8Likes
December 4th, 2007, 06:44 PM
Different religions have similar and different meanings. Christianity is placed around The Holy Trinity and the redemption of man through Christ, the proof of God. Hinduism is about reincarnation and the circle of life and that one can be with God through holy deeds. Buddhism is spirituality and is orientated around leaving the physical body by purificaion, or enlightenment if you please. Can all these all be one true religion and can they all be right?
They are the right for the people who believe in them.
Does any religious person have immaculate knowledge? I don't think so.
December 4th, 2007, 09:22 PM
That depends on what you mean by "right". If you mean, are all religions sources of philosophy and beautiful writing (Song of Solomon, my favourite example), then, yes, all religions are right.
I've always enjoyed reading about Jesus and - particularly - Buddha. I think they seemed like lovely old boys and, were everyone more like them, the world would be far better off.
Sufism also has some very nice philosophies. Aleister Crowley, when not on a Christian-hating drug binge, had a few memorable moments. The Wicca Rede, "An ye harm none, do what ye will", isn't such a bad way to go about life.
Whether they're right about what happens after life and all of that stuff, I wouldn't profess to that knowledge. I haven't died before, far as I know, so couldn't say.
December 5th, 2007, 08:38 PM
To bad it isn't that simple.Originally Posted by svwillmer
If they are one true religion then there is no all, as in more than one.(scratches head)
If you have not noticed, Religions has been around forever. Every tribe, ethnic group, geographical group. has had a god or multiple gods until recent times where atheisme comes along.
Many would say that this alone is proof that there is something out there,
but I'll put it differently, I think this means that it is all absurd, with over 100 of religions and and 1000 of cults how can anyone assume that they have the right one.
I'd say that since there are so many religions, it is just proof that humans need someone to be above them self. To "know" that something better is at hand.
That speaks volumes in that it hasn't anything to do with the cult in question, but more to do with what someone WANTS to believe.
Of course, childhood indoctrination plays a huge role in what theists believe. For example, you firmly believe your god split the moon in half and then spackled it back together.
Religions with doomsday prophecy usually have their religion as last one standing, God's chosen. To me, this is the scary part. I don't expect one religion to favor another. So when one says they will survive armageddon and become the one true religion then that is absolutely no surprise. Each religion favors itself over the others and that is understandable.
When religions start talking doomsday prophecy then it's time to take serious note because they expect it to happen. Since they expect it there will be little done to prevent it and lots done to get it accomplished. The worst part is that they all agree people will need to be killed to fulfil God's wishes. This is the only thing they agree on entirely, people have to be killed. Are they right? No, they are crazy.
January 27th, 2008, 06:27 PM
I don't think any religion is 100% right on every single point. I don't even agree with all aspects of my own religion(Baptist) I don't see any more wrong with two people living together if they love each other & love God than I do with two people getting married by a judge who may or may not be Christian. Considering that the bible had to be translated into English or any other language other than what it was originally written in, by humans who make mistakes, I don't see how it can be 100% accurate.
the bible was written by man, and by man it can be changed.
All religions originated from the same source. Some brilliant "neandrithal" (sp?) came up with the idea that the weak and cunning should rule the strong. Thus, he created the idea of religion.
January 27th, 2008, 08:10 PM
If we narrow the definition of "religion" to a social methodology surrounding faith, and we assume that religion is basically an interpretation made by a one or more individuals, influenced by society, the age, and the particular disposition of the creators of the religion...then no. Somewhere, someone's got it wrong. But then again, what's "wrong?"
Firstly, cause you asked; neanderthal.All religions originated from the same source. Some brilliant "neandrithal" (sp?) came up with the idea that the weak and cunning should rule the strong. Thus, he created the idea of religion.
Secondly that's a fairly simple explanation for something that's far more complex then you appear willing to allow.
In answer to the question some religions are incompatible with other religions by virtue of the doctrines they assert. Christianity can't be true at the same time as Islam being true, because Christians typically don't accept Mohammed as being anything other than a usurper, and Muslims consider Christianity as incomplete. So it depends on the doctrines of the religions themselves as how compatible they are with each other. Though, if you remove/waive enough of the doctrines you can say that all religions are about the same thing and all are equal paths to God.
January 28th, 2008, 02:48 AM
I did not participate in the poll, because I do not think any of your choices suffice or equally that there are several correct answers depending on how the questions is understood.
In so far as man is able to comprehend or reach out to God, the answer is no because they are in fact all wrong. But let me ask you if you think that man reaches out to an unatainable God by His own intrinsic nature or whether this is really a reflection or effect of God's effort to reach out to us?
Therefore, I would say that, in so far as God is sovereign and that what really signifies is not human efforts to reach out to God but God's effort to reach out to man, then the answer is yes. In other words, the diversity of man and his religions (or philosophies), like the diversity of the natural world is a creation of God, and to suggest that such creations are wrong is like saying that a mountain lion or an arrow frog is wrong. Not only should we appreciate the divine beauty of this created diversity but come to realize that our salvation desperately requires this diversity.
