LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 202 29.66%
Deist 21 3.08%
Theist 26 3.82%
Agnostic 134 19.68%
Atheist 298 43.76%
Voters: 681. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-06-2011, 10:24 AM   #3211
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by kostya View Post
Absolutely true. I think it was the Reformation that gave start to scepticism regarding the Bible and its origin, for which the Catholic church was obviously to blame.
Wrong again. Your knowledge of history is atrocious.

The Reformation was all about doctrine. The authenticity of the Bible was never in question. The nature of the religion itself became under increasing scrutiny in the Enlightenment period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kostya View Post
Many of the priests don't even believe in God, let alone the Bible.
Richard Dawkins, in his "The Greatest Show on Earth" book , for example, says this:-- then follows the text of the letter on page 6.

STRANGE for the people whose faith is based on the Bible! Cause it says (Genesis 1:21,31):
Notice above how it says that God "created them each according to their kind" and that it all was "very good".
Your quote does not support your original premise. You should read it again.

If you want to get into a fight over literal versus allegorical interpretations of the Bible, that's another conversation for another time. As an atheist, I couldn't care less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kostya View Post
And how different the above is from the evolutionist position, according to which even today living creatures are "not very good"(poor design), share a common ancestor and have yet to evolve in order to become "very good" once in some distant future. Those guys considering evolution to be "fact" automatically put their signs under the last statement, do they not?
Straw man. As the results of a chaotic process, the forms of life are "very good," from the simple fact that they've survived. It's only when you propose the idea that these forms of life are designed on purpose by some all-knowing being that the design looks poor, because each of the many, many flaws must be considered a flaw in the designer, which means he's not anywhere near as all-knowing as reputed.

In other words, it's all about perspective, because that determines the standard.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 10:28 AM   #3212
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lahunken View Post
Do you believe in light? You couldn't read this without light. In 1John1:5 it says, "God is light". Science knows that light is energy. God is energy. There are two things in the universe: energy and "information". and information is the conformation of energy.
Not this forum spammer again.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 10:31 AM   #3213
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
It amuses me mightily that people look at "a book" and accept that it is "the literal Word of God," (a) without knowing a single thing about where and how it actually came to be in their hands in its present-day form; and (b) seeming to assume that God has not spoken a single word since.

Trust me on this: go find the book, The History of Christianity. Read it. Find various books such as The Quest for the Historical Jesus, and The Mythmaker, and read them, too. If you're going to say that you believe a book, and most especially if you call it "the literal Word of God," you need to know with eyes wide open precisely how this book came into your hands and precisely why it contains the material that it does. (Believe me on this: these were entirely human decisions.)

Aside from the fact that it happens to be (to me, at least) utterly fascinating, there is also a purely practical element. "If you are going to choose to anchor your entire life on something, this decision of course being your sovereign personal prerogative, it behooves you to thoroughly understand precisely how that thing is constructed." If you don't know about the politics of the rapidly fading Roman empire; if you've never heard of Constantine or Augustine ... heck, if you've never actually read this WikiPedia article from stem to stern ... then the frank truth is that you actually know absolutely squat about this chosen "cornerstone of your entire life."

If you're holding onto something just because it was what was taught you beginning at approximately age three, then sooner or later you're in for a rather huge earthquake, and when it happens you've built your house on the shifting sand.

I'm not going to tell you what your conclusions should be. I'm not going to say that you're right or you're wrong. I'll tell you that I am a Christian who reads a book but doesn't venerate it, and if you tell me I'm doomed to Hell I'll calmly tell you that that's between me and my God. If worst comes to worst and you're right and I'm wrong, goody for you. However, just remember that Heaven is powered by steam and that I'm the one who's keeping you toasty during your singing lessons.
I am not a Christian, but I study this stuff in detail as well, because honestly, I find the REAL story of Christianity far more interesting than the pretend one.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 10:37 AM   #3214
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckNekkid View Post
If asked, I simply reply Christian. Today, we are all to eager to pin a label on someone: Democtrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Baptist, Jewish, Catholic, etc. There are many doctrines in the "Christian" church, but only one in the "TRUE Christian" church and that is THE HOLY BIBLE.

