The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I don't get what building an analytic relationship between conscious and unconscious parts of the mind has to do with anthropology and the comparison of three religions widely separated by both time and cultures. Perhaps you could explain a little better what you mean by Jungian archetypes?

There are more similarities I didn't bother with, plus there are more religions that were essentially the same too! And yes, Jesus had two brothers, Michael and Lucifer mentioned in the old testament and was born to the house of David.

The farther back in time you go and study what the various religions were and how practiced, the more similar they get.

It was more to do with getting people converted than Jung's archetypes and the collective unconscious. Give Jesus the same attributes as the gods they are used to, build churches on the same sites as pagan temples, etc. Make it easy for them to switch.

Oh, I agree to a certain extent. These things are well documented. The early Church really was extremely pragmatic - but then let's also remember there were some pretty good reasons. Until the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century A.D., christians were enemies of the state that were better dead than alive (and the - largely secular - state definitely took care of that). When Rome was being sacked by barbarians more than a century later, many still blamed christians as betrayers of the gods of old. Maybe it should be called self-defence more than anything else. Just imagine a priest explaining what an angel really is, wouldn't that have been a hit.

I don't get what building an analytic relationship between conscious and unconscious parts of the mind has to do with anthropology and the comparison of three religions widely separated by both time and cultures. Perhaps you could explain a little better what you mean by Jungian archetypes?

Quick search: http://www.iloveulove.com/psychology...archetypes.htm

The farther back in time you go and study what the various religions were and how practiced, the more similar they get.

And how would that disqualify religion? The more scientific research is done, the more consensus we get. I have never heard anyone claim that this is irrefutable evidence that science must be a hoax.

The more scientific research is done, the more consensus we get.

Roflmao, thats a new one.

Roflmao, thats a new one.

Is it? You won't believe the number of times I have read in this thread that evolution can't be denied because it is supported by all recent research. It seems to me that some folks don't really know what they want. Suits me fine. Evolution off the table then (at your suggestion, that is).

Is it? You won't believe the number of times I have read in this thread that evolution can't be denied because it is supported by all recent research. It seems to me that some folks don't really know what they want. Suits me fine. Evolution off the table then (at your suggestion, that is).

Man this guy is living comedy!

You cant just go flat out and say that the more research we do, the more consensus we get.
Research can often overthrow old ideas, and may at times lead to theories that are extremely controversial and hard to accept (especially with people such as yourself).

The way you put it made it sound like more research leads to more agreement among us; it can certainly do so, but it might also lead up to discoveries we never imagined.

Again you dont seem to know much about the scientific method.
Scientists do research in order to draw conclusions based upon evidence they gathered during that research. If they do research into say, gravity, and all the data seems to support the most current theory, then great. But if there is data that cant be explained by the current theory, then that theory needs to be either scrapped, revised or expanded to take the new evidence into account.

FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE!

The way you put it made it sound like more research leads to more agreement among us; it can certainly do so, but it might also lead up to discoveries we never imagined.

Ah yes, the way I put it made it ...

Originally Posted by jay73 Is it? You won't believe the number of times I have read in this thread that evolution can't be denied because it is supported by all recent research. It seems to me that some folks don't really know what they want. Suits me fine. Evolution off the table then (at your suggestion, that is).

You continue to get this one wrong, jay. It's not that an old theory is supported by recent research. It's that the current theory is supported by ALL research. Said another way, there has never been an actual discovery (as opposed to a hoax or a mistake) that doesn't support the current theory of evolution. That's a pretty powerful statement in support of the theory. It's also an awful lot of research by an awful lot of bright people who'd just love to have their names in the history books as the ones who discovered the flaw in the theory and changed all of scientific thinking. The possibility of having your name up there as the guy who proved Darwin (and thousands of other scientists) wrong is high stakes stuff for scientists, jay.

Originally Posted by jay73 Oh, I agree to a certain extent. These things are well documented. The early Church really was extremely pragmatic - but then let's also remember there were some pretty good reasons. Until the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century A.D., christians were enemies of the state that were better dead than alive (and the - largely secular - state definitely took care of that).

You've got some problems with historical fact there. Christianity became the official Roman religion long before the 4th century AD. As for being pragmatic - I guess you could call throwing heathens/pagans to the lions 'pragmatic' but the heathens/pagans probably thought it was just plain barbaric. I guess the church leaders were pragmatic - they had other rival church leaders murdered (for example, Peter, the one the 16th-century cathedral in Rome was named after).

Originally Posted by pinniped You've got some problems with historical fact there.

Mmmm, are you sure?

Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the 4th Century, during the reign of the Emperor Constantine. Christians were thrown to the lions. Peter was crucified upside down during the reign of Nero.