That said, let me be honest. I am no religious dilletante. I am a Trinitatrian Christian who very much believes that the work of God on the cross is the central event of God's work of salvation by which He pierces our delusions to make it possible for us to have a relationship with the God that is real.
On the other hand, I am of the conviction that religions are 95-99% language only, and this means that my being a Trinitarian Christian means that this is the language through which religious truths are made intellegible to me. Since I do not speak the "languages" of other other religions then it is only natural that I see no efficasy in them for reaching out to the divine. And so while I can say with perfect clarity that in regards to my efforts and understanding it is Chrisitanity which is right and the others are wrong, I nevertheless can retain both my appreciation of the beauty of human diversity while giving thank for this diversity as a work of God as part of the only hope by which mankind can escape destruction.
As long as the religion is followed then the people that follow it believe it's riht. I'm Catholic, so although my religion says that it's the only true, in the bible it states every where, that Jesus will save the unlearned. If you live a pure life with out doing bad then you will go to heaven or what ever the religion states. But just like some science beliefs there will always be different opions. Some believe the universe was created by god others the big bang and yet others the steady state. It is all opion and the teachings they preach.
Doesn't that apply to anything? :? If I follow BBT, it's probably not because I think it's wrong...
Then again, I probably believe in something until something else gives me reason to believe in something else instead.
And yet others believe the two coincide. :?
And those doing the preaching...
Muhammad Ali said, and I agree, "Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams. They have different names but all contain water. Religions have different names, but all contain truth."
I am a henotheist and don't believe in any particular theology so this is appropriate to me.
If that is so, then what is truth?
That is the 6 million dollar question.
Honestly, I don't know.
But there are some basic truths that are contained in much of the worlds theology. ie. Don't kill people, don't steal, don't sleep with your neighbor's wife etc...
then why do most religions break these truths, saying a thing, but not doing a thing, makes it moot.
Most scientists some of the time and some scientists most of the time fail to adhere to the rigours of the scientific method. Does this make science wrong?
Bingo.
This whole subject would be so simple to resolve if every single person on the planet was EXACTLY the same in every way, experience, disposition, etc....but we all know that's not true.
People ignore, bend, break, or justify changing, the rules, in all aspects of society and personal life, from religion to politics, to science, etc.
If we choose to rate ALL of the religious people in the world based on the tiny fraction of nutcases out there, then we can condemn ALL of the scientific world, too, for it has had its own share of morons and "evil" people.
But I digress...what is truth?
When someone says there is "truth in religion," are they necessarily talking about the same thing as someone else who might have said that same phrase? Moreover, are they talking about the "truth" of the stories? The "truth" of God? Or maybe the "truth" of the lessons that are within the subject and not the text?
Unfortunately, like most things in this genre of discussion, the subject of "truth" is huge.
Well personally I was speaking of the truth that the lessons impart on those who wish to hear them. Although I do see your point and no I don't think that any two people saying those words necessarily mean the same thing by them.
Exactly! And this is what is usually the problem with superfical comparisons between religions made by people who are just comparing religions they only know from the outside to the religion which they are a member of. They compare them on the basis of the answers to the questions that are important to their own religion. But religions are not just a variety of ways that people answer the same questions. The truths offered by different religions are primarily answers to completely different questions that the religion itself claims are important. Therefore the disagreements between religions are far more profound than a philosophical debate, and communication is so difficult between them for their disagreement starts even before discussion can begin on what is worth talking about.
P.S. Obviously "non-religous" perspectives are included in what I call religion here, I know that the atheists don't like their point of view to classed with religion, but it can get rather tiresome to keep adding the qualifer "and other philosophical viewpoints" all the time.
Unfortunately the trick is not to focus on the one's who want to listen. That changes the rules a bit. Instead, the true game is to focus on those who don't want to listen, but it requires a certain finesse. Before you can attempt to change someone to your understanding, you have to first understand them, and why they believe what they do.
Contrary to what the idiots who bang on your door at 7 in the morning seem to believe, you can't blast people with literary regurgitation and expect them to suddenly change.
Let us take it to the start. God created the universe and everything within it (The RELIGIOUS ought to agree with this). Then after he sent ADAM and EVE to the world due to the reasons we all know. So they knew who was God and what his nature was and other such things. Then a little while later corruption started in the land. So from time to time, God sent Messengers and Prophets and revealed to them his Message and Books so that they could advise people with righteousness and pure belief. So, what I am trying to say is that, God is ONE. His religion is ONE (which he revealed to all the Prophets and Messengers), although there could be differences in subsidiary matters but the basic matter is same - worship just ONE God. And whenever people introduced corruption in the pure message of God, he sent His Messengers to renew THE Religion and according to Muslim belief (yes, I am a Muslim), Prophet Muhammad was the last of this veryyy long series of Prophets and Islam was the last revealed CODE of this religion and Quran is the final revealed book. and there shall be no messegers or books after this. Most of you must be already knowing this. I just wanted to point out, 'why the differences in religions and why all religions are not right'. You have the right to disagree.
