From time to time this thread is visited by "the devout" who claim to have an inside track on Truth based on their acceptance of some ancient text or amalgamation of texts supposedly revealed to Man through some man, or several men, from The Creator Himself. Despite numerous contradictions between what one "chosen man" has written compared to another, somehow the whole remains unified and sacrosanct to believers. This post will take a look at the concept behind such a process that, even if true, has huge flaws that ruin the value and efficacy of such a revelation.

For a moment let's just assume that there is a Creator of All Things and that He/She/It both can and cares enough to somehow communicate with lowly homo sapiens. We can leave out other lifeforms, even neanderthals for the purpose of this exercise and just focus on Us. We can also without getting into whether or not The Creator has or has not a gender just for simplicity sake refer to that being as "Him", again assuming the terms in virtually every ancient Bible, biased as that likely is.

Certainly one can conclude that there is an unimaginably huge gulf between the comprehension and sophistication of mere humans who live generally less than 100 years largely stuck on the planet upon which they were born, and an entity, Him, if you will, who has lived at least longer than 14,000,000,000 years, is thought to be Infinite, has always existed and will always exist, and created not just this planet upon which we reside but ALL planets, stars, galaxies, particles and energies in the entire Universe.

For us to understand communication we need something to which we have some experience. So ask yourself, can you communicate with an aborigine? or a chimpanzee? or a fish? How about a bacteria? Well, you say, we are talking about Him to Whom All Things are Possible, but given the plethora of bibles and the difference in accounts even within the various "revelators" of just one bible, it is obvious that such communication is not perfect and bears some resemblance to all communication in that both the skill of the speaker AND the listener matter very much. Or do you posit that He can create Laws that He can break? and isn't that a contradiction in terms? Why can't He create Laws that even He can't break if He truly is Infinitely Powerful? This of course pays no attention to the problem of where He resides. Did He create His Universe? Hmmmmm. Cart before horse.... nice trick.

Even if we skip those "little problems" our experience, all that we can relate to, tells us that the skill and frame of reference of the "listeners" of 2000-6000 years ago was vastly smaller and less sophisticated and, in fact, less real, than our own. If this weren't true Christians wouldn't have for a time believed that the earth was the center of the Solar System, let alone the center of the Universe even when the evidence showed otherwise.... not to mention demons, angels, werewolves, vampires, fairies, banshees, and a whole plethora of "supernatural beings" whatever that means.

So any reasonable person is forced to recognize that these "revelators" at the very least. interpreted some stuff wrongly and even differently from each other, each of them claiming The One True Faith in the One True God and everyone else, heretics and blasphemers, or merely ignorant Pagans, all doomed to Eternal Torture for the sin of denial or even just mere ignorance (not to mention the arrogant schadenfreude glee with which The Chosen will witness the horrific torture of Non-Believers come The Rapture or whatever term is used in non-christian descriptions of Judgment Day.

So please, someone explain to me how, in the face of such obvious flaws, so many continue to adhere to words written in other languages by people who understand less than modern children of 5-10 years of age how and what the world really is if it isn't just choosing what feels comfortable based on the environment in which one is raised?

You and 1 both know text is taught (actively,) unlike magic which is learned (passively;) if I* die first will let yous no... ;)

Tired of listening to this assumption that the non-believers handily mouth-out like modern-day prophets; hoping that arrogance in language can lend support from the audience.
"seems" ??
"something" ??
then use the word ... "consequence"? how arrogant, how unlearned?
a vacuum of empty argument.. a non-sequitur.

I would not have wasted time posting this, had it not insulted my intellect.

OK let's see some of that intellect in action. Do you have a problem with words that reflect lower levels of confidence? Do you instead prefer the illusion of certainty? ... perhaps from some "Higher Power"?

If you are standing in a dark room do you choose to head deeper into darkness or toward what looks like light leaking through the cracks of a door frame? It's not certain yet but it does "seem" "something" recognizable. Until you actually get to the object you won't know for certain if the rectangular shaped line of light is indeed a "consequence" of a door frame, but how else do you propose to find out? .... let alone leave the dark room?

Arrogant? Unlearned? Non sequitur? Please, Sir, from your loftier than thou position of intellect and learning, do enlighten all us poor, ignorant heathens with the evidence you have for how Life appears in our Universe. Until such time I think I will trust in Organic Chemistry, Spectroscopy, Biology and Evolution, but if that is ill-advised please show your competing source(s).

