Religion Thread

[Pillz]

On another note, what religion created such rules you speak of in earlier posts?

People say the 10 commandments layed down the laws we use today, but didn't they have rules like don't kill don't steal and such in other society's beforehand? One may find it easier to belief that such ideas were borrowed. Just like the story of Jesus was something that had already happened many times before in other religions...

/whistles

[Skieski]

Men didn't create all religions some were inspired by other means. Men neglected the any morals in first place so how can they miraculously create them?

And you know this, how?

[Priest]

All robots go to heaven.

[juke60xxx]

Men didn't create all religions some were inspired by other means. Men neglected the any morals in first place so how can they miraculously create them?

And you know this, how?

I don't lol thats the thing most religions are based on faith alone so your right you got me on that.

[crypto]

On another note, what religion created such rules you speak of in earlier posts?

People say the 10 commandments layed down the laws we use today, but didn't they have rules like don't kill don't steal and such in other society's beforehand? One may find it easier to belief that such ideas were borrowed. Just like the story of Jesus was something that had already happened many times before in other religions...

/whistles

They weren't borrowed, unless by borrowed you mean borrowed from themselves.

[Epic Ever]

Okay, the laws were not borrowed. The law that means you don't kill nor steal. They were there, but expressed as laws through common sense. The ten commandments were from God not to be enforced but to be a way of living life. This was also the beatitudes were used for. A way of living life, not law.

[Priest]

It doesn't matter.

Cuz all robots go to heaven.

*THREAD LOCKED*

[Jorgen]

or not

[Skieski]

A soul, at most, is chemical compounds stored in neurones inside the brain.

[juke60xxx]

Epic revival!
First off @the reply to my comment

All religions are not based off of man, you nor any one knows the definite origin of any particular religion unless its completely fabrication(easily discernible as false).

@the bible comments
Yet another person basing mainly on opinion rather then facts. The bible has different versions so it is easier to read, there is no different except for language differentiations and improved dialect of word content. Your opinion does not justify or disprove of your view of religion since you are speaking of religion in general. To one specific religion, your opinion is more down to earth, religion can be easily discussed since it refers to that particular religion. The idea that of what you think the bible is or what it represents is clearly opinion, the point is know your facts. The bible is viewed more then some moral list of laws and fairy tales. Its a foreshadowing of impending events and occurrences. Think I'm wrong? Take the bible code for instance. Its like a mathematical code that deciphers almost every major event in history with a near precise timeline. Heres a excerpt from an article i read :

For example, Michael Drosnin's Bible Code volumes
of 1997 and 2002 suggest that by examining
sequences of letters—every sixteenth letter, say—in the
text of Scripture, we can discover prophecies of contemporary
events. (This idea is actually quite old; it was
practiced, for instance, in thirteenth-century Spain by
Rabbi Bachya ben Asher.) Among much else, Drosnin
discovered that the Bible Code prophesied the attacks
of September 11,2001—which would, of course, have
been much more impressive if he had discovered it
before the bombings rather than after

The significance of the bible itself is important to those or seek it or are oblivious to its wisdom. Having an opinion is one thing but having a completely wrong and unjustified one is a problem.

If these laws or morals were so important why after the first inscribing did Moses smash them when he saw gods chosen people worshiping an idol and being sinful. how can any man destroy the supposed word of god like that. It would be the equivalent to burning the bible.

If you read the bible its explained clearly. The Jews were worshipping a false idol. Moses broke the torah so that the Jews weren't condemned to death for false idol worshiping. This is symbolic martyrdom was a classic example throughout the bible of prophets sacrificing themselves to save others. Moses in turn by breaking the tablets decided he would be destroyed as well if God decided to annihilate the Jews, but God  in turn forgave them.

The story of Jesus is not borrowed there are indeed many version of Jesus's(HORUS of Egypt,MITHRA, Sungod of Persia, KRISHNA of India) tale or interpretation but he differs from most because he has historical records backing him told in different views. You have to remember that although there is alot of stories in the bible that cannot be backed up with historical documents, there was actually a man named jesus who indeed was crucified  because he claimed he was the messiah.

