Mosques

[Dylan]

I'm leaving open the possibility for anything. But I'm not going to pick a religion and go with it when I see no convincing arguments for them. I don't believe that if there is a god, that he has any particular plan for humans. We set ourselves so high on the totem pole, yet within the incomprehensibly vast universe, I think we're relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. We like the idea that some incredible being created us to serve some purpose and that if we fulfill that purpose we get super happy everlasting life. It's a nice thought, but there's no evidence to support it. It's just denying the obvious to ourselves.

I don't believe that just because something sounds good makes it less likely. Also, I made some arguments in my prior post.

There's always a bigger problem. But here, I'll name one; A bunch of guys hijacked a plane and killed thousands because they thought it would get them into super happy everlasting life world.

And a single man led a campaign to rebuild China the way he saw fit, with casualties reaching into the tens of millions. Yet, I do not consider politics inherently evil. If this issue is so subjective, then it can't be deal with through generalization.

The christmas at the airport thing is bullshit. I celebrate christmas. It has become more of a cultural and marketing thing than a religious thing these days. You can see it as either one.

? My point was that the exact same thing is done from atheists to christians.

"If an atheist kills someone because they want to, and a religous person kills someone for God, there is no logical distinction between who's better since both actions and methods had identical outcomes."

But why would someone kill someone for god if they didn't believe in god? It's an enabler. Say the atheist dude kills a guy who slept with his wife, if that guy hadn't slept with his wife he never would have killed him. If the bible hadn't told the other guy to kill someone, he wouldn't have done it.

I'm pretty sure that at no point does the Bible say "go kill people". Also, how mindless are these religious people you're imagining? Frankly, anyone who looks into a book and that book says "kill people" and does it wouldn't be remarkably hard to convince in the first place. I would also imagine that since you're using Muslims as your primary example, for what reason do you say "Religion" instead of "Islam"? As Limewater pointed out, religion can have a profoundly beneficial effect. If what we have is a case of some people driving an airplane, who's the problem? All religions in the world, or a group of people on an airplane?

Are you talking to me or limewater?

You.

As of yet we have no idea what things were like before that event (or indeed, even at that event, just a brief moment in time afterwards). For all we know right now it could be that the time line extends infinitely into the past.

According to Big Bang Theory, "what happened before" is a nonsensical question. Mathematically, time is a dimension just like space. Not only were the 3 spatial dimensions compressed into a singularity at the big bang, but time was as well. There's no more a "before the big bang" than there is a "to the left of the big bang".

To get your mind around this, consider that time is a representation of entropy (disorder). If the entire universe is compressed into a single point, there can be no disorder. That one point, a single value, tells you everything there is to know about the universe. To go backwards any further would require you to decrease entropy below zero, which would be meaningless.

Not that that matters in the context of this discussion. And the Big Bang is just a model, which is almost certainly flawed. I just thought I'd point that out. Cosmology is pretty cool, until you start getting into untestable string theories.

That's a clearer description. However, time can also be described as a nonspatial continuum that measures irreversible events in succession. If this model of time is considered, than time must certainly always exist so long as there are events to measure. Going off of this, I believe that there must be another event before all space and matter being at a single value, which is that same space and matter appearing. Even outside of time, I don't understand how that mass can exist if it is impossible for it to be created.

However, I see that you agree that the model is flawed, so I'm not sure if I'm actually deliberating with you at this point.

[Limewater]

I'm pretty sure that at no point does the Bible say "go kill people".

Dude, bad move. From about Joshua to Second Chronicles, there are a bunch of "Go kill these people" moments. Granted, those are specific instances of G_d telling specific people to kill specific other people, but still.

[Dylan]

I'm pretty sure that at no point does the Bible say "go kill people".

Dude, bad move. From about Joshua to Second Chronicles, there are a bunch of "Go kill these people" moments. Granted, those are specific instances of G_d telling specific people to kill specific other people, but still.

I'm aware of that, I was more referring to the idea of the Bible telling you to go kill people.

[MrPopo]

There is one HUGE difference between God and various scientifict theories. God explains EVERYTHING. Thus, no reason to question. ... A scientific theory is taken to be true until we find data that contrasts what is predicted. With God, though, he can do everything.

I don't think that this is quite fair. For most of modern history, at least in the West (I really don't know much about the East), scientific and mathematical advances came from religious people. Of course, that might not mean as much then as it does now, as much more of the population was religious, but it is true nonetheless. Isaac Newton wrote more on Theology than he did on Math and Science. You know who Copernicus was working for when he developed his heliocentric model for the universe? You know who published his work on the subject? The Catholic Church.

I'm not going to claim that religions have never attempted to stifle scientific progress, but I don't really see how one can take such final stance regarding the notion of G_d and scientific inquiry.