I would rather suggest that people on both sides of this argument start to get into trouble when they stake-out "positions" and grab their offensive and/or defensive weapons. Specifically, they enter into conflict with their fellow man, and I think that this is the beginning of "error and offense."

God doesn't need a cheering section or a public defender. And, neither does science.

I don't want to hear any cross-overs: "Creation Science," yes, but also scientist-fanboyz (no personal reference intended!) who are religious in their arguments against religion. Religion is neither science nor scientific. Science doesn't need religious zeal, nor zealots. And, IMHO, it is perfectly all right – even, it is to be expected – to find "a scientist at <Church|Synagogue|Mosque|etc.>, and happy so to be."

If we look at the records of even ancient cultures, we find evidence of both religious practices and scientific inquiry. Because people in those days were not equally educated, many of the religious practitioners were the scientists of their day. They studied the sun, the moon and the stars. They explored their surroundings in quest of healing herbs – and, found them. They were pragmatic, observational, scientific practitioners, and they had a lot of time to think.

So, I suggest that we don't need to be in conflict with one another about something that ought not to be seen as "conflicting." These are two equally-legitimate modes of human thought. Both are deserving of our respect. And, especially, so are the "convictions, faiths, knowledge and feelings" of ... everyone. Disagreement is expected. Respect is required.

---
(to repeat: no oblique or explicit reference to any forum-frequenters should be inferred! "I'm not talking about 'you,' whoever you are." These comments are meant to be taken as impersonal.)

Attachment 25160

Attachment 25162

[screencast]DpMfP6qUSBo[/screencast]

If you believe whatever religions you're taught, you make the evil...

(edit\add: actual time travel :D)

that's why we educate!

addiction is learned behavior, religion is the disease

Jami, can we have some of your interesting pictures again?
I miss them.....

... and likewise, "if" you consider the place where you are standing to be "a dark room!" That's entirely up to you, isn't it?

I don't think that "religion" is "wallowing in the darkness of pathetic ignorance." Not at all.

The only problem that I see is when people try to use "religion" – or "science," for that matter – as an instrument of control. But I see that "people are doing these wretched things, not the deities (or, scientific world-views) to which these wretched people subscribe." Religion can be a powerful social tool that may be used for great good or for great evil.

I suggest that "religion," itself, is not a thing that should be reflexively painted with a broad brush ... although it often is.

To both of you I could just as well substituted "Whenever' for "If" since all of us "enter rooms" from time to time where the light is dim at best. If you never do then I'd say you lived too safe lives that never leave your comfort zone OR you live a life of delusion.

Nonsense! Who wants to live "in a comfort zone," or "in a life of delusion?" It is okay to "have religious beliefs," and "to have faith," if y-o-u choose to, and if the beliefs that you now hold are indeed your own.

Who's to say that "Science" is sufficient to encapsulate "all that we really need to know, or to experience," about "anything and everything that is around us?" Frankly, I think that such a perspective is terribly shortchanged ... and "self-shortchanged," at that! :) I don't think that "Science" should ever be expected to be ... "42." :jawa:

I personally think that is "nonsensical" to consider "the architectural limits of a particular mode of human inquiry," and suppose, much less assert(!), that: "there is nothing else of human interest out there." Boxes have four sides merely because boxes require them; nothing more. "Never let that stop you."

"Think outside the test-tube," just as you encourage people to "think outside the <church|synagogue|mosque|temple>." The realm of legitimate human experience is much bigger than the "little containers" that we all somehow tend to put it in. Each of these things – science, religion, philosophy – have vital things to teach us ... as they have been doing, for as long as we can see in human history, or for that matter archeology. Let us keep these doors open, not closed.

Religious and/or Philosophical inquiry is neither "a comfort zone" nor "a delusion." Yes, both of these things represent modes of thought (and feeling) which exist outside the strictures of "science." (Although, much less 'absolutely' than you might suppose.) But, they do so "on purpose," as does science. There are at least three bases on "the baseball field of Life," not just one. :)

Is not a dark room when light from a weathering door... :scratch: if you'd weather strip that thing maybe but then you'd [bb]e as many are, in the dark!Therein lies the whole thread; it is not okay to kill one to save ten, it is not okay to stereotype, it is not okay to build grand cathedrals ironically of gold to claim you are number one in, it is not okay to live and let die, quite simply it is not okay to believe but that is just me holier than you.

Let's take believed to absurd levels. When we were kids we believed a lot more absurd sh!t than we may now but how many died due to it; do you now believe it's fun to stick a fork in an outlet or play in traffic, why‽

Some places religion isn't allowed, common sense, some rival religions, death,,, where are some others: