Are u a creationist?

[Greven]

I admired the catolic church and religion in general, thats why my avatar looks like it does, but I am not very religious.

[PurpleYouko]

The problem is that there is not one shred of evidence that any kind of God exists.
Since I don't personally feel the need to believe in something without proof, this causes me no discomfort whatsoever.

Conversely, there is also not one shred of proof that there is no God. To me it is just a concept that isn't even worth my time to pursue. I don't need him and the universe doesn't need him.
But then again, he might want it that way.

Our DarwinBots have no idea that we exist either. I wonder if they ever develop little religions during a sim? Who knows what really goes on between the visual basic commands that we can see. maybe they are self aware in there.

I sometimes find myself wondering if a new super tough species of bot worships its creator as it carves its way up the F1 league. Just imagine members of "The One" tribe paying homage to "The Great and powerful Shen" each time they cream a competitor.  :D

[Greven]

LOL PY you have the best humour I have ever experinced!  :D

[Old Henk]

but we need to understand that innovation and progress aint created by one-eyed people, like the medieval Europe and the now fundamentalist regimes of the Muslim society and Bush' religious supportes.

True, unfortunately...  :(

A real shame, because I believe one of our 'goals' on earth is to explore it, and everything around it.

[AZPaul]

It's all your own fault. Y'all open this door. I'm just sticking both left feet in.

Something I wrote for another board.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The scientific problem with theology is its history.  Not the religious stories and writings but the independent historical records and artifacts that give a clear and reasoned history of religion in our species.

Primitive man used the spirits of the animals, plants and rivers upon which his very existence depended as the focus of his psychological need to explain what this "life" thing was all about. We're talking Homo erectus of 300,000+- years ago not the australopithecines of way back. Homo, it is believed, had the capacity to so wonder as evidenced by his stone trinkets of ornamental value rather than as tools. Some obvious "mother earth" and “pregnant deer” statuary and the like.

In Homo sapiens this focus slowly shifted to the great powers that seemed to control all the elements of the environment. Sun, moon, sea, wind, volcanoes, thunder and like that.  With the advent of agriculture and stable local populations the local god had local appeal and was structured for the close relationships of the tribe.  During this period the priests arose, self proclaimed, to read the signs and interpret the actions and angers of the gods. Since humans are as humans are the neighboring tribes were of course a lesser people with lesser gods and thus it was kosher to kill their men, enslave their women and eat their children most often at the behest if not the direct commandment of the local gods as interpreted by the priests.

Joseph Campbell wrote an excellent series of books on the power of myth as religious symbology and tracing the history of religious development. He writes about the strong rulers in Mesopotamia, like Sargon Of Akkade, born of a virgin so it is proclaimed, son of the (then) greatest Mesopotamian god Enlil.  Sargon went on to conquer everything he could see, declared himself the true embodiment of Enlil and had the remaining priests in his conquered cities so declare this truth after beheading the local kings and ruling high priests.  He installed his daughter as High Priestess of the Temple of the goddess Nanna at Ur and in all just helped himself to all the goodies by usurping the social powers (along with the gold, granaries, and gals) that were the purview of the local priests which had accumulated their powers and riches by taking credit for good harvests and fine weather as signs of their intercession with the great gods of the past millennia and the present great god Enlil and blaming catastrophe on those unbelievers, especially tribal outsiders and their lesser gods, who brought the wrath of Enlil down upon an innocent people except now Enlil was Sargon or vice versa and it gets confusing from there.  One of the first known instances of man claiming divinity.

In the history of human theology, I suppose as differentiated from Canine or Equine Theology, monotheism is the new kid on the block. Still, the first major mono-theologies, in Egypt and the Indus river valley, were tribal in origin, of, for, and by the tribe with rules, laws and sacraments; a complete cultural morality that did not apply to outsiders. The same then were adopted by and applied to the three great modern mono-theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Some may argue that these are all one theology owing to their common theological godhead - the god of Abraham. Bull. But that’s another tome for another time.  