Now, you can prove anything in the Bible, if taken out of context. The thing is to read the whole chapter or whole book of the Bible, asking GOD to give you understanding as to what HE meant, not what someone thought 1,000 years ago. There are times I have re-read a passage over later by months or years and got a different meaning, what was pertinent for me that day forward.

If I'm pressed to know what I mean, I tell them my testimoney, then say for them to seek GOD for their own answers. I have a very wonderful, private, and personal walk with GOD and my Older Brother, JESUS. If you want that kind of relationship, you must pray and ask for it.

I'm not into grabbing folks by the collar, shaking them and asking them if they know "the LORD".....Which Lord? Lord Vader?
Lord of the Rings? Tracy Lord? OHH, JESUS, the CHRIST, well why didn't you ask in the first place. I don't go to churches that preach HELLFIRE & BRIMSTONE, either. GOD is a GOD of LOVE, like a "Father", who only wants the best for HIS kids.

It's time preacher's quit trying to "scare" the HELL out of you and teach you how to behave to one another getting GOD'S approval.

Well, I've had my say and it was too much for me to put out.

GOD BLESS,
Warmest Regards,
"Buck"/KA5LQJ
Maybe God can explain to you why we have the three Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) who all tell a very similar story, supporting one another as possible factual accounts, up to the point at which Jesus is crucified... at which point they don't resemble each other in any single detail. Because common sense tells us that they diverge at that point because that's where the facts (or at the very least, the common source material) ends and the fabrications begin.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 10:38 AM   #3215
reed9
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 653

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
You took one isolated example, significantly overestimated its importance and are trying to use it as argument against all religion. It is a logical error (hasty generalization?) that is not very different from arguments some people tried to use in order to support bible. There's at least 1 billion believers, and if religion killed one person, it is less harmful than cars. To blame religion, you need way more dead people.
You made a massive generalization in asserting that "belief - of any kind - is empowering". I only need one example to show that your generalization is not universally true. There are of course numerous examples of unwarranted belief not empowering people, which throws the ball in your court to support your assertion. When is belief empowering? Why is it empowering? Is there anything uniquely empowering in religious or supernatural beliefs that warrants our respect? Would we respect and value the belief that the sun revolves around a stationary earth? If not, why not? If not, why should we respect and value other unsupported claims, such as religious ones?

Quote:
If you want to disprove religion, you should try better arguments. As far as I know, for every religious crime there's a single person who's been responsible. Besides, soviets were atheistic, and did a few things you could blame onto atheism if you wanted.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. I can only disprove specific examples. And I am not specifically against religion, I am against all dogmatic, irrational belief systems, of which the Soviets were a prime example. Religion at this time has enormous political power and support, and so gets correspondingly more attention. It is not about whether someone is doing harm in the name of religion, it is about valuing truth (though recognizing that all truth is provisional), it is about free inquiry, it is about epistemic justification, how we know what we know, what warrants belief, how to arrive at justified belief. In short, it is a case for valuing knowledge.


Quote:
The truth is merely a knowledge, and knowledge can be useless.
Clearly, I disagree. Or rather, I do not believe the usefulness of knowledge should be the sole criteria for valuing it.

Quote:
For everything. It is a mistake to rely only on logic or only on faith. You need both of them.
Support your assertion. When and why is it a bad idea to rely on logic? Now clearly logic cannot tell us what to value, but again, that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about truth claims. Is the earth billions of years old? Is the earth flat? Do germs cause disease? But logic and reason do play a role in thinking about values and ethics. If I hold the position that homosexuality is wrong, for example, it does me no good to argue, "Moose live in Canada, therefore homosexuality is wrong." Or, in the more familiar form, "The Bible says so, therefore homosexuality is wrong." And if I have a strong gut feeling that homosexuality is wrong, is it not a good thing to recognize that despite so, there may be no rational justification to feel that way and therefore to work against my feelings? Or perhaps less controversially, if I feel violently angry because someone flipped me off, is it not a good thing to think through those feelings, and the consequences of possible actions I might take, rather than say, pulling out a gun and shooting the prick?