But I cannot say with any true evidence that anything in our existence is true for that matter. Our perception and knowledge is based on our minds(soul) if you want to call it that. We merely walk through our lives believing everything we see or believe to understand must exist but when you think about even color is just interpretations from our brain. How can we know something 100% if we can even trust our minds. We can only see through our perception now what is "true reality"  when your mind does all of the processing can you know something, truly know something. these kinds of ideas make people want to believe that there is some all powerful being who made things in true reality and that our minds can understand it. (yes i know it sounds like a matrix paradox but Im a history major with a minor in philosophy so I have debated alot about religion e.t.c e.t.c.) so feel free to disagree or break down my post I dont mind, ill find away to cross your rebuttal.

p.s. robots dont have souls so how do they go to heaven. better yet here's something to talk what do you define as a soul. how do we determine what soul is. if its the understanding and use of emotions(thought e.t.c. e.t.c e.t.c) isn't that the brain.  god gave us souls but what are souls?

This is a classic example from Russel's Problems with Philosophy.
He talks about how if a tree fell would it make a sound if no one was near it?
The answer came with complex and perplexing arguments of previous philosophy due to prove that it does make this sound. Before i venture into that void, i would summarize it in a clear and collective phrases. Human beings live their lives based on what there perceptions and experiences bring them. However Russel proved that we must understand that the color we see and the sounds we hear are interpretations made by the brain translated within our minds. Just because something we can't see doesn't exist. How do we know that theres a emperor of Japan? How can he exist if i never seen him? We learn that our perceptions not only come from personal experiences but experiences validated by others. Our relationship between apperances and reality is called sense-data. Just because you haven't seen him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Logic tells us that yes he existed, if we based all our facts on perception and knowledge we wouldn't believe anything  really exists? Its logic, mathematics, wisdom(untainted knowledge) that has solved and prove most of the worlds mysteries and dilemmas.


Sparknotes:

To be acquainted with something is to be directly and immediately aware of it, without the action of an intermediary. When you sit on a red plastic chair, you become acquainted with lots of sense-data associated with that chair. You know its redness, its smoothness, its coolness, and its hardness. But to know that this thing is called a “chair” and that it’s often found in the company of other “chairs” and something called a “table” requires more than just direct, immediate acquaintance with the physical object. To know all that requires us to make inferences, based on our general knowledge of facts and on our acquaintance with other similar objects. This kind of knowledge is derivative, and Russell terms it “knowledge by description.” For instance, most of us know only by description that Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. Few of us have actually been there, so we have to rely on the testimony of others to “know” that fact. Indeed, to truly be acquainted with the fact of Everest’s superior height, one would have to visit and measure all the mountains in the world. It’s probably safe to say, then, that no one is truly acquainted with that particular piece of knowledge.

And to sum up the last portion since it does it better:

Just as we can know objects either immediately or derivatively, we can also know truths immediately or derivatively. Russell defines immediate knowledge of truths as intuitive truths. These are concepts that, to Russell, are so clearly self-evident that we just know they must be true. “1 + 1 = 2” is an example of such a self-evident truth. Derivative knowledge of truths involves deduction and inference from immediate, self-evident truths.

All knowledge is, in Russell’s view, built on acquaintance. Without knowledge by description, however, we would never pass beyond the limits of our own individual experience. Thus, just like perceptual and a priori knowledge, knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description work together to create a totality of human knowledge.

Any questions class?
Ok read chapters 3-4 for the next time!

[crypto]

The ten commandments were from God not to be enforced but to be a way of living life. This was also the beatitudes were used for. A way of living life, not law.

Right, so . . . ? They are theoretically enforced in the sense that you go to hell if you act against them too much, but they also parallel the usual "Don't murder," "Don't steal," etc., laws that had always existed in Jewish nations, among others. So, yes, they are law, practically speaking; it's just that your actions aren't rewarded or punished until you die, which makes most people—atheists as well as theists who just don't take religion too seriously—think of them as less forceful than earthly law.

I don't think I understand what you're saying. :|

[Priest]

Don't even bring that History Channel documentary bullshit in here. The bible code was disproved immediately after it was "discovered." Any book of sufficient length can be inputted into the cypher and you'll get plenty of awesome "predictions." http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm

First off, I do agree that the bible can be a tool for improving acceptable behavior. But only in societies that have had prolonged contact with it. To say that every person in the world would benefit from following the teachings of the bible is extremely ignorant. Different cultures have different values and they may not apply to the bibles value system.

