I don't understand the worship of "God". - General

[QUOTE=Robbobin;22464545]very true. I suppose I could come under the class of fundamentalist ignosticism, if such a thing can be imagined. :v: I trust largely what I'm told by scientists more than religion because - to me - it connects the dots more than the bible or the qu'ran does. But I wouldn't ever say "science is fact" because that makes incredible assumptions about both 'science' and 'fact'. Having said that, Tao Te Ching was one of the most inspiring and perhaps [I]most truthful[/I] things I have ever read.[/QUOTE] Personally I found Shadow over Innsmouth to be the truthiest story ever written.

[QUOTE=wewt!;22464477]It is very real.[/QUOTE] I think the problem we're having is more a result of confusing semantics than a difference of opinion. I suppose the point I'm making is 'scientific theory is not fact' rather than 'science is not fact'. Does that suit your tastes better?

I'll quote myself: [QUOTE=Panda X;22463574]There should be a 'no questioning religion' rule. Seriously half of everyone here feels as if they need to throw their 2 cents in and create a thread about it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22464634]Personally I found Shadow over Innsmouth to be the truthiest story ever written.[/QUOTE] Lovecraft himself have admitted this was a fictionary story.

I think maybe the first thing we should have done here is try to come to some sort of conclusion about what this 'god' concept we're actually arguing about [I]is.[/I] Thoughts?

God is just pretend.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;22464645]I think the problem we're having is more a result of confusing semantics than a difference of opinion. I suppose the point I'm making is 'scientific theory is not fact' rather than 'science is not fact'. Does that suit your tastes better?[/QUOTE] My opinion is concerning the thread, which is that science should not be compared to religion, regardless of what it is or isn't. On one hand because, while they both try to similarily explain our world, they are both defined differently, but mostly because the arguements that come from it are endless, boring, repetitive and endless.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;22464356]I think that faith is faith regardless of what it's in. I have deduced that gravity exists because empirically, I've observed that things fall to the ground. Even gravity is only a theory, however. It's not true to say that 'science is real'.[/QUOTE] You're playing a fucking word game. You're mixing up words and their uses in certain fields and contexts. In science nothing is definite, a fact is a self evident observation, but even that is subject to change in particular circumstances. A theory is a fact, but instead of being a single self evident observation, it explains why those self evident observations occur. So gravity is, by all means, a fact. That doesn't mean it's completely correct however. For example, we know how gravity works in certain length scales. But when you get down to the quantum level, an incredibly large amount of matter condensed to infintesimal size, relativity breaks down. So we know it's ultimately wrong, but still accurate. Science is real, you just don't know what the fuck science is talking about. You're talking about some philosophy bullshit, science deals in the accurate recreation and prediction of natural phenomenon.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;22464685]I think maybe the first thing we should have done here is try to come to some sort of conclusion about what this 'god' concept we're actually arguing about [I]is.[/I] Thoughts?[/QUOTE] Firstly, could you respond to my post? I'm interested to hear what you have to say, though the discussion has moved on a bit. As for what God is...I think we're talking faith in a creator being based on ancient teaching. Was that not obvious? I think OP covered some of the discrepancies rather well.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;22464685]I think maybe the first thing we should have done here is try to come to some sort of conclusion about what this 'god' concept we're actually arguing about [I]is.[/I] Thoughts?[/QUOTE] The only similarity every God in cultural history shares is that they're all alpha males. Powerful authority figures. All Gods result in the same effect on the human brain, the effect of a leader figure that says he'll protect you. The concept of God is nothing more than a self perpetrating mind game with obvious roots in human psychiatry. An illusion created by our ability to empathize and create figures of other humans in our heads.

[QUOTE=wewt!;22464715]My opinion is concerning the thread, which is that science should not be compared to religion, regardless of what it is or isn't. On one hand because, while they both try to similarily explain our world, they are both defined differently, but mostly because the arguements that come from it are endless, boring, repetitive and endless.[/QUOTE] True. On most of the posts I made I was thinking in the back of my mind that it's not a real comparison because it implies that the two are mutually inclusive, when they're obviously not. 'Science' (in a more general sense; in the same sense as the word 'religion') is just a mishmash of scientific theories that, generally, seem to be updated and made valid more frequently. Do I believe them? Largely, yes - because it's convenient to accept that when I jump I'll fall back down, etc etc. But I don't believe it's right to dismiss things such as religion.

[quote]The only similarity every God in cultural history shares is that they're all alpha males. Powerful authority figures. All Gods result in the same effect on the human brain, the effect of a leader figure that says he'll protect you. The concept of God is nothing more than a self perpetrating mind game with obvious roots in human psychiatry. An illusion created by our ability to empathize and create figures of other humans in our heads.[/quote] Or alpha females, but you're correct.