That is very generous of you. Thank you.
I'm always amazed with the degree of certainty the religious claim regarding their message being "the final message" and the "the messenger" being the last, when they seem to follow a long series of other messages/messengers. I'm confident the next new religion will make the very same claims.
Last edited by MrMojo1; October 19th, 2012 at 08:48 PM. Reason: damn blackberry
A four year old thread
Necromancy saves bandwidth, some mod's have suggested that old threads be searched before a new thread be started, and there is a "similar thread" tool built into the software which brings these old threads up.A four year old thread
So what's your point here? That you support necrobigotry?
[/offtopicness]
By the way, I choose option four "Against the title of this post I came anyway and I'm atheist".
I don't like necro threads for several reasons:
-The original thread died a natural death of disinterest.
-seldom are the participants still around. It's like going back into an empty room and starting to talk about a conversation with a group you had yesterday. Forums are about discussions--starting up old ones again with people who are no longer here doesnt' add anything.
-if the thread is controversial, which many threads and post are, a mod has to read the whole dang thread over again to get context before deciding what do do about it. New members also have to do the same--if not for being a mod, I'd seldom read any thread over a few pages long. I don't on other forums. They discourage conversation.
-A extra thread is a trivial amount of data storage--it doesn't save anything significant to restart a four year old thread. Newer threads can always link to an old thread if there is something of interest there.
Forums thrive on new post and threads--not resurrections of old arguments like a moldy 1920s encyclopedia. There are very few truly new topics in these or any other forum--resurrections deter new activity.
I've been a proponent for auto locking old threads, say over a year--and still am.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 19th, 2012 at 08:27 PM.
Have you brought that up with the other mod's or admin?
The Jews are awaiting their Messiah (which actually was Jesus Chrsit (peace be upon him)). The Christians are awaiting their next prophet (which actually was Muhammad). And this begins the chapter of the anti-christ (Dajjaal). The Muslims are awaiting the descent of jesus christ. Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was not crucified. Rather God took him up in protection and Jesus Christ shall return to refute the falsehood that Christians have attributed to him i.e. he is the son of God. M giving u the broad idea of the Muslim belief, not imposing anything on you.I'm always amazed with the degree of certainty the religious claim regarding their message being "the final message" and the "the messenger" being the last, when they seem to follow a long series of other messages/messengers. I'm confident the next new religion will make the very same claims.
From the context of your post I am assuming that prophecy is an orthodox element of Islam. What is the Muslim position on free will, and if free will is an orthodox element of Islam how is it reconciled with the concept of prophecy?
Can you kindly tell me briefly how, according to you, the concept of 'human' free will and 'divine' prophecy are contradictory?
You forgot the Mormons, Scientologists, Moonies, Heaven's Gate, Rastafarians, and many other smaller groups. All waiting waiting on something to happen.
Simples! Free will implies choice, if there are alternative choices available then there will be alternative results. Each alternative result generates it's own unique set of choices. It is impossible to predict a specific outcome of a stochastic model. Either the script is set, or it is being written as we speak dependent on the actions of the characters. There is no logical room for both, it is one or the other.
The ancient Norse religion had a giant tree, dragons and snow giants, trolls and elves, magical hammers, eight-legged horse and rainbow bridge. Does this answer your question?"Are all religions right?"
(the reason people back then believed that, is not because it was "right" or "true", but simply because it was part of their culture(environment), at the very same time, someone born in the Canadian arctic circle in an igloo would grow up to believe another set of stories for the exact same reason, and had that infant been born in Norway they would know about Thor etc, as would you, if you were born in another time and place you would most likely believe in the religion of the people around you, family, culture. Imo, there isn't any more truth to religion than any fairy tale, some have decent lessons and wisdom, some are good fiction, which doesn't make them right or literally true)
Last edited by icewendigo; October 26th, 2012 at 02:57 PM.
That's my favorite religion. Incidentally, many modern Odinists respect the possibility that perhaps all the gods of all the pantheons are real. Even Jaweh, known as "The Desert God", and rather disliked by Odinists for the crimes his followers have committed against Odinism over the years. Of course Odinists do not believe "The Desert God" is really all powerful, all knowing, or all present.
Seriously?
I dont get this. Free will exists. Is that proof that a prophecy cannot be fullfilled? I dont see how.Simples! Free will implies choice, if there are alternative choices available then there will be alternative results. Each alternative result generates it's own unique set of choices. It is impossible to predict a specific outcome of a stochastic model. Either the script is set, or it is being written as we speak dependent on the actions of the characters. There is no logical room for both, it is one or the other.
As for the OP.
They all seem like varients of a theme.
Ofcourse ideas and concepts would naturally be slightly wrong and contradictory. After all the devil did invent the different schools of religion in order to divide the people.