You're right that it came from religious thinkers, but as you mentioned it was nearly impossible to not be religious in those times, especially if you were a high-profile thinker. And the indoctrination was so strong at the time that the idea never occured to those thinkers how things go to be the way they are; they chronicled how the world works now. I guess I am a little harsh on it; it's probably a result of the recent backslide we're seeing with the ID people trying to get rid of the teaching of evolution.

Going off of this, I believe that there must be another event before all space and matter being at a single value, which is that same space and matter appearing. Even outside of time, I don't understand how that mass can exist if it is impossible for it to be created.

I see the problem here. You seem to be having problems with the concept of infinity. The mass was never created because it is and always will be (or in the form of energy). It's no different than the standard understanding of God. If you're ok with God always existing then you should be able to be fine with matter(energy) always existing.

[Jrecee]

I'm pretty sure that at no point does the Bible say "go kill people".

Dude, bad move. From about Joshua to Second Chronicles, there are a bunch of "Go kill these people" moments. Granted, those are specific instances of G_d telling specific people to kill specific other people, but still.

I'm aware of that, I was more referring to the idea of the Bible telling you to go kill people.

Are you saying you can't see how illogical it is that people get their morals from a book that is so incredibly open for interpretation? Well not really, but people are usually forced to interpret it because it's so irrational.

I simply cannot see how someone can take a book seriously that says "thou shall not kill" one one page and says "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him."

My problem, simply put, is that I have a problem with people basing their lives, and trying to get me to base my life, on this trash.

[Dylan]

I see the problem here. You seem to be having problems with the concept of infinity. The mass was never created because it is and always will be (or in the form of energy). It's no different than the standard understanding of God. If you're ok with God always existing then you should be able to be fine with matter(energy) always existing.

The problem is that "always" is a measurement of time. Something having "always existed" implies the constraint of time on that thing. I understand infinity, but I don't see how that matter can extend infinitely backwards so long as it exists within fundamental constraints.

[Jrecee]

I'm leaving open the possibility for anything. But I'm not going to pick a religion and go with it when I see no convincing arguments for them. I don't believe that if there is a god, that he has any particular plan for humans. We set ourselves so high on the totem pole, yet within the incomprehensibly vast universe, I think we're relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. We like the idea that some incredible being created us to serve some purpose and that if we fulfill that purpose we get super happy everlasting life. It's a nice thought, but there's no evidence to support it. It's just denying the obvious to ourselves.

I don't believe that just because something sounds good makes it less likely. Also, I made some arguments in my prior post.

There's always a bigger problem. But here, I'll name one; A bunch of guys hijacked a plane and killed thousands because they thought it would get them into super happy everlasting life world.

And a single man led a campaign to rebuild China the way he saw fit, with casualties reaching into the tens of millions. Yet, I do not consider politics inherently evil. If this issue is so subjective, then it can't be deal with through generalization.

The christmas at the airport thing is bullshit. I celebrate christmas. It has become more of a cultural and marketing thing than a religious thing these days. You can see it as either one.

? My point was that the exact same thing is done from atheists to christians.

"If an atheist kills someone because they want to, and a religous person kills someone for God, there is no logical distinction between who's better since both actions and methods had identical outcomes."

But why would someone kill someone for god if they didn't believe in god? It's an enabler. Say the atheist dude kills a guy who slept with his wife, if that guy hadn't slept with his wife he never would have killed him. If the bible hadn't told the other guy to kill someone, he wouldn't have done it.

I'm pretty sure that at no point does the Bible say "go kill people". Also, how mindless are these religious people you're imagining? Frankly, anyone who looks into a book and that book says "kill people" and does it wouldn't be remarkably hard to convince in the first place. I would also imagine that since you're using Muslims as your primary example, for what reason do you say "Religion" instead of "Islam"? As Limewater pointed out, religion can have a profoundly beneficial effect. If what we have is a case of some people driving an airplane, who's the problem? All religions in the world, or a group of people on an airplane?

Are you talking to me or limewater?

You.

1.) If there were any evidence for it, I might take it seriously. I see none.

2.) They were indoctrinated to believe something irrational. They acted on that irrational belief. I don't believe that if the suicide pilots had been raised atheist (or any other religion really), they would have flown a plane into a building just because they're stupid people. I've repeated this point and you just don't seem to agree with it. You suggest that people are set on their path to do evil things like kill or rape and it doesn't matter if their religious or not. I say religion is a massive part in defining a person. There are people who do bad things no matter what, and they may use religion to justify their actions. But religion is the cause of these actions a lot of the time.

3.) yea

4.)Uh, I can't remember that far back at this point. What was I supposed to respond to about the beginning of the universe?

I guess 4 should be 5 and 4 I kinda answered a couple posts back. . . this is getting complicated.

[Dylan]

Are you saying you can't see how illogical it is that people get their morals from a book that is so incredibly open for interpretation? Well not really, but people are usually forced to interpret it because it's so irrational.