I like how you say that its okay to have an opinion as long as it's not wrong. Lol. You're either crazy or stupid.

And just because I have never seen a Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean that he doesn't exist either. What makes your idea of a god so much better then mine?

[juke60xxx]

Don't even bring that History Channel documentary bullshit in here. The bible code was disproved immediately after it was "discovered." Any book of sufficient length can be inputted into the cypher and you'll get plenty of awesome "predictions." http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm

First off, I do agree that the bible can be a tool for improving acceptable behavior. But only in societies that have had prolonged contact with it. To say that every person in the world would benefit from following the teachings of the bible is extremely ignorant. Different cultures have different values and they may not apply to the bibles value system.

I like how you say that its okay to have an opinion as long as it's not wrong. Lol. You're either crazy or stupid.

And just because I have never seen a Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean that he doesn't exist either. What makes your idea of a god so much better then mine?

 What i meant when i said that you can have a opinion as long as its not plainly false. What it means is simply a nice way of saying i respect your opinion without prejudice as long as it isn't so offensive and wrong that i would prevent me from excepting it. Why is that a problem to you whether or not i respect someones opinion? Are you crazy or stupid because clearly you are by saying that someones opinion is subjective not objective?
Why can't a bring history into this, no history no reason to talk about this at all. I probable shot the gun with the bible code thing but don't be rude enough to say i can't put a little skepticism into it.

Have you even read anything i put down? Clearly you didn't Russel pointed out that we can can't clearly dispute what is real or illusion because we aren't acquainted with everything. Read what it says ffs. Its so clear and basic, i thought you would at least spotted it immediately. There is no idea I'm presenting of God. I never said anything of the sort. I used a valid source to support my statements. Thats all. Yet you attack me for having a opinion and attack others because there opinions don't align with yours. That is a clear indication of someone who only values themselves and not others. My comments were merely to educate myself and others.

To be acquainted with something is to be directly and immediately aware of it, without the action of an intermediary. When you sit on a red plastic chair, you become acquainted with lots of sense-data associated with that chair. You know its redness, its smoothness, its coolness, and its hardness. But to know that this thing is called a “chair” and that it’s often found in the company of other “chairs” and something called a “table” requires more than just direct, immediate acquaintance with the physical object. To know all that requires us to make inferences, based on our general knowledge of facts and on our acquaintance with other similar objects. This kind of knowledge is derivative, and Russell terms it “knowledge by description.” For instance, most of us know only by description that Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. Few of us have actually been there, so we have to rely on the testimony of others to “know” that fact. Indeed, to truly be acquainted with the fact of Everest’s superior height, one would have to visit and measure all the mountains in the world. It’s probably safe to say, then, that no one is truly acquainted with that particular piece of knowledge.

[juke60xxx]

Ok now that I'm home(finally) and my computer just fucked me over by startup reparing a non-existent problem...I can refocus a bit. First off if anything i said offended you let me take this time to apologize because I myself am not perfect and i have made some mistakes. So don't view me as a crazy person for having a opinion. Generally speaking the comment about whether a opinion is at least listenable as long as its true was a statement to allow everyone to have a voice. If i would go as far to be tyrannical douchebag i would object to every comment posted in forum. Considering this isn't a official debate website, why take it that serious. Realistically you don't take opinion for its validity since anything can be viewed to be arbitrary . I started at that particular phrase to develop my argument in the simplest form. I built up from that moment to elaborate further.
If it offended you again I apologize. However I won't apologize for plain ignorance and obviousness for reading information that i kindly provide to support my claim. It makes the conversation move more smoothly and makes everything more clear. Plus I don't like going back and forth about the same topic over and over when i even when out of the way to show you the facts. Facts are legit reprehensible knowledge that are undeniable tools to confirm validity.

Human knowledge is composed of two things: acquaintance (*Things we are directly acquainted with experiences, process, etc) and descriptions (details about or relating to an object or thing). These work together to prove that lets say everst exists, we use our logics, common sense, and intrincistic knowledge to disprove something irrational as a spaghetti monster since it doesn't exist or at least no one has seen it(sounds stupid but that it makes perfect sense) No one is directly acquainted with everything thus you can disprove or prove something exists.

There i said it are we done? Lets get back to life.

[Priest]

Thank you. Healthy skepticism. That's all I really wanted.