But with a bit of imagination and selective acceptance of religious teaching, then I beleive they could probably be reconciled as all telling different parts of the same story. They are at least of a common descent. Is a monkey and a man the same? no, but it seems as if we both came from a common ancestor, acording to science.
First of all, I didn't specifically imply that free will exists. Specifically if free will exists then prophecy is a no go. This should be bleedingly obvious to anybody.I dont get this. Free will exists. Is that proof that a prophecy cannot be fullfilled? I dont see how.Simples! Free will implies choice, if there are alternative choices available then there will be alternative results. Each alternative result generates it's own unique set of choices. It is impossible to predict a specific outcome of a stochastic model. Either the script is set, or it is being written as we speak dependent on the actions of the characters. There is no logical room for both, it is one or the other.
Now, maybe you or someone else could explain how a single specific result is predictable from a stochastic model? It very simply isn't.
Nope sorry im more lost than before.First of all, I didn't specifically imply that free will exists. Specifically if free will exists then prophecy is a no go. This should be bleedingly obvious to anybody.I dont get this. Free will exists. Is that proof that a prophecy cannot be fullfilled? I dont see how.Simples! Free will implies choice, if there are alternative choices available then there will be alternative results. Each alternative result generates it's own unique set of choices. It is impossible to predict a specific outcome of a stochastic model. Either the script is set, or it is being written as we speak dependent on the actions of the characters. There is no logical room for both, it is one or the other.
Now, maybe you or someone else could explain how a single specific result is predictable from a stochastic model? It very simply isn't.
I didn't suggest you implied free will exists, I implied free will exists. I stand by that, maybe not absolute free will, but free will does exist to degrees.
I said I didnt understand how free will existing means prophecy is a no no, it certainly isn't bleeding obvious to me.
I prophecise that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, I will take a shower shortly after I get up.
Two prophecies one of which my free will cannot affect, the other prophecy can be deliberately carried out under my own free will, and your free will probably isnt powerful enough to prvent.
Actually, my own suspicion is also that choice is an operative element of human cognition. I was just being scientifically cautious.
That the sun will rise tomorrow is an inductively based prediction, not necessarily prophecy. The shower prophecy is just cheating.
So how about accurately describing a political event to occur many generations from now, or saying exactly what numbers will be rolled on a fair die for the next dozen or so trials?
Hmmm, can't do it, can you?
I don't know why prophecy cannot be a prediction based on inductivity, whatever that may be. Or it could be based on intuition, common sense. Or the phopeshy might accomplish itself through the beleif thats held in the prophecy. Maybe they call this a self fullfilling prophecy, which rings a bell, i've heard it somewhere. In this case free will would play a part in helping the prophecy to come true rather than ruling out the possibility of the specific outome of the prophecy.
Odinism really isn't any more absurd than Christianity or Islam. The gods trolls frost giants...etc. are all believed to live on another plane of existence and visit ours from time to time. Many X Christians believe they have met angels posing as normal humans. Many Odinists believe they have met gods pos ing as humans.Seriously?
you'd better ask yourself the question: why are all religions flawed?
Religion per se is un-truth or dis-believe. Like believing in santa clause, the tooth fairy is.
People who believe are retarded. And I do not mean that in a derogatory way. But smart people know there is a much more mature alternative: accepting the truth and your own demise without a divine net capturing you in mid air flight on your way to hell.
I BELIEVE that dinosaurs did not roam with early humanoids. I BELIEVE that humans are arseholes for believing in a higher power.
So there.
To answer my own question I must concede to a certain godgiven vanity, but while Moses was having a pastime with God himself I was making my own decalogue for GOD, since he was not in his right mind that day.
1) You shall not kill, torture, purposely hurt anyone, in a direct or indirect way. Either by paying, hypnotizing, brainwashing, blackmail or ordering someone to kill FOR you, or in the case of suicide, appoint a proxy party to kill yourself. You shall not kill anyone unless immediate danger leaves you no other option than to resort in defending yourself and or other victims.
2) You will not kill, discriminate, or deprive any living creature over and of their their sexual, religious and political preference. Not even the favorite color of their liking shall be mocked by you. You shall not discriminate at all.
3) You will not steal, but if so, will not disown or deny your flagrant misdoing but confessing your felony to society and pay for your wrongdoing in hard cash or hard labour to be determined by a jury of your peers. You are owing to society.
4) You will not violate or touch vaginas, anuses, or penises under the age of 18, unless you yourself are a teenager with a 2 year margin gap. You will not penetrate vaginas, or any other body orifice ever without her or his approval.
5) You shall not wreak havoc by deeming your own race, nationality, favorite sport club, or anything else superior to other human beings
6) You shall testify in a truthful manner against or in favor of anyone, unless it violates all before precepts.
7) You shall not try to find ways to get away with the former 6 precepts.
8) You shall not try to find ways to get away with the former 7 precepts.
9) You shall not try to find ways go get away with the former 8 precepts.
10) It is your human duty to not be an utter autocratic asshole, unlike your god, but since there is no god to stop you, but your own god, you can believe that I am wrong too..
