[Kellan]

Interesting points, Meg...

Contrary to what it may appear in my posts, I don't want to eradicate those of religion simply because they hold those beliefs. The most exasperating thing about religion is how you act based on it - and the fact that people use it as a defence.

I don't have a problem with the central message of peace, tolerance, and understanding Jesus had - just the rest of the damn contradictory book. Perhaps they could have done to make the point of Christianity a little clearer - by putting be nice to people on every single page. Instead, you get a bunch of stuff that Jesus would probably be horrified about (yes, I believe he existed; no, I don't believe he was the son of God, just a very progressive man) carried out in his name.

The existence of people of incredible faith like Agatheron (for those who don't know, I worked with him on Derelict and he's a Presbyterian Minister) who are kind, intelligent, tolerant and normal tells me that religion can't be all bad. It is however ruined by those who don't get the central message, and are instead conservative (small C ), judgemental and close-minded.

I still tend to believe that religion is a dangerous thing because of those people. Children and societies can be taught moral lessons without the Bible. I've never read it, and I'm regarded as tolerant, kind and liberal - I'm told.

[YodaSean]

Originally posted by CP5670
your impact on the world lies in however you change it through the course of its history, which is determined by your influence on others and the use of technology to modify the universe. There is no "good" or "bad" impact here as far as the universe as a whole goes. Also, as Zylon said, life in the current sense could simply have been started off by an IRV and the chain of events continues to this day.

No, if there is no afterlife then you have no impact on the universe in anyway.  Whatever you might do that affects others or yourself will be completely meaningless to you since you somehow vanish from existence after you die.  The universe is only what one sees it as, and if a person doesn't exist then their is no universe for that person.  A person wants to take advantage of an oppurtunity so that they can benifit from it.  How can you benifit from your life if you cease to exist as an entity once you lose it?

Edit:  Hmm...that would be a weird line:
Existance is futile

[wEvil]

I don't beleive you do, but there's no rational explanation for that beleif.


If you do totally cease to exist, then surely you should have as good a time as possible while you can?  And more so, surely you should make sure everyone around you has a good time as well?

Life can't be all fun and games but from the massive public apathy wave sweeping our society for the past year or two I think maybe it's a little too LITTLE fun.  There's no point in working for no reason, most people either don't understand why they even bother to get out of bed every morning.

Why am I going into the 3D industry for instance?  It's volatile, irregular, nomadic and doesn't really pay very well - and on top of that you have to keep on top of every technological innovation that comes your way.  

It's because i'm happy doing it, when that scene is sent off and posted I feel like i've done something, and then I can go out and spend my hard-earned cash on a few beers&cigs and kick back with my friends - maybe get into a discussion like this and come out feeling I may have understood something I didn't before.  

But the current organisation of everything means that I can't do this.  The pressure is there to earn money and spend it, not in the persuit of fulfillment evolving spiritually, intelectually or in any other way, but just for the sake of it.  It's turning into a kind of sick circus scenario where nobody really feels anything they're doing - you're just going through the motions because you have to.  I mean...its not like you have an alternative way to live anymore, is it?

[CP5670]

I disagree. Anti-Semitism is not a uniquely German phenomenon, occurring throughout Europe for hundreds of years in pogroms, and in the current vogue for 'Jewish Capitalist Overlord' conspiracies going around in America, and anti-Semitism in the Muslim world.

Well, it wasn't so much a dislike of the Jews, but rather the whole idea of superior and inferior "races" and this philosophy of life based on race that, after the 1800s or so, was definitely more prevalent in Germany than any other country in Europe. It was mainly due to the lasting influence of a number of famous men who vouched for race being the primary basis of a man's worth. (many prominent German philosophers before 1940 were for this) There were of course such people in other nations as well, but their ideas began to fade away with time. Germany for many decades existed as a group of provinces loosely held together by Prussia under Bismarck and the whole "nation" operated on the principle of war and conquest (there was little cultural advance during the Second Reich), and the older ideas mostly stayed on right up to the beginning or WW1.

