches 100%.
Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

Hiiri

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #331 on: May 31, 2011, 09:47:16 pm »

Athiesm is a form of religion. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Agnostics don't strongly believe in any gods, whereas Athiests strongly believe in exactly zero gods.

So to be an atheist is to deny the possibility of any sort of deity. While an apatheist just doesn't care if one exists or not and an agnostic recognizes that there may or may not be a deity. Atheism is an assertion, like being a theist, while others simply adhere to assumptions.

You're being a bit too fundamentalist here. Many of the atheists fall into all three categories. (If not everyone)

I call myself an atheist, but I'm not claiming that there CAN'T be any sort of gods. There just haven't been any reason to believe in them. So in a way, agnostic. I'd probably be an apatheists, if religion wouldn't have such a huge negative impact on our world. (Biggest problem we have, if you ask me.)
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #332 on: May 31, 2011, 09:47:53 pm »

Athiesm is a form of religion. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Agnostics don't strongly believe in any gods, whereas Athiests strongly believe in exactly zero gods.

Please, not this again. "Atheism" comes in different forms. Some "atheists" are as you describe them, and some are more as you describe agnostics. This is not even a matter for debate; look it up if you don't believe me.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #333 on: May 31, 2011, 09:48:13 pm »

Stop. We don't need to spend another sixty pages going in proof and faith circles again. Read this thread instead. The constant circling starts at page 150 or so on default settings.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

counting

  • Bay Watcher
  • Zenist
    • View Profile
    • Crazy Zenist Hospital
Re: Religion
« Reply #334 on: May 31, 2011, 09:48:48 pm »

I understand the benefits of incorporating parts of other religions, such as the creation of the Christmas holiday. But that is mostly harmless to the actual doctrine, what  the Taiping Rebellion did changed some vital elements of Christianity, and at that point it's not even Christianity. Keep in mind, the apostle Paul actually advocates being like who you are trying to reach (to a certain point) but, for example, saying he is the brother of Jesus is full-on heresy, and more importantly ludicrous. Jesus is God according to our belief, therefore he would have no brothers save for his human brothers, who died long ago.

Well, if I understand what you're saying I can't really say for certain if that's even true. In my copy of Genesis God refers to himself as a "we". This may be something done by newer translations and not be present in the old texts mind you, but if it's true it would set a precedent for the trinity. Why he would reveal the trinity later and still yet withhold the other potential parts of him makes little sense to me. Not to mention one must question what exactly the point of them would be. The trinity is clearly defined in its roles (as clearly defined as a god can be, anyway). The Father is the ruler, the Son is the voice and the savior, and the Holy Spirit is the part of God that resides within us all, according to Christian doctrine. What roles are left for any other "parts" to fill?

And I think the second part of this is referring to general revelation. The idea that in parts of the world where Christianity could not reach, the message of God is spread to people in similar forms, and worship of that is accounted as worship of him. It's a real recognized thing, and there's much debate over its credibility, and I'm not sure if it applies here. I don't actually know a whole lot about Taoism to be honest, so I can't say for certain how compatible the religion as a whole is with Christianity.

Interesting view about new branches in Christian believes, valid with in itself. As expected. The fact most history book enforced the idea about his claim of being Jesus's brother is probably not fair for him. He lived in an area where you either die hungry or riots against the government to live, and the only hope is by spreading a believe system to others who don't understand the concept of spiritual discovery, and only want foods or physical promises.