[QUOTE=Beau_Chaotica;22464728]Firstly, could you respond to my post? I'm interested to hear what you have to say, though the discussion has moved on a bit. As for what God is...I think we're talking faith in a creator being based on ancient teaching. Was that not obvious? I think OP covered some of the discrepancies rather well.[/QUOTE] I would argue that God isn't based on ancient teachings at all. Rather the "ancient teachings" are simply a mode by which to proliferate a group. The Bible is a sort of pillar upon which you can build a church, and a church allows you to spread the belief in a deity. The deity that people believe in is a completely different matter. Looking at the beliefs and opinions of people involved in religion it becomes immediately clear that two people hardly ever have the exact same image of God, God's will, or God's disposition. People see God exactly how they want to see God, and the same goes for the bible. "Ancient teachings" are simply a catalyst to encourage them to consider the idea.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;22464821]True. On most of the posts I made I was thinking in the back of my mind that it's not a real comparison because it implies that the two are mutually inclusive, when they're obviously not. 'Science' (in a more general sense; in the same sense as the word 'religion') is just a mishmash of scientific theories that, generally, seem to be updated and made valid more frequently. Do I believe them? Largely, yes - because it's convenient to accept that when I jump I'll fall back down, etc etc. [B]But I don't believe it's right to dismiss things such as religion.[/B][/QUOTE] That is pretty much my opinion. Mostly because you can't argue faith, but also because the arguements themselves wouldn't go anywhere (because of the aformentioned reason)

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22464720]Science is real, you just don't know what the fuck science is talking about. You're talking about some philosophy bullshit, science deals in the accurate recreation and prediction of natural phenomenon.[/QUOTE] Just as well I'm doing a philosophy degree and not a science degree, then. I appreciate the enlightenment despite how malicious you sound.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22464888]-snip-[/QUOTE] Eh, you're right but maybe I just worded it wrong. I meant that the [I]faith[/I] was based on ancient teaching. Largely. A bit. In general. Also [B][U]ATTENTION ROBBOBIN[/U][/B] [B][U]ATTENTION ROBBOBIN[/U][/B] Please respond to my first post. Pretty pretty please?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22464797]The only similarity every God in cultural history shares is that they're all alpha males. Powerful authority figures. All Gods result in the same effect on the human brain, the effect of a leader figure that says he'll protect you. The concept of God is nothing more than a self perpetrating mind game with obvious roots in human psychiatry. An illusion created by our ability to empathize and create figures of other humans in our heads.[/QUOTE] You're actually talking about a very limited selection of gods, and certainly not about every god in cultural history.

[QUOTE=Aperture fan;22462552]They say God's principal qualities are his mercy, kindness, and willingness to forgive, and that Hes a God of love, and all-powerful. But, the first time man disobeyed Him, man was kicked out of paradise and made mortal. Since we then became mortal, we were able to die, and a lot of people died. In the end, God sends His only son to save everyone. His son dies, asking why God has forsaken him. And for what? To purge, with his blood, the sin of the first human, who God Himself had provoked and punished, and so that people could return to the paradise from which we were forsaken and discover immortality. Its pointless, because He could just not have punished everyone so severely to begin with for the stuff they didn't do. Or He could have discontinued the punishment because the offence had taken place quite a while ago. But why sacrifice your beloved son, and betray him? What kind of love is that? What kind of willingness to forgive, wheres the omnipotence? And if He is not omnipotent, then why worship Him? Help me understand the nonsense, Facepunch. [b]TL;DR[/b] Man sins, God punishes by making us mortal. God then sends Jesus to sacrifice himself so we can become immortal again. What the fuck?[/QUOTE] dude WTF there is no god oh and nuff said

[QUOTE=Robbobin;22464821]True. On most of the posts I made I was thinking in the back of my mind that it's not a real comparison because it implies that the two are mutually inclusive, when they're obviously not. 'Science' (in a more general sense; in the same sense as the word 'religion') is just a mishmash of scientific theories that, generally, seem to be updated and made valid more frequently. Do I believe them? Largely, yes - because it's convenient to accept that when I jump I'll fall back down, etc etc. But I don't believe it's right to dismiss things such as religion.[/QUOTE] Science is exactly as you've said, self correcting. It updates, evolves, conforms to the world around it and allows us to adapt ourselves accordingly. It is efficient, powerful, and meticulous. In biological terms, you could look at it like a vaccine. Religion however is far more nebulous. It is not self correcting, it is dogmatic, and it is powerful. It is an amplifier for the people it caters to. The dominant religion in a violent area will almost always favor violence. For this reason it is volitile. It's beneficial characteristics are almost all psychological, it holds no long term gain, it doesn't advance civilization in any way, and it will almost always bring the worst out in people eventually. Religion is ruled by mob thinking, it is directionless and dangerous. In the face of advance it makes people obstinate, in the face of threat it makes people angry and stupid. It breeds superstition, superiority, and a false sense of security. Religion is detrimental in almost all cases. While it can occasionally work in small groups, in larger ones it will inevitably become twisted and hateful. That is the fate of any dogmatic ideology.

[QUOTE=Beau_Chaotica;22464959]Also [B][U]ATTENTION ROBBOBIN[/U][/B] [B][U]ATTENTION ROBBOBIN[/U][/B] Please respond to my first post. Pretty pretty please?[/QUOTE] Haha, I'm thinking. In essence, asking what you all thought the concept 'god' was, was a response. I've thought of god as being an entity which is omnipresent, omniscient, etc etc. Which - in my mind - seems altogether reasonable: like god could just be a description of the universe. Hence Christians and other religious people might see that the universe [I]is[/I] undeniable proof of god. It's a question of perception and semantics rather than actual opinion, I reckon.