Isn't reason essential for a functioning democracy? When politicians are telling us the Obama's health care plan has death panels, or from the other side that it will be a panacea in fixing our health care system, should we blindly accept those claims based on our respective political biases? Rely on gut feelings to base our decisions on? Reason and logic permeate every aspect of our lives. How can we make informed decisions about anything without having some basic tools to assess competing claims?

Quote:
Why do you need to "justify" your position?
Because it's pretty much impossible to have a discussion without justifying your position.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 11:31 AM   #3216
desertranger
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: Ubuntu Natty 11.04
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Hmmm... Interesting series of comments.

SL00b I think perhaps you should stop reading the Christian Bible and read the Torah. I've read the same chapters and verses in a lot of bibles and they're all different. They can't even present the 10 Commandments in a consistent manner there are many versions of them. Even the The Quran states that tablets were given to Moses but without quoting their contents explicitly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qur'an 7:145
"And We ordained laws for him in the tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): 'Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts: soon shall I show you the homes of the wicked,- (How they lie desolate).'"

As a book bibles read like a bad novel with no continuity, a compilation of 66 books written over hundreds of years by different people. Read them side by side, say a Gideon, King James and an a Greek Orthodox version. They are different, they only match in general, not specifics and subject to different interpretations..

On the other hand, look at a Torah is the continuous written history of the Jewish people starting with the 5 books of Moses and kept for 3,313 years. Despite cultural differences (orthodox, reformed or conservative) we all read the exact same Torah written in the original Hebrew. All of them the same hand written by rabbinical scribes. We start reading it at the beginning each Jewish New Year taking the entire year to read through it then we start over again. It has consistency and continuity, something that bibles do not. The Torah is not translated into many languages so it never changes. It is only added too and only in Hebrew, a single language. It is the oldest continuously published book in the world and has not changed it's meaning or text in that time.

Bibles are like a New York Times bestseller selection. No two of them are the same and everybody has their own interpretations. Jews too have their own interpretations of the torah as well. Only the difference is they're all reading from the same book on the same page in the same language. And there is the continuity, the gel that holds the conversation together.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 11:44 AM   #3217
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertranger View Post
Hmmm... Interesting series of comments.

SL00b I think perhaps you should stop reading the Christian Bible and read the Torah. I've read the same chapters and verses in a lot of bibles and they're all different. They can't even present the 10 Commandments in a consistent manner there are many versions of them. Even the The Quran states that tablets were given to Moses but without quoting their contents explicitly:




As a book bibles read like a bad novel with no continuity, a compilation of 66 books written over hundreds of years by different people. Read them side by side, say a Gideon, King James and an a Greek Orthodox version. They are different, they only match in general, not specifics and subject to different interpretations..

On the other hand, look at a Torah is the continuous written history of the Jewish people starting with the 5 books of Moses and kept for 3,313 years. Despite cultural differences (orthodox, reformed or conservative) we all read the exact same Torah written in the original Hebrew. All of them the same hand written by rabbinical scribes. We start reading it at the beginning each Jewish New Year taking the entire year to read through it then we start over again. It has consistency and continuity, something that bibles do not. The Torah is not translated into many languages so it never changes. It is only added too and only in Hebrew, a single language. It is the oldest continuously published book in the world and has not changed it's meaning or text in that time.

Bibles are like a New York Times bestseller selection. No two of them are the same and everybody has their own interpretations. Jews too have their own interpretations of the torah as well. Only the difference is they're all reading from the same book on the same page in the same language. And there is the continuity, the gel that holds the conversation together.
The differences in the bibles are interesting in and of themselves, because how they translate things reveals a lot about the people who did the translating. They each take the same material, and then impregnate it with their own biases.