So some physical promises about heaven on earth is probably a better idea. And he had to form a new kind of government - rather than bounded by blood, but by believes in God. So some form of ideology to let the people understand his stand in this system is needed.  And since traditionally the emperor is consider the son of the heaven (descendent of deity), but if he did stay true to Christianity he can not claim that, because it's Jesus. And there is no pope of any other authority can give him the recognitions he required in China. But if he is only a mortal, than he is no better than any other prophets. As a ruler, he can't command the 100 million people by just say his has a vision, people always believe that blood tie is more important. And he can't be Jesus's son either, so he chose a compromise. Told people he is the son of God, but not Jesus, and it lead people to think it automatically means the relationship is brothers. But the claim about being children of God is valid after all if it is more spiritually than physical sense. He actually could mean he is a spiritual child of God, as everyone else. As everyone has a holy spirit in them. But the record of his words is not well documented as he alternately failed, (the one actually survived never mention anything about being brother. He even criticized in this work about the validity of Chinese emperors, since they do claim to be the son. And he helped translate old/new bible into Chinese, and adding some praises in the form of poems only, ). Also most verbal recorded are heard from survivors of those 100 million followers, at least 20 millions civilians killed/slaughter by soldiers, highest count up to 70 millions,(look at that death tolls, you can imagine the horror), those who survived probably has to say something bad about 洪秀全, and said he is a lunatic, exchange for be spared after the slaughters from government's army. What's really in he mind, no one can tell for sure after such chaos. (It's a very heavy and sad part of Chinese history, and probably result in bring down the last dynasty of China). He is probably more of a tragic missionary/prophet than a leader of heresy cult.

I do have questions about trinity though, as I recalled, there is no where in the new/old bible actually says anything directly about trinity, just indirect reference like naming Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit in one sentence. Or in the old bible, appearance in the form of three man, but that's even before Jesus Christ. And the number could means many than actually number of 3. But God do present different form to different person. As far as we can tell, if Jesus is one of the old 3, than it certainly possible God using different form in different time. So even if it's true there is trinity, it can still be many incarnations be documented in the history, if they are past down by generations of story telling. Or god in fact are more than 3 forms can perceived. Or even with a simpler explanation, that the holy spirit in us human, manifest as a form perceived differently by different people, so all the deities are just our reflection of that, and Jesus still walk on the earth once. Still compatible to Trinity as well. I guess Trinity is much a fixed concept, Christian today no longer question it anymore, since early churches "set" their rules about trinity, but as long as you are not Catholic, you don't need to comply to the authority of Pope as only representative on Earth, or listen to their words as its valid as Bible itself. And the point of many faces is obvious, do you think Jesus walking in China can spread the word of God? We looked to much different! At least be user friendly to the potential believers / your children, and if you are all powerful, this doesn't hurt or hard or violated any of the teachings. Being good, following the instructions of the God, and probably much easier. (You can imagine a white Jesus says we are all brothers to a group of Chinese people? And the most probable reaction to that?) And if general revelations can not be apply, than only the selective few (special), than it will be a very restricted religions. In the form of direct revelations, it will be saints and prophets are important in such conditions, and such equal to my original theory about multiple possible way for prophets to perceive and in different cultures, it will certainly be very different. And if it was done on the time of old bible, there are hundreds thousands of nations in China at that time, it certainly will cause many many difference interpretation of a single God.

About Taoism, its a rather complicated topic. The deities roles in Taoism evolves over time. At first it maybe very close to Buddhism philosophy, means no deities at all, but we can be the one with the universe, if you follow the way of the nature. The concept of creators/managers/heroes ascension into deities ranks, is the result of combining folk religions. Since there are many nations in ancient China before unification in 3rd century BC, there many many cultures and their god/gods existed. When society melt together, the folks who practice them didn't stop them, and early religions most certainly will be polytheism. But combining with the idea of ascension into equals as the universe, through 'Tao'. It construct a similar believes as Hinduism, That since you need to advance steps by steps (We still have the old sayings 循序漸進, means "step by step in an order slowly"), so its easy to imagine there are steps between as human and the almighty universe. And people/spirits/true self(真身) who are half way there will be super beings as powerful as deities can be. Less powerful when you are recently join the family of deities, and many great heroes in real life will be memorized, and combining with the ancestral worship practices and ranking government system from Confucianism, it make sense to let these historic figure into deities as well. The older you are in history, the more great legends you left behind, the higher the rank, and powerful you are. And those fictional figures may as well joins in, since they are probably some ancient deities who manifest themselves in the mind of humans to spread their words. Hence it becomes a gigantic collections of deities list / steps, and practices you need to follow in order to be chosen by these deities, and hoping one day you can become one.

