Global warming one big hoax?

[Pladio]

It's like art Some people see things others do not. Part of them even see different things than the others.

 

[bjon045]

It is impossible to refute the hand of god in this world. Jessica Alba is my case in point. Science cannot explain where everything came from nor can explain the paradox of eternal time.

Discussion closed. Jessica Alba 1: Science 0.

 

[Ubereil]

Religion can't prove God. Why should we believe in God when there's a (big IMO) chance that he doesn't even exist? And if we should, WHICH God should we believe in? Christianity? Islam? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? As it is now, all you can do is guess. I choose not to .

Übereil

 

[dteowner]

It's like art Some people see things others do not. Part of them even see different things than the others.

I don't have time for my art critic rant, but suffice to say I think they have even less "authority" to make judgements than the religious leaders do. Subjectivity would be just fine if it weren't so darn subjective.

 

[Squeek]

Maybe it's time for a few quotes:

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missles and misguided men." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." -- Ashley Montague

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

 

[JemyM]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

 

[Squeek]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your response, JemyM. You're welcome to your point of view. A lot's been said about Einstein and his views on religion and God. Here's a good place to start if you decide you want to find out more.

Some quotes from that link:

In a recent book Max Jammer, Rector Emeritus of Bar Lan University in Jerusalem, a former colleague of Albert Einstein at Princeton, claims that Einstein's understanding of physics and his understanding of religion were profoundly bound together...

Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith."

 

[Bartacus]

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." -- Ashley Montague

I specialy like this one. This describes exactly how a faithfull man can look upon the world, while others (like me) will never have any certainty. I do not know which relegion is correct nor weather there is a god or more then one at all. All I know is that there was a man called Jesus, a man called Mohamed, a man called Sidarta (first Boedha as I recall -> there were many boedha's if I remember correctly. something to do with reïncarnation). What they all did was an inspiration of a whole group of people, but what they actually wanted or meant is unclear. That is because they didn't write the text we read today.

I get a bit worried when the stock response to questioning is, "Oh, you're reading it wrong." How does one decide the "right way"? Who's the guy that knows the right way? Jimmy Swaggart? Osama? Perhaps Corwin and Bart? It's all so arbitrary and seems to lend credence to my theory that (100% real, 100% fiction, or somewhere in between) it's all designed to give a select group of people power over the masses.

Indeed and so I proved it with the Human rights thingie JennyM was so certain about. You can read everything wrong and use it for your own purpose, or you can read it like it was meant to be and make a better world of it.

@Ubereil That's why I'm calling atheïsm a relegion, cause you believe that there is no god. And that's exactly why it can also be called a sect like JennyM likes to do with Christianity. The priest of today is called a psychiatrist (hope I spelled it right) and rationalism is the most distinctive trademark.

 

[fatBastard()]

You can read everything wrong and use it for your own purpose, or you can read it like it was meant to be and make a better world of it.

(highligthed passage by me)
And then we're back to the original question: Who decides how it is meant to be read/understood?

 

[Pladio]

Jemy, I think you missed a post of mine. (page 7) I think you were replying to Bart at the time. The one before your last post on page 7.

 

[Corwin]

I can't prove God exists (or doesn't), else there would be no need for Faith. However, I can KNOW that He exists in many ways. Ever seen 'miraculous' inexplainable (by doctors) healings after prayer? I have!!

 

[JemyM]

Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." I do not believe these references to God can be dismissed simply as a façon de parler, for God had a deep, if rather elusive, significance for Einstein which was not unimportant for his life and scientific activity. It indicated a deep-seated way of life and thought: "God" was not a theological mode of thought but rather the expression of a "lived faith."[/I]

"Oh my GOD! ", "Jeeeesus... " "Speaking about the devil! "

Such comments is a manner of speech. They are not that different from (and sorry if some of theese do not make sense in english, they are all swedish expressions) "He have gnomes in his attic", "Speaking about the trolls!", "Poor soul...", "There's none in there but the ghosts", "He's a real UFO" etc. Such comments do not state a belief. Many also claims that they have a religion/faith when they talk about a belief in humans or science.