The five books of Moses are published in the Christian bible as the Pentateuch, and you can barely start Chapter 2 before the contradictions begin. But then again, the Torah did not exist in any written form until the end of the Babylonian Captivity, at which point a disjointed collection of oral traditions was compiled. The first story of creation was one oral tradition, and the second was another oral tradition, and so both were included. In this way, the Pentateuch is just like the rest of the Bible, because there is no single common narrative. It's a collection of many things from many sources, whose origins had been lost to the ravages of time long before anyone actually wrote them down.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 12:02 PM   #3218
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 234Reputation: 234Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
When is belief empowering? Why is it empowering?
"Belief" has multiple meanings in english, clarifying them all would take more time than I'd like to spend.
My point was that you need to believe in something, because from logical point of view there's absolutely no reason to live or do anything (everything is doomed to die, so why bother?). Believing in something also serves as a driving force that makes you use your brain in order to achieve your goal. It is possible that airplane was created because somebody believed that humans can fly, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
If not, why should we respect
Respect has nothing to do with this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
I can only disprove specific examples.
Which will be a waste of time. Logic is not black/white, and if you disprove one specific example, that won't change much, if in majority of cases statement remains true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
it is about valuing truth (though recognizing that all truth is provisional),
In my opinion, you're overestimating value of truth and "don't see forest for the trees". (IMO) concentrating on "finding the truth" can be harmful - a truth can be unimportant, irrelevant or insignificant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
I do not believe the usefulness of knowledge should be the sole criteria for valuing it.
If I have no use for knowledge, why should I preserve it? I'm not a historian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
When and why is it a bad idea to rely on logic?
In all situations that doesn't involve dealing with machines, abstract and/or strictly defined systems. Logic works when you're dealing with machines and sciences, but once you start working with people, art and music, logic goes out of the window. Logic doesn't work in those situations - they require more "intuitive" or "emotional" understanding, which is either insanely hard or impossible to define logically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
if I feel violently angry because someone flipped me off, is it not a good thing to think through those feelings, and the consequences of possible actions I might take,
IMO, in this particular case with logical approach you'll reach "reasonable" decision only to discover that offending person disappeared while you were calculating possible consequences of your actions. Which is exactly a problem - in some situations you're more likely to reach favorable outcome if you act impulsively (knock the bastard down with fists, for example), without overthinking everything. Thinking takes time, and even if you try to logically predict possible outcome, most likely you'll fail, and reality will be different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
Isn't reason essential for a functioning democracy?
No, because people are unreasonable, and their opinions can be manipulated.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 12:36 PM   #3219
reed9
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 653

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
"Belief" has multiple meanings in english, clarifying them all would take more time than I'd like to spend.
My point was that you need to believe in something, because from logical point of view there's absolutely no reason to live or do anything (everything is doomed to die, so why bother?). Believing in something also serves as a driving force that makes you use your brain in order to achieve your goal. It is possible that airplane was created because somebody believed that humans can fly, etc.
This is the sense in which I am using belief, "the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true." My arguments have primarily been about what constitutes justified (again in the philosophical sense) belief.

Quote:
Respect has nothing to do with this discussion.
Of course it does. We're talking about whether to value unjustified beliefs. Respect is part of that.


Quote:
Which will be a waste of time. Logic is not black/white, and if you disprove one specific example, that won't change much, if in majority of cases statement remains true.
If you make a claim such as all apples are green, and I produce a red apple, I have disproved your proposition. Your assertion that "belief - of all kinds - is empowering" is false. Belief of some kinds, perhaps, is not. I am arguing that justified true belief is empowering, and unjustified beliefs are not.

Quote:
In my opinion, you're overestimating value of truth and "don't see forest for the trees". (IMO) concentrating on "finding the truth" can be harmful - a truth can be unimportant, irrelevant or insignificant.
Well, yes, there are things that are trivially true. But with anything that impacts the public sphere, my position is that we should do our best to ascertain what is probably true. That said, I am more interested in the process than the results, ie, critical thinking skills.


Quote:
If I have no use for knowledge, why should I preserve it? I'm not a historian.
That's a disagreement over values.


Quote:
In all situations that doesn't involve dealing with machines, abstract and/or strictly defined systems. Logic works when you're dealing with machines and sciences, but once you start working with people, art and music, logic goes out of the window. Logic doesn't work in those situations - they require more "intuitive" or "emotional" understanding, which is either insanely hard or impossible to define logically.
You're thinking in a very limited way. Any reasoning about values ends up in part a discussion over eudaimonia, over what constitutes the good life. Art and music enrich our lives and are a part of that.