Last edited by Steve555; October 28th, 2012 at 10:59 PM.
I think you have broken your second commandment before you even typed it out. For you have shown discrimination... you're whole post is borne from discrimination against the beleifs of others.
And that's the point. Someone make a prophecy that you will take a shower. You decide not to. Therefore the prophecy has no value. It is not a prophecy of something that will happen, it was just a random guess. If prophecies have no predictive poower because people can choose to do something else then they are not prophecies - especially if they are supposed to be from a God who knows everything including what you will choose (freely) to do.
Just in case you still don't get it:
The All-Knowing, All-Powerful God Who Is Never Wrong (AKAPGWINW) says, "you have complete free will, but in my infinite wisdom knowing all things and being able to see the future perfectly, I predict you will choose RED wine!"
You, having free will, say "No thanks, I'll have WHITE wine please."
(Being a Bad Loser, AKAPGWINW pours you a glass of RED anyway and says, "Ha! I win")
Still dont get what exactly?
Your bringing a religious conception of an all knowing god into a conversation I was having with giant evil about the relationship between free will and prophecy, I dont get that.
Your example of God giving a prophecy (which I never heard of before, I dont think God has ever been caslled a prophet), just prooves that a prophecy can be fullfilled by the will of the person who gives it, in some cases. What if the person with free will says 'no thanks, im not drinking the red' on second thoughts, please do not continue with this scenario.
As has been pointed out, it can also be fullfilled by others who beleive in the prophecy (thats their free will choosing to beleive).
Also a prophecy can just be right, and nobodies free will can do anything about it.
The original question was why divine prophecy is incompatible with free will. If your definition of "divine prophecy" is "lucky guesses made by a fallible god" then there probably isn't much contradiction. But then there isn't much in the way of prophecy, either. A prophecy that may or may not be true depending whether people decide to go along with it or not, is not a prophecy.
Surely, the whole point of prophets is that they are telling the world what God says is right or what God says will happen. If they are just making up random shit then they are not really prophets.Your example of God giving a prophecy (which I never heard of before
Perhaps you need to explain what you think "prophecy" means....
It has the same qualities... its is bassically the same thing in actuality. A 'prophecy' which is a prediction is being fullfilled.
I was aware that I hadn't checked the exact definition of prophecy and was unclear if it had to be from divine origins to be a prophecy, or weather an intelligent and long term prediction could also be called a prophecy.
It can be argued that everything, every thought and actions is inspired by the divine principle.
It seems that giving the word 'prophecy' a specific context in which the Godhead priciple speaking through one of it's specifically chosen mouth peices, on one specific occassion, means that you are not conforming to the definition you hold of 'god' being All power, all knowledge, all things.
If all words are gods words, if god is all knowing, all power, and all presence, then all words are divinely inspired.
God could prophecise rightly or wrongly on purpose. An obvious reason would be to prevent the actual prophecy from occuring.
It could be known (within all knowledge) that a certain outcome (x) is likely unless (y) happens... Therefor a prophecy could be given in order that y happens and x never does. y could be the prophecy or it could be something done as a result of the prophecy.
So now it seems, the most useful prophecys would be the ones that simply by being given, have ensured they will never come true.
How does "ensuring they never come true" fit in with free will? What if someone (freely) chooses to make sure it does come true?
(I should add that I think the concept of free will is pretty much meaningless, like solipsism)
Solipsism eh, thats an interesting one I've not heard before. I have heard various ideas about reality only existing in our own minds etc.How does "ensuring they never come true" fit in with free will? What if someone (freely) chooses to make sure it does come true?
(I should add that I think the concept of free will is pretty much meaningless, like solipsism)
Seems a bit of an ego centred view of reality in a way. To beleive that nothing really exists except in our mind although an interesting thought, doesn't satisfy me. This suggests that the mind is capabal of creating without experience for one thing.
I had a vivid dream lastnight and probably saw details that I can't remember ever seeing in the waking dream that I call daily life experience, the mind is a powerful creator of the sense perceptions... but can it do it day and night, with no previous experience? can you all just be a figment of my imagination? I doubt it, if that was the case i'd be building a 'fight club' into an army of revolutionaries of something.
Look at the film 'a beautyful mind' with russle crowe, based on a true story... that proffesor would be making up those characters in his mind, and his mind would be convincing itself that they are an illusion in a world of reality, when in fact they would be illussions in a world of illusion... why would a mind do that to itself? Why would the mind invent a pathological existence for itself?
Bit embaressing... after the little rant I reread your post and see you said solipsism is meaningless! hehee. I agree.
Free will... I think we have free will. Not complete free will. Free will withing parametres. Parametres we can extend under free will. I don't beleive free will is meaningless at all, as humans we have a lot more power of free will than less intelligent animals.
I'd be interested to hear why you think free will doesn't exist or is meaningless.
Because there is no meanigful way of defining it or testing it.
A says, "the world is completely deterministic and every choice you make is determined by the conditions at the time."