As for the morals, even they did not exist at one time; they only formed out of the mutual interests of people when they started working together to form societies and civilizations. These culminated in the forming of precise codes of laws; first religious, and now political. Our governments and the historical mass-force of advancing civilization have now taken the place of god for the purpose of morals. One of the big advantages of the political laws is that they can be changed to adjust to the changing societies, but religious morals are pretty much static and cannot keep up with the evolving demands of civilization.

To me, religion is dangerous because it stands in the way of scientific and philosophical thought of the civilization as a whole. It doesn't matter when you deal only with individuals, but humanity can be thought of as one large loosely-connected "organism" as far as scientific progress goes. If things continue as they are going now, the two can coexist; the religious population can continue to go by their religions - at some point, they will reach a minority status and will cease to become a major force in history anyway - while the scientific population alone becomes the driving force of the species. The main thing, however, is that we will soon reach the point where we are able to change our our own bodies, and almost every major religion considers the human the most "sacred" thing (what a surprise ) and something which should only be changed/created by a god; science and religion may end up clashing once again here.

Their very name implies that you have to have faith - ie. belief without explanation - in the edicts of the religion.

Yes, but this "belief without explanation" is the real bane of all science and logical thought.

The universe is only what one sees it as, and if a person doesn't exist then their is no universe for that person.

First fundamental rule shows that the perceptive reality cannot be proved to exist or not exist due to paradoxes that arise, but an absolute reality should be assumed if we are working as a civilization to learn how the universe works. Once everything in the absolute reality has been analyzed, the perceptive bit can then be taken into account.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by YodaSean

No, if there is no afterlife then you have no impact on the universe in anyway.  Whatever you might do that affects others or yourself will be completely meaningless to you since you somehow vanish from existence after you die.  The universe is only what one sees it as, and if a person doesn't exist then their is no universe for that person.  A person wants to take advantage of an oppurtunity so that they can benifit from it.  How can you benifit from your life if you cease to exist as an entity once you lose it?

You seem to be suggesting that you don't benefit from actions in your life as you carry them out. As though life is one huge trial that, at the end you can go to the supposed 'afterlife' and look back on, reflecting on what you have done and getting the benefit of pleasure from it.

This is a ridiculous idea.

First, I and probably everyone - including yourself - can say with certainty that they have carried out actions because they got benefit - why do you play FS2? Because you enjoy it. That's a benefit. In addition, by your theory people would continue to carry out pointless, unenjoyable tasks all their lives and only realise how little benefit they got from them once they're dead.

As far as benefit to society goes, you'll be remembered for your contribution to society, good or ill, and thus you won't 'cease to exist'. Furthermore, if you live your life believing in an afterlife but doing nothing, you won't be magically remembered just because you believed in it. You'd have to do something to make people remember you.

I wonder what it is in the nature of humans that makes them always want to know 'what happens next'. Certainly it's the motivator for most of the change in the world, but it is a bit silly that actions are judged as worthless if they don't enable you to find out 'what happened next', looking down on the Earth like it was an ant farm.

[Kellan]

Note: I'm answering CP in a different post because the argument here is historical, not religious.

Originally posted by CP5670

Well, it wasn't so much a dislike of the Jews, but rather the whole idea of superior and inferior "races" and this philosophy of life based on race that, after the 1800s or so, was definitely more prevalent in Germany than any other country in Europe. It was mainly due to the lasting influence of a number of famous men who vouched for race being the primary basis of a man's worth. (many prominent German philosophers before 1940 were for this) There were of course such people in other nations as well, but their ideas began to fade away with time. Germany for many decades existed as a group of provinces loosely held together by Prussia under Bismarck and the whole "nation" operated on the principle of war and conquest (there was little cultural advance during the Second Reich), and the older ideas mostly stayed on right up to the beginning or WW1.

Social Darwinism was indeed a popular belief at the turn of the 20th Century, and some of those who put forward these theories were also indeed Germans.

However, Bismarck didn't control Germany whilst it was still in its old provincial state - just Prussia. Once Germany was 'united' (and I admit the term is loose; the new German state had no flag, national anthem and was basically an enlarged Prussian state in terms of politics) Bismarck became Chancellor.