Many within religion believes that only if a few scientists speak up for their case, they are safe. The part with Einstein is just another urban legend within church where most people just take things for granted without the need for questioning. Many scientists and politicians within religious areas use the same language and sometimes they feel forced to claim that they belong to the organisation (religion) when they do not. When celebrities etc started to question religion around here in the 70'ies, it took 1-2 generations and now the rules are pretty much reversed. Suddenly it was ok to not believe and now people dare to speak about it openly while many christians feel they need to hide their faith and not speak openly about it since you will be seen as a nutcase if you talk about god here and there. Nowhere in the world christianity is as hostile to civil liberties and science as it is within the US. Second in line is probably Poland.

 

[JemyM]

I can't prove God exists (or doesn't), else there would be no need for Faith. However, I can KNOW that He exists in many ways. Ever seen 'miraculous' inexplainable (by doctors) healings after prayer? I have!!

Ever saw trolls? People 200 years ago saw them all the time because they believed they were there. Where are they now?

Our brains are wired to fill gaps. "God" is a such gap. Instead of asking yourself what's going on here, you simply assume that god did it. Doing so you deny yourself to actually learn what happened because you believe you already have the answer, so what if christians die all the time and god never once healed an amputee right?
This line of thinking becomes dangerous when you also fill gaps with "satan", "evil forces", "hell" and "demons".

 

[JemyM]

It is impossible to refute the hand of god in this world. Jessica Alba is my case in point. Science cannot explain where everything came from nor can explain the paradox of eternal time.

Discussion closed. Jessica Alba 1: Science 0.

While I know you are joking, this is a rather common logic that have been used by many religions to justify their beliefs. I believe it's sad that credit go to an old Israelan volcano god instead of thoose who actually did it; her parents and her own hard work. (Yes, it takes more than just luck to look like that). If you had to pick between religion and science you should probably thank science that invented cosmetics and helped us to find a healthy diet.

 

[JemyM]

Such a display of arrogant ignorance!!

Thoose who are not used to be questioned and believe that some things are holy/sacred from it, have problems seeing the difference between arrogance and simple questions.

 

[JemyM]

That's true, except I don't know a lot of religious people who think I'm a worshiper of Satan or demons. Most of them know the differences between good and evil.

You would be surprised. There are recent examples that are so absurd you do not believe they are true. Just ~10 years ago there was a south american city that had a grizzly murder. A son killed his parents, littered the house with satanic symbols and then killed himself. The town assumed it was the work of the devil so they called in priests to teach them how to detect demons and possessed people. The police confiscated all occult books in the library and demanded a list of all people that had borrowed them. Also, hardrock music was blamed. For some time there was a widespread fight where people tried to determine who were good and who were infected by demons, until a Journalist did what the police should have done, he interviewed the boys friends. they told the journalist that he hated his catholic parents and them forcing him to faith school so he had planned to do something like that for a long time as he knew it was the ultimate humiliation to them and their faith. He also hated how his parents invaded his interests (rock music) and he was deep into drugs.

It was not too long ago that a child was wrapped up in sheets and beaten with sticks because he was believed to be possessed by demons. He died. He had an epileptic seizure that is harmless when you know how to deal with it, and doctors is a phonecall away. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3181637.stm

This is kinda what you expect to happen 200 years ago, or maybe in the deep middleeast, but this is America in recent times. Demonism is not a dead idea and it's stronger the more christians there are in a society.

http://www.nisbett.com/child-ent/lion_king.htm

Have a google search on the whole Harry Potter controversy as well. It teaches children "occult magic". The fact that many christians honestly believe in witchcraft and magic should make you worried, giving their history of witchhunts. That Harry Potter is actually about a good person who help his friends, stand up for what's right and fight evil seem to be forgotten.

They also know killing isn't good. So, again, is it religion in its self which is bad or their leaders which make people do bad things?