B says, "no it isn't look I can ... [raising his arm] raise my arm when I want"
A says, "but you were always going to do that, nothing could have changed it."
How do you know you have free will? You may just think you have. In the end it makes no difference if you think you have or you haven't. Maybe that is your choice. Or maybe you have no choice about what to think. "In that case, I'll change my mind!" "But you were always predetermined to do that"
It's an interesting vortex of abstract thought, but it doesn't make it true.Because there is no meanigful way of defining it or testing it.
A says, "the world is completely deterministic and every choice you make is determined by the conditions at the time."
B says, "no it isn't look I can ... [raising his arm] raise my arm when I want"
A says, "but you were always going to do that, nothing could have changed it."
How do you know you have free will? You may just think you have. In the end it makes no difference if you think you have or you haven't. Maybe that is your choice. Or maybe you have no choice about what to think. "In that case, I'll change my mind!" "But you were always predetermined to do that"
just because A says: "but you were always going to do that, nothing could have changed it.".. That doesnt mean its true. A can say what he wants to say.
It seems the problem here is that A is a beleiver in predetermined destiny, B beleives in making his own destiny. Which do you think is more likely? or is it a combination of the two?
Free will might be something you have to develop... your free will is limited by your ability to think creatively a bout how to act, it is also limited by your ability to think independently.
There is not a lot of logic in claiming that everyword and every letter I have just written in that exact order, was predetermined and had nothing to do with my will, or that my will was not formed under any freedom of thought.
But that is exactly what many people would claim. And there is no way of refuting their argument (that I am aware of). You are, of course, free to ignore them.
Who are these people? Even the biblical literalists beleive god gave them free will?But that is exactly what many people would claim. And there is no way of refuting their argument (that I am aware of). You are, of course, free to ignore them.
Anyway.. I certainly agree that often people do things beleiving it is there will when it probably isn't. Take hypnotism as an extreme example. I still think that it is possible to have free will.
Will means 'that which you have decided to do' The course of action you are taking. It is motive orientated or motivated by reason. Give somebody a motivation to act a certain way... they will weigh up the pros and cons they can forsee, then adjust their will accordingly. The freedom is limited by the pros and cons percieved, but there is freedom within those limitations.
What if prophecy is real but it's just a ppsychic power some people develop? What if "magic" is just psychic stuff too?It would just be another case of "god" taking credit for creating stuff that already exists I guess.
Firstly 'God' does not take the credit... it is sometimes given to God, by some.
psychic power is the power of the mind to recieve info from another mind... if the other mind is in the present, then how can it know the future?
If the psychic communication is between one mind in the present, and one underlying mind which knows the future (such as God perhaps)... then psychic power could predict future events... AKA prophecise.
Magic is illusion... Making people beleive things that are not real, is magic. If a 'miracle' happens, that is not magic, that is real. If you beleive a miracle has happened, but it didnt really. That is magic and illusion. In my opinion.
Illusion and magic happens all the time. But god is given credit for miracals, not for magic and illusion.
What if "magic" is just psychic stuff too?It would just be another case of "god" taking credit for creating stuff that already exists I guess.
There are some shortcomings in the logic of this statement. I've already mentioned the bit about god taking credit and about what I interpret magic to be.
Further to that: What if magic is psychic stuff? that means it real. Which means it might possibly be a creation of god. Just because it 'already exists', doesn't mean it has nothing to do with 'god'.
"Would just be another case of god taking credit for stuff that already exists" Thats a highly amusing comment to me Kojax!
The idea of God is fundamentally that he/she is the cause of the universe, the cause of life as we know it. There are not many people who see 'god' as some higher being who has come along to take credit for that which already exists.
All religions are wrong, except (may be) Buddhism. It has advantage over others on that it has no Supreme Creator.
Is there such a thing as right wrong?
Did you mean right as in the political sense?
What humans think or believe has nothing to do with the real world.
Why did you want to share your peice of information which has nothing to do with the reality of the world then?
What is your motive for this questionaire Quantime?
Are you looking for a soundbite such as '60% of religious people don't beleive all religion is right'
I think they could all be right at the same time and they could all be wrong.
I'm not going to vote as I don't wanna be another statistic.
I mean right as conformance to reality.
November 5th, 2012, 08:34 AM
This is a forum. That's what people do. Your rply implies, that if I don't agree , then that proves I agree. Very sad. I hoped for better from this forum.Why did you want to share your peice of information which has nothing to do with the reality of the world then?
Judging an entire forum by the opinions of one member?
Meh, you're lucky they didn't pick on your fancy user name. You can't imagine what trouble they put me through with mine...they would discard my every logical argument based on it! I would say 2 + 2 = 4 they would be like nah man, you're high on drugs...your user name...Then this mod says he'll ban me, I said I don't care, and he sees that as a life threat! He pms me and asks me if it's a threat. I mean, the guy was fearing for his life.This is a forum. That's what people do. Your rply implies, that if I don't agree , then that proves I agree. Very sad. I hoped for better from this forum.Why did you want to share your peice of information which has nothing to do with the reality of the world then?