There is nothing in any present religious philosophy on this planet, no tenet, no myth, no story, no attribute, no miracle that does not have precedence in some other tribal religion millennia past complete with virgin births, attaining nirvana, water walking, parting seas, lotus blossoms, halting suns, miracles of healing, plagues of disease and the infinite love of the great god for the tribe and his ordered/inspired conquests and murders of  “others” in city-states and territories of those not of the tribe.  Like plants and animals, religions evolved from older forms taking the myths, stories and miracles of the past and adapting them to the new sets of gods.

The crux is this.

We know this history. We know where, when and why things happened. In all that history there is nothing to indicate, to suggest or reasonably speculate that some magical being with special powers has or had any effect upon any natural, non-natural, fattening or non-fattening phenomenon, action or inaction dealing with any living or dead, non-living or non-dead, person, place or thing of any kind at any time whatsoever anywhere ever. Everything we see and have seen, everything we experience and have experienced, everything we know (incomplete as that knowledge may be) about our species and our history, and through our intellect everything we know about any and all other species and their histories since the dawn of life on this planet and still further back than that, has reasonable natural explanations without having to resort to “poof – magic happened!”

There is no reason for any type of god to exist. There has been no phenomenon anywhere at any time that can reasonably be attributed only to the magic of a supernatural sorcerer. There has been no phenomenon anywhere at any time that cannot be more reasonably attributed to natural forces than to the magic of a supernatural sorcerer. Science cannot address and has no need to address any type of god since there is nothing anywhere in nature, the earth, the heavens nor beyond that reasonably indicates any gods would, could or should exist.

If we are going to leave open as scientifically viable the wild speculation of the maybe existence of gods then we must also leave open the wild speculation that there may exist a planet in the M67 galaxy accreted wholly from Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese (the real thing; not some generic store brand) with Chives. Science cannot say there is or is not some flavor of god because science has no reason to presume that such a thing, with or without chives, would, could or should exist. Gods are a scientific non-issue.

Theology started as a psychological salve to help explain this “why” question some newly sentient beings seemed to have asked when they came down from the trees. Then it acquired the tribal pack mentality with restrictive rules, rites and sacraments. Finally, there is its usurpation by the political establishment where it seems to have gotten stuck for the past three millennia.

And since we know the history of religion, its origins, its limits, its evolution, its very reason for being, then by the same token gods should be a human intellectual non-issue as well.  A reasonable dispassionate reading of the history of Human Theology must conclude the same as the scientific treatment. There is no reason for any type of god to exist. There is no evidence such a thing would, could or should exist in our lives.  There is no need.

So why do religious memes persist? I’m glad you asked.

Religious memes propagate by acculturation like knowledge of how long after eating you have to wait before swimming and how many times you need to say “I love you,” before you can screw the girl.  The political/social reinforcement of this acculturation continues since it seems to serve a useful purpose in morally stabilizing and mollifying the sizable populations (hundred of millions) that now exist as “the tribe.”

No, I’m not saying a sinister government is perpetrating a religious hoax upon the populous. Our society, our culture, sees the propagation of religious memes as a good and necessary adjunct to the secular constraints on our actions by modern governance. In other words our society sees religion as helping secular governance keep us from eating each other.

That prevailing view is bogus. Religious memes really aren’t necessary and detract and separate more than they add and meld. Secular governance does quite well on its own.  In fact it does better the freer and farther it spreads. Again, another tome for another time.  

But we are going to have one hell of a time getting rid of religious memes.  Some memes, like that really stinky advertising ditty that you absolutely hate, just keep pounding the inside of your head no matter what you do to get rid of them. Religion is a societal meme that is pounding within the collective heads of the broader global tribes and just won’t go away. Pity.

[MrMound]

AZ Paul what happens when you die then(if there is nothing above humans) :) .

[Numsgil]

I almost agree with you Paul, but I think you have the priorities of religion backwards.

Religions were not created to explain why, but to provide the basic cement which hold complex socities together.

All religions probably formed from the basic tenents of communalism.  For instance, what would we hold as the perfect example of a christian/jewish/muslim/eastern religion man?

A man who works his entire life for the betterment of others wins the prize.  Someone who has sacrificed personal comfort to help others.  Society is based on mutual trust and basic rules that, so long as all members follow, all members prosper through.