Apart from that, knowledge can increase our aesthetic pleasure. As the physicist Richard Feynman recounted
Quote:
I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Quote:
IMO, in this particular case with logical approach you'll reach "reasonable" decision only to discover that offending person disappeared while you were calculating possible consequences of your actions. Which is exactly a problem - in some situations you're more likely to reach favorable outcome if you act impulsively (knock the bastard down with fists, for example), without overthinking everything. Thinking takes time, and even if you try to logically predict possible outcome, most likely you'll fail, and reality will be different.
Yes, there are situations where reacting first is more important than deliberative reasoning. However, one should not take that first impulse to be "true". Gut feelings and intuition are not reliable guides to truth, though they can be a good starting point for inquiry.


Quote:
No, because people are unreasonable, and their opinions can be manipulated.
Such cynicism.

Last edited by reed9; 09-06-2011 at 12:52 PM.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 01:03 PM   #3220
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 234Reputation: 234Reputation: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
Art and music enrich our lives and are a part of that.
I meant to say "making art and music". Not exactly a logical process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
Such cynicism.
Opinions exist for a reason. I've seen several presidential elections (non-USA) in my life and I get impression that whoever have most skilled PR-team and most media access, wins. A loudest person uses media to shift public opinion in his favor, and it is not about "reason", but about sophistry and trickery. As far as I can tell, it was nearly same deal in USA with all that Obama vs McCain noise.

Last edited by SigTerm; 09-06-2011 at 01:05 PM.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 01:19 PM   #3221
MrCode
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 864
Blog Entries: 31

Rep: Reputation: 148Reputation: 148
I have a feeling that what this is boiling down to is more along the lines of "logic vs. emotion" rather than "science vs. religion". In which case, most people will probably have differing opinions on which is more important, so it seems kinda pointless to argue over it.

As for myself, I'm with SigTerm; It's a bad idea to always go with your gut, but it's a bad idea to logically ponder every single little thing as well (not to mention the arts, etc.). IMO life would become hopelessly boring if we all relied primarily (if not solely) on logic, but all the same, utter chaos would break out if we completely ignored it. Please note that this is an opinion; I'm not trying to assert it as absolute objective truth.

Last edited by MrCode; 09-06-2011 at 01:23 PM.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 01:45 PM   #3222
newbiesforever
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Distribution: MX (desktop: XFCE 4)
Posts: 2,153

Rep: Reputation: 77
I have no idea whether the OP reads this thread after all these years (I myself have no patience to actually read a very long Linux-irrelevant thread), but I wonder why he cared about the distribution of religious opinion on a web forum that has nothing to do with religion.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 04:13 PM   #3223
reed9
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 653

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
I meant to say "making art and music". Not exactly a logical process.
It stands to reason that there is a better or worse way to achieve any goal, for whatever particular measure of better or worse you want to adopt. Artists have to make a series of decisions to achieve their desired goal, which involves reason and logic. If I want this effect, I must do this thing. How is that not logical? I dabble if photography. If I want a dark, moody picture, I don't light everything with nice warm, bright even lighting. I have to think about the effect of the lighting on the mood of the picture, I have to think about composition, I have to consider how the aperture affects the depth of field and how that affects the picture, I have to understand the relationship of the aperture to the shutter speed to the ISO number, I have to know how light falls off (according to the inverse square law) even if I don't have to crunch the specific numbers. So I disagree, artists do have to reason about their art and use logic in the creation thereof.


Quote:
Opinions exist for a reason. I've seen several presidential elections (non-USA) in my life and I get impression that whoever have most skilled PR-team and most media access, wins. A loudest person uses media to shift public opinion in his favor, and it is not about "reason", but about sophistry and trickery. As far as I can tell, it was nearly same deal in USA with all that Obama vs McCain noise.
All of which is an argument to teach people critical thinking skills, to teach them to question claims, to understand good reasoning, and recognize logical fallacies.
 
Old 09-06-2011, 10:11 PM   #3224
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934Reputation: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertranger View Post
Shinto shows us there is room for more than one god.
I think "asserts without evidence" is more accurate than "shows us".
Still on the evidence? There is no proof of god.