Germany was united in part by war - against Austria, Denmark and France - though to a greater extent by the Zollverein and thus trade. Union came about through the need to be a strong trading block. Later, it was brought together by the two again - the need to expland Germany's empire and protect against the Triple Entente through military spending - which boosted the economy immensely.

Although certainly the old elites of Prussia and the principalities - the Junkers - remained in positions of high power until the end of WW1, there was social advance in a number of areas. Germany was the first country to provide elementary social security, for example. Besides, a stangant cultural situation doesn't lead to anti-Semitism.

The main victims of the 'inferior races' tag were negroes, basically because the Colonial powers wanted a good reason to say that they had to rule in Africa. As I said, Jews were emancipated in Western Europe until the Nazis started picking at hundred-year-old scabs.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Kellan
Interesting points, Meg...

Contrary to what it may appear in my posts, I don't want to eradicate those of religion simply because they hold those beliefs. The most exasperating thing about religion is how you act based on it - and the fact that people use it as a defence.

I don't have a problem with the central message of peace, tolerance, and understanding Jesus had - just the rest of the damn contradictory book. Perhaps they could have done to make the point of Christianity a little clearer - by putting be nice to people on every single page. Instead, you get a bunch of stuff that Jesus would probably be horrified about (yes, I believe he existed; no, I don't believe he was the son of God, just a very progressive man) carried out in his name.

The existence of people of incredible faith like Agatheron (for those who don't know, I worked with him on Derelict and he's a Presbyterian Minister) who are kind, intelligent, tolerant and normal tells me that religion can't be all bad. It is however ruined by those who don't get the central message, and are instead conservative (small C ), judgemental and close-minded.

I still tend to believe that religion is a dangerous thing because of those people. Children and societies can be taught moral lessons without the Bible. I've never read it, and I'm regarded as tolerant, kind and liberal - I'm told.

Your right, Jesus did exists, its an acutal fact. period. Independant sources have proven this, however its your decision to believe he was either a genius or the Son of Man.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CP5670


But then who does? You can say the same thing for anyone...



Exactly what I was saying earlier; the religious institutions will ensure that their people cannot think logically, because if they could, their faith would crumble, and this faith is what the institutions rely on for their existence.



What "miracles" and "healings?" There is no credible evidence for these. Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence?



Looking at the roots of the Third Reich, it is quite evident that while Hitler's ideas sounded quite silly, they actually had deep roots in German history and thought. (check out The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - outstanding book )



LOL.



That is one of the things I hate most about religion. If this had not occurred so much in history, religion would have been dead long ago. As I said before, the ideas that the children assimilate later on in life are built upon these religious ones, and they have been brought up to think that their ideas must be true no matter what - in other words, limiting their ability to think objectively.



I would say the same, as the majority of humans are complete fools, but the species as a whole definitely has future potential due to its need to progress.



This one is great; I like it just as much as that famous Planck quote.



No reason to close the topic there, though; it's getting interesting.

Funny thing is, i wasnt brought up religiously. I didnt believe in the lord, but i did find him a few years later.

[Top Gun]

We musn't forget that the gospels were written over sixty years after his death and records in those times were patch at best. They may also have succumbed to outside influences like the reformist attitudes of St Paul. Also note that the "Approved version" of the bible was a cut and paste job of various scriptures put together by the Catholics a long time after Jesus died. A lot of what was in the scriptures was manipulated to fulfill the profecy of scriptures beforehand so the Bible's historical credibility is not good. That's not to say it isn't good for cultural  and/or anthropological research but it's certainly not concrete fact.

[Knight Templar]

ok celestial, you are a freaking genius, i thought i knew how to argue, but damn, am i going to have some fun at school on monday.

[wEvil]

celestial? huh? what? where?

So to summarise?

Heh..i just thought.  I had a 2,500 word essay on semiotics to get done and instead i write a review of Soft|xsi and have a metaphysical debate with enough content to write a decent essay in itself.