So in a sense, there is only one God - the universe itself. And those deities are spirits ascension to heavens. But instead of staying there, these spirits will come back to earth, for helping their children' children's children... And, its easy to understand why folks can accept why their prayers don't come true sometimes (maybe most of the time), since 'deities' are not all powerful as true 'deities' should be. And true God never bothers little things about humans, since there are too many steps between human and God, he need to manage and listen to other deities wishes first, and assigned those jobs managing humans to them. You can perceive it like it's a human->saints->angels->God ladder, but instead of pre-chosen roles, and with much more refined roles and steps from man to God, people's soul can move up (or down, its possible for anyone even deities to get 'demoted, even ranks below human, as in Hell), all until they are one as God. And the way of getting promoted is by the doctrines of following the 'Tao'. Mostly good behaviors, karma concept borrowed from Buddhism, and secret way of training. It's quite an addictive believes really. Like playing an RPG game leveling up. (Which in term this concept resembles the castes system in Hinduism, but instead divided people in ranks, Taoism divided deities in ranks, as humans are all equal in ranks)
Logged
Currency is not excessive, but a necessity.
The stark assumption:
Individuals trade with each other only through the intermediation of specialist traders called: shops.
Nelson and Winter:
The challenge to an evolutionary formation is this: it must provide an analysis that at least comes close to matching the power of the neoclassical theory to predict and illuminate the macro-economic patterns of growth

Montague

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #335 on: May 31, 2011, 09:53:20 pm »

Atheism has different definitions and different degrees of adherence. I define it as somebody who asserts the absolute certainty that there is no god, deity, supernatural beings, ect (possibly lamely citing the lack of evidence)

Sure, you might be ok with just getting sent into some afterlife, while another more militant atheist would hate it, seeing it as an affront to his believe system and if given the power, which might be possible if given spooky after-life power to make your own will manifest would try to, I dunno, blow the place up.

Also, this infinite belief systems idea, it has merit, but one has to make the assumption that any deity petty enough to send souls to miserable afterlives is involved enough to try to intervene. Thusly, the major world religions are the closest truth we should have. Another idea is that all major religions are correct, to some extent in their tenants and the reality is some portion of each. Say, the old metaphor of 7 blindmen trying to figure out what an elephant is by touch.

So your right, there is perhaps no way to know if a deity exists or not, or what the character of that deity might be like. So we have to work on assumptions, hedging our bets and playing the odds. Sure, the deity could be a purple fire-breathing fish that only sends Mexican left-handed accountants to heaven. Think is, its not likely, if you analyses the ideas behind it.

Just because a variable is unknown, doesn't make it random. A card-counter in blackjack doesn't know for sure the dealer will turn a 6 on facecard, but he's making the assumption that it will happen.
Logged

Bohandas

  • Bay Watcher
  • Discordia Vobis Com Et Cum Spiritum
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #336 on: May 31, 2011, 09:54:59 pm »

If it's impossible to know if an entity even exists, then for all intents and purposes it does not, as the ontology of that entity has absolutely no bearing on us whatsoever. It's like asking "What might be in another universe that doesn't interact with this one whatsoever?" -- if there's no way to know, then there's no reason to entertain the idea in the first place.

Objection. Affirming the Consequent.
Logged
NEW Petition to stop the anti-consumer, anti-worker, Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
What is TPP
----------------------
Remember, no one can tell you who you are except an emotionally unattached outside observer making quantifiable measurements.
----------------------
Έπαινος Ερις

counting

  • Bay Watcher
  • Zenist
    • View Profile
    • Crazy Zenist Hospital
Re: Religion
« Reply #337 on: May 31, 2011, 09:55:31 pm »

If you giving the assumption of we as a tester is fundamentally flawed, then there is no need to test anything at all. The result will be pointless. And you can say anything to be true, and they still possibly  true, as there is a pink elephants flying with it's ears. This is fundamental problems and meanings of any believes can not be tested in the first place.