Ignorance is what makes people support bad people and faith is little more than the virtue of ignorance.

For many the bible is a catalyst for their own ethic standpoints. There is something within the bible for everyone. Unfortunally, religion makes bad people and good people one, meaning that good people sooner defends evil people within religion than they defend good people outside religion. This is fairly obvious when you look at the political agendas like homosexuality. Jesus himself never once mentioned homosexuality, still christians almost universally will tell you that homosexuality is a sin even if they happen to debunk Pauls opinion on everything else. If all christians were as tolerant as they claim Jesus is, they would fight homosexual oppression just like everything else. This is the problem with christian moderates, they do not fight what they believe is right, they fight what christianity say is right and people who do not support their group is expelled.

Then there are thoose who buy the whole message and start to believe the bible is literally true. Theese people grow more and more insane the further they go into this psychosis. Since Jesus basicly tells you that you should mutilate yourself if you feel sexual urge or kill your children if they disbehave, some ultra fundamentalists have done this. People who show theese signs outside religion is locked up in asylums and are treated before they do something bad but "religious tolerance" stops society from helping them.

Then there are thoose who actually made faith into a political weapon. The evangelicals in the US holds a great political power and build mega-churches that holds thousands of people in which they use biblical messages to gain votes on specific topics. Their standpoint on global warming have meant alot to the political discussion within the US and they are powerful enough to force the president. Their followers are called the "flock" for a reason. It's a large cult where people are never asked to think for themselves so they pretty much follow what their leaders tells them to do.

The pope is another political figure. He's probably the one man who contributed the most to the widespread HIV epidemia in Africa which can only be called genocideal stupidity.

Then the US might relive the European middle ages if they become too powerful. hehe
I think every voice should be allowed to speak. Just don't let them get power and it'll be alright.

They are already in the president seat. Also the christian revisionism and christian nationalism is widespread in the US. Now it's just a question what that means for everybody else.

So listen to what you're saying. Religion in itself isn't bad, extremism is. Any form of extremism is bad for the world and doesn't allow for the other side to speak their mind. Religion however, as long as practiced normally, gives hope to people, helps other people live their lives in happiness (and actually reduces the number of divorces ).

I think I have explained the direct opposite above. Moderate religion is a shield for fundamentalist religion. It's the fertile soil for bad seeds to grow, both for christian fundamentalists and secular ideologies who know how to manipulate religious ignorance for their own agendas.

 

[fatBastard()]

I can't prove God exists (or doesn't), else there would be no need for Faith. However, I can KNOW that He exists in many ways. Ever seen 'miraculous' inexplainable (by doctors) healings after prayer? I have!!

What *I* see when I look around the world is millions of starving people on various continents, child abuse/molestation/pornography, terrorist blowing up just about anything and everyone, good old slave trade for the sweatshops in Asia or for prostitution in the rest of the world, rape, murder, civil war or plain old regular war, the rich taking advantage of the poor and corporations like Monsanto (if ever there was born the Antichrist he would be working on the executive floor in the Monsanto corporation) ... I could go on and on.

What I see is that there simply *CAN'T* be a God with all this going on ... or if there is then he/she/it either don't care what happens down here on Earth and thus can't be bothered to intervene, in which case said "God" doesn't deserve to be praised or believed in or else he/she/it CAN'T intervene which makes "God" not so much omnipotent as just impotent in which case I can't see WHY we should waste any time or faith or such a being. The last scenario is that "God" just WON'T intervene, that life on Earth is a "Test". Well I'm sorry, but such an mean sadistic prick won't get my prayers, belief or faith.

"God works in mysterious ways" ... from where I'm sitting, he just doesn't work at all, period.

 

[JemyM]

Let me add one thing to what fatBastard() just said... how moral is it to say that pain and suffering is the result of lack of faith/prayers/morals? How moral is it to say that a child with cancer is a sinner? Possessed by demons? The result of her parents sin?