Its mainly in the middle eastern religions that you get the whole 'there is only one god, and thats xxxx'. (and thats IMO is due to a 'religious arms race'- once you've got one 'single, all powerfull god' others tend to start moving in the same direction) Eastern religions (and 'traditional' etc. religions) tend to be a lot less dogmatic than the religions of the middle east. Polytheisms in general dont have the same problems with 'other gods' as the monotheisms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertranger View Post
On the other hand, look at a Torah is the continuous written history of the Jewish people starting with the 5 books of Moses and kept for 3,313 years. Despite cultural differences (orthodox, reformed or conservative) we all read the exact same Torah written in the original Hebrew. All of them the same hand written by rabbinical scribes. We start reading it at the beginning each Jewish New Year taking the entire year to read through it then we start over again. It has consistency and continuity, something that bibles do not. The Torah is not translated into many languages so it never changes. It is only added too and only in Hebrew, a single language. It is the oldest continuously published book in the world and has not changed it's meaning or text in that time.

Bibles are like a New York Times bestseller selection. No two of them are the same and everybody has their own interpretations. Jews too have their own interpretations of the torah as well. Only the difference is they're all reading from the same book on the same page in the same language. And there is the continuity, the gel that holds the conversation together.
Taking the Masoretic text as the only version are you? Even if you discount things like the Samaritan Pentateuch (which does differ to the Masoretic text) etc., you've still got to deal with the dead sea scrolls. Some of them have quite different content to the Masoretic text (IIRC its Exodus and Samuel that have the biggest differences to the Masoretic text).

The mostly likely situation is that the Old Testament wasnt cannonised till after 70 C.E.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay73 View Post
And now for something completely different. Find out where you will end up in hell!

http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsDpznl8eIs

Destination, circle 2.

Quote:
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Second Level of Hell!

Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Level | Score
Purgatory | Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo | Low
Level 2 | Very High
Level 3 | Low
Level 4 | Low
Level 5 | High
Level 6 - The City of Dis | High
Level 7 | Moderate
Level 8- the Malebolge | High
Level 9 - Cocytus | High

Level descriptions: http://www.4degreez.com

Last edited by cascade9; 09-06-2011 at 10:13 PM.
 
Old 09-07-2011, 12:24 AM   #3225
MrCode
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: Oregon, USA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 864
Blog Entries: 31

Rep: Reputation: 148Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9
It stands to reason that there is a better or worse way to achieve any goal, for whatever particular measure of better or worse you want to adopt. Artists have to make a series of decisions to achieve their desired goal, which involves reason and logic. If I want this effect, I must do this thing. How is that not logical? I dabble if photography. If I want a dark, moody picture, I don't light everything with nice warm, bright even lighting. I have to think about the effect of the lighting on the mood of the picture, I have to think about composition, I have to consider how the aperture affects the depth of field and how that affects the picture, I have to understand the relationship of the aperture to the shutter speed to the ISO number, I have to know how light falls off (according to the inverse square law) even if I don't have to crunch the specific numbers. So I disagree, artists do have to reason about their art and use logic in the creation thereof.
That's about the specifics of composition, though. I think what SigTerm is trying to say is that the inspirational process isn't exactly "logical", in the sense that there's no really good, objective reason to produce one specific work of art over another; it all comes down to the individual artist's tastes (otherwise all art would be more or less the same). You could argue that art is always "logical", in the sense that there's always a logic to the message that the artist is trying to convey with their work, but it's hardly the same thing as a science experiment or philosophical inquiry. It requires a completely different set of skills.

Quote:
It stands to reason that there is a better or worse way to achieve any goal, for whatever particular measure of better or worse you want to adopt.
EDIT: If you really insist on arguing that art is completely logical, then you'd have to take the stance that the mind is completely mechanistic and that "desires" are nothing more than a specific collection of brain/behavioral states no less logical than states in the execution of a computer program. (i.e. you'd have to take the stance of behaviorism/determinism). That's hardly conducive to artistic inspiration, though; it kinda dehumanizes the process (at least IMO).

Last edited by MrCode; 09-07-2011 at 12:54 AM.
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, poser, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 16 07-11-2016 01:48 PM
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration