[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, you’d have far worse conflicts without religion. You’d still be working on developing cities, much less nations.[/quote]
But if, as you claim, religion is necessary to develop nations or cities then we would’ve avoided all of the worst conflicts because we would not have built massive armies or developed military technology. And what do you mean we would have worse conflicts without religion? If religion is the main motivating factor in a war, how would removing religion make it worse?
And can you address the other points I raised. For example, what about religious people who are not heterosexual. What do you make of the contribution of other cultures that had different attitudes to sexuality (for example the Greeks, who practised pederasty) to the development of society?
“Hail Vishna” isn’t enough. and it’s not an issue with numbers.
1 billion people saying “i believe in Vishna” won’t make Vishna a God.
1 billion people saying “Vishna is real, and he is the Supreme Being” doesn’t necessarily mean that 1 billion people believe in a god called Vishna.
but on the other hand
1 person building a resplendent sanctuary to Vishna would be enough to make Vishna a God
1 person singing sacred music inspired by Vishna would be enough to make Vishnaism a Faith
1 person teaching deep moral truths revealed by Vishna would be enough to make Vishna’s Church a religion
Faith is not a theoretical proposition.
Faith is inspiration and action.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< I could go on, but I really hope you’re starting to see the point. >>>[/quote]Indeed I do and from your perspective you’re absolutely right. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:No matter what the outcome or evidence, either way a situation goes, you simply see the infallible providence of an almighty God whose decrees cannot fail according to His own word. >>>[/quote]I took a bit of liberty in simply translating your words God’s way.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Would you consider it foolish for someone to believe in Vishna…[/quote]
No. In the past I’ve voiced my respect for those of faith. For instance, despite your–and even Mak’s–diagnoses (see your most recent statements) of the faithful, I wouldn’t imply that his (Mak’s) hindu mother is insane.[/quote]
But what basis would you have for insisting your belief represents reality more than hers, since you both lack evidence?[/quote]
Personal revelation, theology, and faith. Do you frequently repeat the same questions knowing you’ll get the same answers?
[quote]forlife wrote:
What would make Vishna real, and why would I worship him if he wasn’t real?[/quote]Why do you care man? What possible motivation could you have to go on and on and on in these threads? Someone like me who is an obviously lobotomized religious fanatic someone might understand, but why you? Wadda you care about all this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, you’d have far worse conflicts without religion. You’d still be working on developing cities, much less nations.[/quote]
But if, as you claim, religion is necessary to develop nations or cities then we would’ve avoided all of the worst conflicts because[/quote]
Well, our technological conflicts wouldn’t have existed, because without religious faith and it’s communal benefits, you’d still be running around in the woods just surviving. I consider barely surving as nearly the worst conflict. With the complete failure of the humans species, a short existence–being the greatest tragedy of all.
The survival of your entire loosely knit “people” would be far, far, less of a sure thing. And, whatever clannish people came into existence would still kill the other clan for the simplest of resources. After all, a bear needs no religion to fight over scarce resources. Neither would our hyothetical ignorant Vulcans. Frankly, I don’t think humanity even gets off of the ground and running without deep faith, much less develop the leisure time for intellectual pursuit.
Of their contributions to, or related to, sexuality, I don’t think anything of it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What would make Vishna real, and why would I worship him if he wasn’t real?[/quote]Why do you care man? What possible motivation could you have to go on and on and on in these threads? Someone like me who is an obviously lobotomized religious fanatic someone might understand, but why you? Wadda you care about all this?
[/quote]
Because he/we must. We are following our domino chain.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think humanity even gets off of the ground and running without deep faith, much less develop the leisure time for intellectual pursuit.[/quote]
If that was true we would’ve sat around praying for food instead of developing tools to harvest, weapons to hunt with etc.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Frankly, I don’t think humanity even gets off of the ground and running without deep faith, much less develop the leisure time for intellectual pursuit.[/quote]
If that was true we would’ve sat around praying for food instead of developing tools to harvest, weapons to hunt with etc.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
lobotomized religious fanatic [/quote]
swoleupinya should write a story about time travel and genetic sabotage of faith at the human species’ earliest origins. For the sake of the story, a group of men have discovered that religious faith, (along with everything else at this future date), the degree that is held, and/or the lack of, is bound so very tightly and unquestionably to genotype. They race back in their time machine (they’ve got a wide range of interests) and essentially lobotomize faith from humanity, to put it loosely. Maybe some kind of super-retro-virus thingy carrying a de-faithing package. They then prepare to embark ‘back to the future’ to relish in the undoubtedly ascended state of mankind. But will they find what they expected? You’d have to get the 2nd novel in the trilogy to find out.
Faith and hope have been powerful tools used by humanity. I think organized religion did a lot for society. Although, I personally think it’s time to take off the training wheels and move on. Take out the middle man (God).
[quote]kamui wrote:
hmm, no
for now, you didn’t made anything up.
“Hail Vishna” isn’t enough. and it’s not an issue with numbers.
1 billion people saying “i believe in Vishna” won’t make Vishna a God.
1 billion people saying “Vishna is real, and he is the Supreme Being” doesn’t necessarily mean that 1 billion people believe in a god called Vishna.
but on the other hand
1 person building a resplendent sanctuary to Vishna would be enough to make Vishna a God
1 person singing sacred music inspired by Vishna would be enough to make Vishnaism a Faith
1 person teaching deep moral truths revealed by Vishna would be enough to make Vishna’s Church a religion
Faith is not a theoretical proposition.
Faith is inspiration and action.
[/quote]
[nuthug]I’ve gotta hand it to ya, that was beautiful and eloquent.[/nuthug]
people don’t believe in a God because he is “real”, but because he is God.
then and only then, he is real because he is God.
your limited definition of “reality” make you ask wrong questions, and prevent you to understand the answers.
[/quote]
I dunno why, but your post make my mind spins in confusion, then the pieces settle back down and it becomes one of the clearest things a person can say. I’m still trying to figure out why your post do that… grrrrr!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
lobotomized religious fanatic [/quote]
swoleupinya should write a story about time travel and genetic sabotage of faith at the human species’ earliest origins. For the sake of the story, a group of men have discovered that religious faith, (along with everything else at this future date), the degree that is held, and/or the lack of, is bound so very tightly and unquestionably to genotype. They race back in their time machine (they’ve got a wide range of interests) and essentially lobotomize faith from humanity, to put it loosely. Maybe some kind of super-retro-virus thingy carrying a de-faithing package. They then prepare to embark ‘back to the future’ to relish in the undoubtedly ascended state of mankind. But will they find what they expected? You’d have to get the 2nd novel in the trilogy to find out.
Gene Wolfe is by far my favorite, by the way. [/quote]
You son-of-a-bitch! Where did you get a hold of my manuscript!!!
Just kidding… it’s a terrible idea… mainly because I didn’t come up with it first. I could see this working… no… not really. The time travel thing is pretty worn out. No. I’m working on something now so original and badass that it will put Dune to shame… you heard it here first.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
For all of you talking about reason, how are you missing the huge leap you’re taking there?
You can’t reason that you have the ability to reason.
Of course that line of thinking is a dead end, but it illustrates a point.
I’m not saying that I don’t value any particular philosophy over another, but I defy any one of you to come up with a bullet-proof defense of knowledge.[/quote]
I think I have a very solid response to this, but I would like you to clarify your point first.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, you’d have far worse conflicts without religion. You’d still be working on developing cities, much less nations.[/quote]
But if, as you claim, religion is necessary to develop nations or cities then we would’ve avoided all of the worst conflicts because[/quote]
Well, our technological conflicts wouldn’t have existed, because without religious faith and it’s communal benefits, you’d still be running around in the woods just surviving. I consider barely surving as nearly the worst conflict. With the complete failure of the humans species, a short existence–being the greatest tragedy of all.
The survival of your entire loosely knit “people” would be far, far, less of a sure thing. And, whatever clannish people came into existence would still kill the other clan for the simplest of resources. After all, a bear needs no religion to fight over scarce resources. Neither would our hyothetical ignorant Vulcans. Frankly, I don’t think humanity even gets off of the ground and running without deep faith, much less develop the leisure time for intellectual pursuit.
Of their contributions to, or related to, sexuality, I don’t think anything of it.[/quote]
Sloth, I’ve seen you make a similar claim a few times, and it just occurred to me how ludicrous it is. The quantity of variables involved in predicting the results of altered history is so great as to make it functionally impossible. You are assuming way too much here.
There is no question that religion has played a major role in the advancement of all aspects of human culture. That does not mean that we would not have experienced similar development without religion.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
For all of you talking about reason, how are you missing the huge leap you’re taking there?
You can’t reason that you have the ability to reason.
Of course that line of thinking is a dead end, but it illustrates a point.
I’m not saying that I don’t value any particular philosophy over another, but I defy any one of you to come up with a bullet-proof defense of knowledge.[/quote]
I think I have a very solid response to this, but I would like you to clarify your point first. [/quote]
You know I think wfifer brings up an excellent point and even though I am a theist I believe you will like this short video and the argument that John Lennox brings up against the materialist. Tell me what you think about it. Christianity and the tooth fairy - YouTube