[CP5670]

[Kellan's post]

You're probably right about the history there. (I know almost nothing about European history before 1900 ) Indirectly however, a stagnant cultural situation can lead to this sort of thing under certain conditions. What happens when culture stops evolving is that people as a whole just go by what they are told (religion, anyone?), and as you said, just about every nation had some philosophies like this abounding in the popular ideas at some point in history. Since things didn't evolve in Germany due to the whole prolonged war situation, the German people were philosophically behind the rest of Europe as far as these kinds of things go (also one of the reasons why the monarchies did not fall there as they had in other nations; popular philosophy dicatated absolute obedience to appointed authority). For example, one reason that the Germans were furious at the Versailles treaty was that it gave some land to Poland, and the Poles had been considered to be an "inferior race" for decades. (this was well before Hitler and others like him had come on the scene)

Funny thing is, i wasnt brought up religiously. I didnt believe in the lord, but i did find him a few years later.

Which means you were subtly influenced by the world around you, most of which does operate on religion today. Now that I look back on my life up to this point, I think that the same would have happened with me if I did not have a rebellious system of thought in general and consequently questioned everything I saw. (my parents did not really force religion all that heavily on me, but I certainly believed in god until about four or so years ago, when I began questioning that as well)

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by CP5670



Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence?

Because he has always existed.  That's one of the parts you are not supposed to understand or attempt to understand because it will confuse the hell out of you.

[CP5670]

Because he has always existed.  That's one of the parts you are not supposed to understand or attempt to understand because it will confuse the hell out of you.

No offense intended, but this is really nonsense. I have determined that the ultimate objective (not in the usual sense) of all intelligent "life" is most likely the assimilation of all knowledge, which is pretty much what all the major mathematicians and scientists argued for, although I will not post the whole proof here now. Does this god try to determine what we do or do not understand? In that case, it is certainly worth going against his wishes to learn the truth. Also, if people resort to this for their explanation, one could just as easily say that everything has always existed, with periodic "big bangs" taking place in the transfinite history of all existence. (the looped universe theory)

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CP5670



Which means you were subtly influenced by the world around you, most of which does operate on religion today. Now that I look back on my life up to this point, I think that the same would have happened with me if I did not have a rebellious system of thought in general and consequently questioned everything I saw. (my parents did not really force religion all that heavily on me, but I certainly believed in god until about four or so years ago, when I began questioning that as well)

No, i wouldnt expect you to believe in the lord anyway, you dont in believe in live yet.

[Kellan]

Oooh, handbags!

Personally I find it hard to swallow that God exists, has always existed, but will not ever, ever let you physically know he exists, or has let anyone know since the Flood. So what, you're supposed to take it as a matter of trust?

CP, I do see your point about a stagnant cultural situation. This can apply to many other areas in which there is stagnation. For example, there is currently a political stagnation in Europe - and probably around the world - characterised by the reinforcement of the 'new establishment' comprised of corporations; the collapse of the left; and considerable problems with public services, law and order, etc.

Basically, the process of advancement in individual countries has faltered, as has the European Project. In the absence of these motivators, people are turning to the right - old, dogmatic beliefs in racial superiority, religious inferiority, etc.

Another case in point I guess might be the Dark Ages.

[Zeronet]

Two things its stupid to argue about, Politics and religion, its just a fruitless, futile situation.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by Zeronet
Two things its stupid to argue about, Politics and religion, its just a fruitless, futile situation.

That's very defeatist. So hey, let's not argue about the BNP, or the Front Nationale. After all, nobody ever defeated racism by disproving it.

I bet that you've been made to think that. It should always be worth fighting for something.

[Zeronet]

Why? Im never gonna change your opinion and you wont change mine, so why bother arguing about it on the forums. Im not talking about the greater world silly man .

[Kellan]

Originally posted by Zeronet
Why? Im never gonna change your opinion and you wont change mine, so why bother arguing about it on the forums. Im not talking about the greater world silly man .

Oh. And it was so clear from the language you used.

You never know about changing people's beliefs. Suppose I found new evidence, either completely proving God's existence, or completely disproving it - say, the Church was a scam set up by Bob of Nazareth.

I know that I have changed my beliefs after I've found out I had incorrect information.