Some other dude pms me and asks me if I sell drugs in my area. I reply, no I don't sell drugs, I don't take drugs, you fucking moronic idiot. You just gotta cope with the fags man. They're born that way.
Such language. Very sad. I expected better from the United States of America.
Does my reply imply that? I don't think my reply is something you need to agree or disagree with, it's just a question to answer.This is a forum. That's what people do. Your rply implies, that if I don't agree , then that proves I agree. Very sad. I hoped for better from this forum.Why did you want to share your peice of information which has nothing to do with the reality of the world then?
I really don't know what better reply you were hoping so desperately for... you post a fairly random comment with no explaination or justification, then when I ask you a question that shows a contradiction between the truth that you profess and the action you commit, you become very sad and claim you hoped for better, failing to provide an explaination of what is so disapointing about my reply.
I've come to expect better than that from the Science Forum.
I don't know much about you or how you get treated... the only time i've spoken to you was when you decided to give me a rude lecture about the dangers of smoking weed without first bothering to ask if I smoke weed.
I don't know what your trying to insinuate! or who 'they' are, but it isn't me... you're still acting crazy though just like the first time I met you. You seem a little angst, paranoid even. Why not relax a little? Take a chill pill or whatever you like to do for relaxation.
Oxycodone, if the stigma for your unwisely chosen name is too much to bare, we might allow an exception and allow you to change it out. Report this post with the new name if that's your wish so the mod team considers it.
Yeah, it's because of your user name.
Oh, or maybe...
... it's just your personality.you fucking moronic idiot.
I think thats a very complex question. Very difficult to answer.I mean right as conformance to reality.
We need to know reality for a start... which we don't.
Assuming much of what's written in religions does not conform to historical reality... the fact that the religion exists has a bearing on the reality with live in
presently. So in a way reality might be what we make it, so religion maybe does not conform to reality, it helps to mould reality.
We act based on the assumption that we know reality, at least in approximation. Religion does not mold reality; at best it shows us what is real.
It is impossible for several mutually exclusive entities to be right. It is as simple as if any religion has a core tenant that utterly contradicts another then they cannot both be simultaneously correct.
If religion did not exist, then reality would be different. Therefor religion has moulded reality. Religion exists, religious beleif exists, therefor they are reality.
Anything that exists is a part of reality. An illusion is a real thing, as long as it exists.
I agree. I think religion had moulded reality since whatever we did in the past has religious influence (eg: history). Therefore religion is part of a person's reality even if that person is not religious themselves.
I think we use the term 'reality' in different contexts. You use it to mean an event; for example: If religion had not existed, the course of events would have been different. I use it to mean the natural law; for example: Regardless of what any religions say, matter will continue to exert its force on each other.If religion did not exist, then reality would be different. Therefor religion has moulded reality. Religion exists, religious beleif exists, therefor they are reality.
Anything that exists is a part of reality. An illusion is a real thing, as long as it exists.
Is man made in God's image or God made in mans' image? There is only one commandment: do unto others...
Last edited by slush33; November 15th, 2012 at 07:10 PM. Reason: spelling
In a way, yes. All religions are right. Even the non-monotheistic faiths, one of their Gods is the God monotheists worship, the one believed to have created the heavens and the Earth. We all want to get somewhere good in life or after our life. We cannot be absolutely sure if there is an afterlife, but we all know we have that choice of believing in a heaven and/or a hell. We all believe to know what is considered to be right and wrong in all faith. We all believe in slight punishment, and aim for rewards in our faiths of humanity, of this world.
Strongly believing that something is real does not mean that it has to be real.
You seem very keen to tell us what we all believe. Unfortunately you have the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong.
When I say 'reality' I don't mean an event, I mean all events and things and occurances that are real.I think we use the term 'reality' in different contexts. You use it to mean an event; for example: If religion had not existed, the course of events would have been different. I use it to mean the natural law; for example: Regardless of what any religions say, matter will continue to exert its force on each other.If religion did not exist, then reality would be different. Therefor religion has moulded reality. Religion exists, religious beleif exists, therefor they are reality.
Anything that exists is a part of reality. An illusion is a real thing, as long as it exists.
If somebody beleives something which not true, see's something that does not exist, then that is an illusion... a real illussion, which is part of reality... as it is real.
Hope that clears it up
Ah, What? An illusion is not real, thus not part of reality. It is a only a sensation of that mind, the sensation is real.If somebody beleives something which not true, see's something that does not exist, then that is an illusion... a real illussion, which is part of reality... as it is real.
Hope that clears it up
Thanks, MrMojo1. You explain it clearly.
Interesting comment. perhaps you are right.Ah, What? An illusion is not real, thus not part of reality. It is a only a sensation of that mind, the sensation is real.If somebody beleives something which not true, see's something that does not exist, then that is an illusion... a real illussion, which is part of reality... as it is real.