Even atheistic socities posses this basic theology.  Our selfless man also is the pinical of both capitalist and communist societies.  All civilizations throughout time have strived for its members to work towards this ideal.

The 'why', the gods and pantheons, occurs later, and is really a precursor to science.

That it is tied into the religion doesn't mean it's inextricably linked.  As society became successful enough that some members could devote their life to 'thinking' instead of farming and animal husbandry and other basic labor, then religion and science part ways (ancient greece and rome for example) because men are allowed to specialize even further.

Primitive socities can only support one basic caste that doesn't 'contribute' through food cultivation and construction.  More successful societies can allow that caste to be subdivided into more specific castes.

[MightyPenguin]

AZ Paul what happens when you die then(if there is nothing above humans) :) .

Death is cessession. There is nothing beyond that.

[Numsgil]

I'm reminded of a line from Ray Bradbury.  (I'm paraphrasing of course).

"I believe in what was."

Even if you don't necessarily believe in life after death- that you existed, that you occupied a segment of space time, that you affected friends, family, and loved ones, that you were a part of something larger than yourself, then you have achieved a kind of immortality.

I too believe in what was.

[Zelos]

Alien society can I accept.
the tv team seems to be kinda extreme and stupid if you ask me.
higher dimensional bieng doesnt obay our laws (of course it could be a thing but its still not a part of our universe)
a computer capable to calculate all the stuff that happen in our universe isnt possible, it need to calculate hundread of calculation for each body, each atom, each sub atomic particle. its to much for any computer.
the thing after I dont understand.

but when I hear god whit nothing around it I think about somekinda overnatural super power thing that can go against the laws of nature, then it aint possible. but if the god isnt that I can accept it, but then its not a god, then its something else

[Numsgil]

Well, if you know your bible (yeah, if you're going to criticise something you have to be prepared to discuss it) most of the miracles ascribed to God are within realms we poorly understand anyway, or are not going against the laws of nature.

For instance, raising the dead and healing the sick.  There is a very well established and understood placebo effect.  Jesus told these guys that their faith healed them, that they believed he could heal them so he was able to.  That represents a fairly complex understanding of human psychology.

Raising the dead.  Two prongs here.  First, We don't understand death.  I doubt you'll find a single scientist that can tell you that they have any idea what happens when you die.  We can postulate, but it's impossible to determine for sure one way or another.

So if some guy can raise the dead, he isn't breaking a law of nature because we don't have a law that specifies exactly what can and can't be done after death.  Modern medicine has been able to revive men that have been dead for a minute or two.  We just don't understand the brain well enough to know exactly if a man can be resusitated 3 days after its dead or not.

Second, comas were not well understood in ancient times (okay, at all understood) so it may be that these 'resurrections' were just sophisticated psychological medicine that we don't understand (comas are not well understood either).

Point is that there isn't any miracle ascribed to Jesus or ancient miracles that can't be ascribed through scientific laws.  That doesn't in some way detract from what God is.  It is still a miracle for a man to have knowledge far in advance of his time.

The plagues of Egypt for example.  Most (like 9 of 10) can be explained by an incredibly high nile flood.  But Moses still managed to guess when the nile was going to flood high.  That's more than the egyptians, who spent their entire lives around the nile, could figure out.  To them it was all but random (they believed that Pharoah controlled it indirectly by pleasing the gods).

I think ultimately, as we learn more about the world, we'll be increasingly able to figure out the mechanism through which most miracles were accomplished.  But if I flip on the lights with a light switch, and at first it seems magic to you but you later figure it out, it doesn't change the fact that I knew the light switch was there before you did.

[Zelos]

dead is defiened when you dont react to things neurological, the heart dont beat and your not breathing, if all this is fullfilled then your official dead.
raising dead can simply have been a brain dead person who came back or something like that, there is no law breaking there. but ive heard such thing as cerating matter out of nothing and stuff like that, then its breaking the laws of physic.

ps: I havent read the bible, I can never get through the first page whit out laughing (not to be disrespective)

[Numsgil]

but ive heard such thing as cerating matter out of nothing and stuff like that, then its breaking the laws of physic.

ps: I havent read the bible, I can never get through the first page whit out laughing (not to be disrespective)

There isn't a part in the bible where something is magically created from nothing.  I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but you can't really do that when you aren't even familiar with the very book you're arguing against.