Hmmm....after watching an interesting show on altering genes in chickens I've come up with a brand new theory. The Life Grand-Unification theory. I propose that all life is actually one life form separated by years of mutations caused by viruses and possible radiation sources like cosmic rays and exposures to radioactive elements including debris from meteor impacts. Life during the growth cycle gets exposed to something that causes a gene to either turn on or off effecting a mutation. Over time a fish sprouted legs and started walking on land. Eventually this fish's children developed language and one day a child asked Daddy, where did I come from? Not knowing a good answer, Daddy invented god and blamed him for creating the world. Then many generations later, while tinkering in a backroom lab, this walking/talking fish descendant finished the programming on his latest invention and turned it on. After booting, the machine gazed upon his inventor and asked: where did I come from?

In the very near future, we are going to be asked this question. If it's not biological and it's intelligent, is it life? And if we are it's creator, does that make us it's god? In a matter of minutes, this machine will know more than the entire human-race since the beginning of time has accumulated, what would that make him? Maybe he'll turn off our genes and make our children go back to the sea? Or maybe he'll make copies of himself and force the copies to worship us?

Originally Posted by brianL Mmmm, are you sure? Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the 4th Century, during the reign of the Emperor Constantine. Christians were thrown to the lions. Peter was crucified upside down during the reign of Nero.

D'oh! I must be going senile - then again, do I really lose anything by getting my mythological history confused? If the church can make things up, why can't I?

Originally Posted by pinniped D'oh! I must be going senile

Don't worry, you're not the only one

Originally Posted by pinniped If the church can make things up, why can't I?

Yes, why not?

When I was younger, I was a more militant atheist than I am now. Arguing with believers and mocking them was a favourite hobby. So I read their bible from cover to cover, and I read a few books about the real Jesus: did he exist and what was most likely to be the truth about him. I've forgotten most of the details and book titles. This was all ammunition to use against the believers. The conclusion I came to was that there was a Jesus, he was a devout Jew, he wanted to rid his religion and country of hypocrisy and corruption; and he was far from being "gentle Jesus, meek and mild", which is why the Romans executed him.

Originally Posted by easuter Again you dont seem to know much about the scientific method. Scientists do research in order to draw conclusions based upon evidence they gathered during that research. If they do research into say, gravity, and all the data seems to support the most current theory, then great. But if there is data that cant be explained by the current theory, then that theory needs to be either scrapped, revised or expanded to take the new evidence into account. FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE!

The major purpose of the scientific method is to DISPROVE theories. Science bends all of its efforts to destroying the theories that are in place.

Those theories that survive the process usually seem to accurately describe reality.

Originally Posted by Quakeboy02 Said another way, there has never been an actual discovery (as opposed to a hoax or a mistake) that doesn't support the current theory of evolution.

I think that is not a true statement, and not a good way to phrase it.

The best way to phrase it is to say that there has never been an actual discovery that CONTRADICTS the theory of evolution.

There are any number of facts and discoveries that can be made to fit into the theory of evolution, but which only fit based upon the assumption that the theory is essentially correct. It is the existence of such facts that lead to the (false) doctrine of "irreducible complexity" and provide the hooks on which the creationists hang their hats.

Originally Posted by Quakeboy02 View Post Said another way, there has never been an actual discovery (as opposed to a hoax or a mistake) that doesn't support the current theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by jiml8 I think that is not a true statement, and not a good way to phrase it. The best way to phrase it is to say that there has never been an actual discovery that CONTRADICTS the theory of evolution.

Jim, if it's not true then the theory of evolution reduces from a theory to only a hypothesis, or in the worst case, a conjecture. Perhaps you'd care to show a discovery that doesn't support the current theory of evolution?

There are any number of facts and discoveries that can be made to fit into the theory of evolution, but which only fit based upon the assumption that the theory is essentially correct. It is the existence of such facts that lead to the (false) doctrine of "irreducible complexity" and provide the hooks on which the creationists hang their hats.

Behe took the best shot at irreducible complexity in the courtroom with the subject of flagellum. He was ripped to shreds, and shown for the fraud he was in a way that even the judge could understand. Since then, there don't seem to be any takers to the challenge of king of irreducible complexity. They eye isn't even a viable target for the IC guys at this point, as there are too many examples of the eye in nature from the simple to the complex.

The problem (for both sides, actually) is that there is just so much information, and we don't lose information anymore. Behe didn't do enough research to find that there was at least one other mechanism in nature that was extremely similar to the flagellum; almost identical, in fact. Perhaps the next guy will do the research and find something. But, at this point, it's not a matter of turning over the theory of evolution; it's only a matter of stepwise refinement. If there were any gaping holes, they would have been found by now.