Hope that clears it up
If that sensation leads that mind to act in a way that it would not have had it never sensed the illusion, then reality is being affected by the illusion... so it has become reality.
Besides, if an illussion is a sensation of mind and a sensation of mind is real, then the illusion is real.
Incorrect. You are conflating the issue. Let's define "real" as an event which occurs objective reality, and can be verified by independent minds or apparatus. Let's define an illusion as stimulus to a mind which produces a false sensory response in that mind (e.g. observing a pool of water in the desert at high noon, when there is no such water present). That image of water does not exist in reality, therefore it doesn't affect reality. What is part of objective reality is the electrical impulses in the mind that experiences the illusion. That mind alone experiences a false visual image and perhaps an emotional response to that image.
Oh God I'm the one that started this thread a LONG TIME AGO... a lot has changed since then.
They can all be one religion if you added to them, and brought them together into one faith but that is besides the point, you could equally bring all marvel comics together into one wouldn't make them any less ridiculous. Even if you DID bring them all together again how would that prove them right? The question depends on 'right', right about what? Right that all their claims about an eternal, omniscent supernatural creature existing and performing all of the deeds in their retrospective texts are all correct and true? And as they claim? No. They cannot prove their own claims. None of them can or ever will, and no more so if they came together. It is another dead end, anything based on a creator is, as there was no need for a creator.
Today when I saw 'RELIGIOUS ONLY' without knowing I wrote the thread, I instantly thought to myself: "Well how can you answer the question if you don't let atheists answer?" It just goes to prove the brainwashing a person can recieve from religion, that how easily it makes you deludedly lost. Looking back, I found my way eventually and answered more questions by saying 'what if' and 'how come', instead of 'what for' and 'who did it'.
PS. I had to edit this a few times, my beliefs may have changed but my spelling certainly hasn't.
The beauty of old posts. Their semi-permanent nature of being still available in archives.
It has its downside as well though and it's why I deliberately avoid the embarrassment of reading anything I wrote more than two years ago (even though present posts are probably equally embarrassing...)
Indeed, I always find it humorous when viewing myself in the past, no doubt I'll feel the same again in the future about myself as I do now (please anyone reading this in the future don't drag it up again, and I pray to god I don't become theist again)
The problem with religion is that it takes faith to believe in god and the supernatural, aka no evidence. The problem is when you do that, you start to believe that all you need is faith when making claims about morality, and law and freedom and knowledge....
When it comes to those, you DO need evidence, NO question. I am glad I caught the 'A-train' when I did. It is responsible for my emotional and intellectual growth, maturity and responsibility and I hope it leads me on a path never turned away from, the promised land that is the truth, no matter where it is or what it looks like, and certaintly how it makes me feel.
Last edited by Quantime; November 23rd, 2012 at 08:38 PM.
When you get back on the righteous path... I will not remind you of this indiscretion.
The more we experience the more we grow, we have to try this different view points and see what we can learn from them.
That fact you were a beleiver and now a nonbeleiver... means you've been able to spend time looking at questions from both those angles.
You might get round to beleiving in a more advance concept of god than you had before... you might then develop a more advanced atheist concept of some kind (if thats possible).
I've often thought if there is a middle ground, something beyond the terms of 'theist and atheist', so far I cannot find one and atheism seems the right path for me now and it has served me well in my education. It has made me a lot more skeptical and very cynical to that end, and it has been hard stuggling to find answers to lifes questions, and finding somewhere to turn to when in doubt and lost. I feel stronger on my own, it makes me feel alive. I do know though that even though my stance on faith has changed, I still have the same need to want to make peace and unite people, even if my methods are still the same. I think we all gravitate towards what we experience, Richard Dawkins is an atheist because of his experience as say Cardinal George Pell is because of his. Indeed both are able to understand science one chooses it to enlighten him and the other to bask in ignorance of it, but none the less we would all be atheists if we viewed the evidence.When you get back on the righteous path... I will not remind you of this indiscretion.
The more we experience the more we grow, we have to try this different view points and see what we can learn from them.
That fact you were a beleiver and now a nonbeleiver... means you've been able to spend time looking at questions from both those angles.
You might get round to beleiving in a more advance concept of god than you had before... you might then develop a more advanced atheist concept of some kind (if thats possible).
I have no doubt in time the world will have forgot religion and that maybe some other practice will take its place. A kind of spirituality where we don't have rules or mantras, or religious texts telling us the path. We have a philosophy, a meditation in which we share with each other our experiences and choose what is morality in situations and how we would conduct our lives. How it can change and more importantly, to be there for each other when we are alone.
The Bible says no.
Only one is right:-
Ephesians 4:4-6
One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all.
John 17:3
This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God,. . .
Thus only one true faith.
big
They are conflicting to one another. Logic states one 'God.'
Naturalism, see you faith. Reclaim omniscience!
| « Could Atheism Be Improved With The Addition Of A Potentially Valid Redemptive Element? | My Mothers Religion. And why westwind was a bastard. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