You probably heard it from a 'Christian' who themselves had poor knowledge of the bible.  I don't know why it is that most christians only seem to read the first 3 pages of Genesis, Mathew, Eclesiastes, Proverbs, and Revelations.  You'd be amazed at how biblically illiterate most Christians are (including myself, but I'm working on it).

Think I'm wrong?  If you're a christian, how often have you read the creation story in Genesis 1?  Alot, huh.  You probably know it by heart.  Then name what God did on all 7 days of the creation.  I haven't found one who can do it yet.

Most (like probably 70% of) miracles in the bible fall into the realm of:

1.  Destroying an enemy of the Israelites, usually through no supernatural means at all but sharp wit and quick thinking.  (The idea is that God opens the mind to inspiration in times of need to those who are worthy.  Notice it's the prophets who know how to do what the warlords don't.)
2.  Foreknowledge.  That is, telling of future events or knowledge of the present that is unlikely to be got by conventional means.  For instance, if you ascribe the plagues of Egypt to a natural and explainable event, with no supernaturalism at all, then you still have to admit it's something of a coincidence that Moses guessed right.
3.  Healings, like when Moses lifted the serpent on the cross to heal all who would look at it, or when Jesus healed the blind man by spitting in the dirt and rubbing the mud in the guy's eyes.
4.  Spiritual, like casting out demons and Jesus paying for the sins of humanity.  (If you don't believe in spirituality, then this is a moot point, isn't it?)

Seriosuly though, you should at least become familiar with the Bible stories and general Jedeo-Christian mythologies, considering that probably 90% of western literature makes allusions to it.

Personally, I don't think the bible was meant to be read cover to cover.  It wasn't even put into its present book form until relatively recently (like before 500 AD and after 0 AD), long after the sections were written.  Before that it was just a jumble of a bunch of different books.  Eearly Genesis is how a very primitive people (mis)interpreted various events that were probably way beyond their comprehension anyway (if I were God, I'd dumb down creation too.), so if you don't like it, skip it, and go straight to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. (Roughly chapter 12).  That's all history, and while I'm sure the Jews stilted it in the telling (what society doesn't color their history books their own colors?) it's all more or less factual.

The bible is one of the oldest surviving written records of an early people.  You can learn alot about how ancient people lived, and you can understand the Jewish position on why they have a right to 'colonize' and generally piss off the muslims in the Middle East.

Or start with the histories if you like politics and warfare, and some really great gruesome stuff.  There's some very dark stuff in there that's very Grim Brothers Fairytale-esque.  For instance, here's a summary of Judges chapter 19.

"A Levite concubine and her husband lodge overnight in Gibeah (a Benjamite tribe town)-- The men of Gibeah rape the concubine and she dies.  The husband cuts her into twelve pieces and sends them to the tribes of Israel."

I mean, that's some great stuff.  They sure were a different breed of Man back then.  Now adays you cut up your dead concubine and you're the criminal.  Crazy.

Or start with the prophets if you like poetry and symbolism.  The Jews still consider Isaiah one of their greatest poets.  Revelations is likewise very poetic in its telling.  No one reads any prophets.  Ever.  Impress your friends, be the first on your block.

Job is great if you're feeling depressed.  It follows a highly stylized structure, which if you aren't familiar with will seem to flow like molasses in January, but at least you can say 'Hey, I'm not that guy."

If you're in a feminist mood, Esther is one of the few books (like 2) that focus on a woman in Jewish history.

I mean, how can you enjoy Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno without understanding the mythos that inspired them?  How can you even enjoy a showing of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat or The DaVinci Code?

[PurpleYouko]

Genrally I agree with you on pretty much the whole post Num, except for this line.

it's all more or less factual.

I would contend that there is no way to substantiate most of the bible and a good bit of it can be more or less proven to be out of chronological order or just plain wrong as far as time scales go.

Don't have time for more detail now. Gotta go and do some work.

[Zelos]

just the future telling is impossible, nothing is more unpredicteble as the future is.