This reasoning itself is flawed as it assumes that the purpose of empirical science/testing is to ascertain absolute truths; it is not. The purpose is to generate a working model of the universe around us that seems to have repeatable and predictable patterns in it, which is basically the core of human learning to begin with.

The problem is when we try to use our reasoning ability to ascertain absolute truths or things that transcend the universe itself, like how "flawed" our own universe is compared to some other, hypothetical universe, when the entire concept of "flaw" is rooted in this universe (and indeed our own heads) to begin with.

We can perceive what we have perceived, nothing more. nothing less. So say we all!
Logged
Currency is not excessive, but a necessity.
The stark assumption:
Individuals trade with each other only through the intermediation of specialist traders called: shops.
Nelson and Winter:
The challenge to an evolutionary formation is this: it must provide an analysis that at least comes close to matching the power of the neoclassical theory to predict and illuminate the macro-economic patterns of growth

Hiiri

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #338 on: May 31, 2011, 09:58:49 pm »

Just because a variable is unknown, doesn't make it random. A card-counter in blackjack doesn't know for sure the dealer will turn a 6 on facecard, but he's making the assumption that it will happen.

There are infinite amount of imaginable gods. So again, if the card deck has infinite amount of cards in it, with infinite amount of different numbers on the cards. No.. they won't have a clue what card he will pull out, no matter how long they play their silly game. :P

Edit: And just believing that he will pull out an ace the next time, does not make it so.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 10:01:20 pm by Hiiri »
Logged

counting

  • Bay Watcher
  • Zenist
    • View Profile
    • Crazy Zenist Hospital
Re: Religion
« Reply #339 on: May 31, 2011, 10:06:37 pm »

Nah, because with a god that only accepts atheists, you'd have that rebellious element that would still hate the god that sent them to heaven and then it would be a sort of hell for these types of folks, since they'd find the whole idea of their afterlife repulsive.

Just don't make sense and making an assumption like that, you are playing to lose.

The distinction might be a god that thinks "Well, at least you are not a [insert religious affiliation here] so I suppose you can go to the [nice part of hell/ purgatory/ reincarnated as a cockroach, ect] since you just don't believe in anything, least of all myself"

So sure, you could work your play like that, but its riskier.

Also, to assert there is no god, is an unfounded one, because by the very nature of a God we have to assume its impossible to know if one exists or not. Maybe there is a god but its so detached and disinterested it just doesn't care what people think about it. The "clockwork god" theory, maybe.

So to be an atheist is to deny the possibility of any sort of deity. While an apatheist just doesn't care if one exists or not and an agnostic recognizes that there may or may not be a deity. Atheism is an assertion, like being a theist, while others simply adhere to assumptions.

Hey there are other religions believe that 'God' disinterested in human, but he mange the other gods, yes we have polytheism. And governs through indirect control. (Assuming Indirect Control  8))
Logged
Currency is not excessive, but a necessity.
The stark assumption:
Individuals trade with each other only through the intermediation of specialist traders called: shops.
Nelson and Winter:
The challenge to an evolutionary formation is this: it must provide an analysis that at least comes close to matching the power of the neoclassical theory to predict and illuminate the macro-economic patterns of growth

Criptfeind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #340 on: May 31, 2011, 10:09:03 pm »

I am just saying that no religion is a choice just like all the rest.

The choice to ignore it and put'er on auto, but the game is still going.

It's a choice of rational thought over superstition. There are only two options here.

That… Has nothing to do with what we are talking about at all.

Although nice job trying to redefine the argument, I almost went with it.

Nah, because with a god that only accepts atheists, you'd have that rebellious element that would still hate the god that sent them to heaven and then it would be a sort of hell for these types of folks, since they'd find the whole idea of their afterlife repulsive.

Why?

Of course, "atheism" as a term covers both categories, so he's wrong regardless.

Or right regardless.

Please, not this again. "Atheism" comes in different forms. Some "atheists" are as you describe them, and some are more as you describe agnostics. This is not even a matter for debate; look it up if you don't believe me.