I simply cannot see how someone can take a book seriously that says "thou shall not kill" one one page and says "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him."

My problem, simply put, is that I have a problem with people basing their lives, and trying to get me to base my life, on this trash.

Be fair, you're playing the pick n' choose game here. Any atheist is likely sick of this point: but things must be considered in context. It's very easy to make things sound ridiculous when you take them away from their original meaning and put them next to each other.

1.) If there were any evidence for it, I might take it seriously. I see none.

Surely you must struggle with any system of belief be that the case.

2.) They were indoctrinated to believe something irrational. They acted on that irrational belief. I don't believe that if the suicide pilots had been raised atheist (or any other religion really), they would have flown a plane into a building just because they're stupid people. I've repeated this point and you just don't seem to agree with it. You suggest that people are set on their path to do evil things like kill or rape and it doesn't matter if their religious or not. I say religion is a massive part in defining a person. There are people who do bad things no matter what, and they may use religion to justify their actions. But religion is the cause of these actions a lot of the time.

You are correct, I disagree on this point. I do believe that you're greatly overestimating the number of true crimes committed by people who are religious simply because they are religious, however.

[Jrecee]

Are you saying you can't see how illogical it is that people get their morals from a book that is so incredibly open for interpretation? Well not really, but people are usually forced to interpret it because it's so irrational.

I simply cannot see how someone can take a book seriously that says "thou shall not kill" one one page and says "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him."

My problem, simply put, is that I have a problem with people basing their lives, and trying to get me to base my life, on this trash.

Be fair, you're playing the pick n' choose game here. Any atheist is likely sick of this point: but things must be considered in context. It's very easy to make things sound ridiculous when you take them away from their original meaning and put them next to each other.

Enlighten me. Show me a context where an all knowing god can say those things and have it make sense.

1.) If there were any evidence for it, I might take it seriously. I see none.

Surely you must struggle with any system of belief be that the case.

Like what?

2.) They were indoctrinated to believe something irrational. They acted on that irrational belief. I don't believe that if the suicide pilots had been raised atheist (or any other religion really), they would have flown a plane into a building just because they're stupid people. I've repeated this point and you just don't seem to agree with it. You suggest that people are set on their path to do evil things like kill or rape and it doesn't matter if their religious or not. I say religion is a massive part in defining a person. There are people who do bad things no matter what, and they may use religion to justify their actions. But religion is the cause of these actions a lot of the time.

You are correct, I disagree on this point. I do believe that you're greatly overestimating the number of true crimes committed by people who are religious simply because they are religious, however.

Maybe

[Limewater]

You're right that it came from religious thinkers, but as you mentioned it was nearly impossible to not be religious in those times, especially if you were a high-profile thinker.

I didn't say it was nearly impossible. I just said that most people identified with a religion. That doesn't mean that they really believed it or followed it. But it is true that many of the great scientists and mathematicians through history have also written substantially on theology, indicating that they were not just casual members of a state religion.

And the indoctrination was so strong at the time that the idea never occured to those thinkers how things go to be the way they are; they chronicled how the world works now.

They chronicled that which they were capable of observing. We are still limited to the same five senses they were, and possess a little more temporally sampled data. From that we've extrapolated a fourteen billion year history of the universe. Take of that what you will.

That reminds me, someone was asking about books on evolution for the regular joe. It's probably not directly what was asked for, but I'd recommend Lucy, by Donald Johannsen, one of the discoverers of the famous fossil remains of the same name. It's really more about paleoanthropology, but it's written for the layman. Depending on your bent, you'll either come away amazed at what they were able to do with what little information that had or skeptical of a field so influenced by personalities and based on such sparse information.

I believe you also mentioned something earlier while we were discussing giving to causes about whether the giving was out of a sense of obligation or simply a desire to give. I think you're correct that such a thing can't really be measured well. I will say, though, that it is my understanding that the current trend in Evangelical Christianity is the belief that giving is not a command, but rather that Christians should give freely out of love. That doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot, though, because I don't have major breakdowns numbers for American Christians by denominational affiliation and those denominational stances on giving.

Are you saying you can't see how illogical it is that people get their morals from a book that is so incredibly open for interpretation? Well not really, but people are usually forced to interpret it because it's so irrational.

I don't think people are forced to interpret it because it is irrational. They are forced to interpret it because they are attempting to reconcile it with modern cultural values that they simply take as correct. Personally, I believe this to be a mistake.

I simply cannot see how someone can take a book seriously that says "thou shall not kill" one one page and says "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him."

The first one should be properly translated "murder." I think we have the King James version to blame for that one, because it certainly has persisted.

The second verse you mention is not a call to murder. The chapter in question (it's in Deuteronomy) is discussing societal law. That verse is describing a crime that at the time was punishable by death. Just as not all sex was adultery, not every instance of killing was murder.