Right from a dictionary.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So no, a agnostic is not a atheist. (Which happens to be why we have two words.)
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #341 on: May 31, 2011, 10:13:28 pm »

So no, a agnostic is not a atheist. (Which happens to be why we have two words.)
They aren't on the same axis.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Criptfeind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #342 on: May 31, 2011, 10:15:48 pm »

Why not?

I mean, nice chart, but it is not in fact a argument.
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #343 on: May 31, 2011, 10:16:31 pm »

If it's impossible to know if an entity even exists, then for all intents and purposes it does not, as the ontology of that entity has absolutely no bearing on us whatsoever. It's like asking "What might be in another universe that doesn't interact with this one whatsoever?" -- if there's no way to know, then there's no reason to entertain the idea in the first place.

Objection. Affirming the Consequent.

Could you actually explain how I've committed the fallacy there?

All I'm saying is that if it's impossible to know if an entity even exists, then there's obviously no reason to consider its existence. If something can't even interact with us in a way that makes its existence as an entity known, then there is no reason to consider it a possible entity.

Atheism has different definitions and different degrees of adherence. I define it as somebody who asserts the absolute certainty that there is no god, deity, supernatural beings, ect (possibly lamely citing the lack of evidence)

I apologize, but you don't get to define words yourself for the purposes of an argument. "Atheism" is an umbrella term that only strictly requires what its etymology implies: A lack of theism.

Quote
Also, this infinite belief systems idea, it has merit, but one has to make the assumption that any deity petty enough to send souls to miserable afterlives is involved enough to try to intervene.

Why would you assume this? Why are you trying to apply naive human psychology to unknowable and completely hypothetical transcendent entities? Why are you assuming anything at this point?

Quote
So your right, there is perhaps no way to know if a deity exists or not, or what the character of that deity might be like. So we have to work on assumptions, hedging our bets and playing the odds.

The odds are unknowable.

Quote
Sure, the deity could be a purple fire-breathing fish that only sends Mexican left-handed accountants to heaven. Think is, its not likely, if you analyses the ideas behind it.

Why is that any less likely than anything else, when the divine entities involved are completely arbitrary and unknowable?

Quote
Just because a variable is unknown, doesn't make it random.

Except in this case, it is, because we're talking about completely arbitrary hypothetical cases involving an infinite and uncountable set of religious and spiritual ideas that go beyond the Western concept of "gods", never mind your Abrahamic view of a vengeful man-in-the-sky.


Also, you're forgetting part of the risk here: When you "hedge your bets" and believe disingenuously in something, that takes mental effort that could be applied to real-world problems, or even honest religion. The hidden cost of Pascal's Wager (aside from the fact that it's, you know, completely bunk) is that the energy, time, and focus you spend on this one hideously arbitrary and pointless probability-game detracts from the energy, time, and focus you could be spending on other pursuits. The most arbitrary part of it is the fact that it even involves "gods" and an "afterlife", each of which are, again, individual snippets of belief within the infinitely large cluster of uncountable metaphysical and religious ideas.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

counting

  • Bay Watcher
  • Zenist
    • View Profile
    • Crazy Zenist Hospital
Re: Religion
« Reply #344 on: May 31, 2011, 10:17:23 pm »

Edit: The last one is basically going in circles about the burden of proof again.

The longer a Religious thread continues, the probability of repetition due to somebody ignoring previous debate approaches 100%.

I am not, and I am more interested in the practical aspect of religions as their functionally in society and their internal logic to form a working system of ideology. And I am not Christian, not Atheist, not even westerners, and I like TEXT WALL!!!

However it seems not much people want to talked about the other half of the world's religions, I'll have to introducing in text wall, and about the infinite religious believes, the ideas can be infinite, but working and functioning numbers are certainly very limited in human society. In fact the working sets are definite countable. But new old can emerge everyday, old one dies, like the circle of life. 
Logged
Currency is not excessive, but a necessity.
The stark assumption:
Individuals trade with each other only through the intermediation of specialist traders called: shops.
Nelson and Winter:
The challenge to an evolutionary formation is this: it must provide an analysis that at least comes close to matching the power of the neoclassical theory to predict and illuminate the macro-economic patterns of growth
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 34