All jesus did was to expell demons. He never really cured anyone. There are good doctors and nurses who spend their entire lives doing their best to ease suffering and cure disesases and help people to live a normal life, not only do christians claim that all their hard work is the result of an ancient volcano god, many of them also fight to stop it.

 

[Bartacus]

(highligthed passage by me)
And then we're back to the original question: Who decides how it is meant to be read/understood?

The writer offcourse, who else???

And fatBastard, lighten up -> you see millions dying in horrible conditions, but you forget the millions living in relative good circumstances (relative good =! western civ -> we live above the standards)
The way people see 'god' is in what others see as normal things, an example: sunsets. Often a sunset is looked upon as a masterpiece and a sign of god. You can't ever see that when you don't have faith in god. It's very difficult to explain it, but I hope you understand what a faithfull man can see sometimes in those everyday things.

@JennyM The pope is in no way responsible for what happens in Africa. You should know that even when you take a person responsible for a dissease that you understand what they really said -> No sex before or outside the marriage. If one does follow that rule, there would have been way less problems. The problem is that some African 'wizards' (or how they call themselve) have told the people infected by aids could be cured by having sex with virgins.
About the other things -> a large group in the US also reacted against LotR: The Two Towers, because of the name made them remember 9/11. There are a lot of people that overreact and this has nothing to do with relegion. You speak still of all the evidence you brought up so far, while I say it's only evidence of the bad side of human nature and nothing else. You still are filled with those pitty revenge feelings against relegion and therefore you're not counted as an openminded woman as you see yourself.

 

[Prime Junta]

Mythos and logos...

The ancient Greeks defined two modes of knowing: "mythos" and "logos." The Western world mostly remembers them for "logos" -- knowledge through reason. For them, however, "mythos" was equally valid: their myths weren't just stories, but ways of experiencing and explaining things that go beyond reason.

I'm an agnostic (specifically, when asked "do you believe in God?" my answer has to be "I don't understand the question").

My wife, however, is a practicing Roman Catholic (of Middle Eastern culture). The interesting thing is that her faith isn't what most Westerners think of as faith (as exemplified in this discussion, for example). It's not a matter of accepting a set of proposal as "factually true" the same way that, say, a scientifically literate European would accept the general theory of relativity, biological evolution, or continental drift as "factually true." Rather, it's a matter of belonging to a certain (imagined) community and following a certain number of practices. She's not interested in finding proof for the existence of God, let alone dogma like the Immaculate Conception or the Resurrection. What matters is that she finds it meaningful to light a taper for St. Francis or St. Anthony of Padova when passing by a church or make the sign of the cross when throwing away a piece of stale bread, or occasionally going to mass or taking the Eucharist. They're rituals that have a value for her that is, for want of a better word, spiritual. She doesn't try to explain, systematize, or understand her faith; she experiences and lives it. Nor does she look for "truths" (in the "logos" sense) in Roman Catholic dogma. (In fact, I believe that if she got quizzed by one of the nitpickier types of priest, she'd turn out to be, um, pretty heterodox.)

I believe this is pretty much what the Greeks understood by "mythos." It's not in conflict with "logos" since it deals with things that are beyond "logos" -- meanings, values, and experiences.

"Logos" as exemplified by science and reason is very powerful at helping us understand what things are. However, it's not much good at all if we want to figure out what they *mean.* For that, I believe we could do with a dose of "mythos" -- even us staunchly secular agnostic rationalist types.

And it's precisely in this realm that I believe that religion (or, if you prefer, spirituality) will have to find its role in today's world. The attempt to force the mythological thinking of religion into the realm where logical thinking works better -- whether it's in science, like creationism or "ID", or politics like in religious integrism or other forms of messianic missions -- will, I believe, ultimately fail, simply because logic just plain *works* better in those realms. They deal with concrete, tangible things with concrete, tangible limits that are accessible to reason, after all.

That's why I think this whole religion/science debate is a huge error to start with. The two shouldn't be in conflict at all: "logos" has the power to explain while "mythos" has the power to inject meaning into our existence. We need both, in one form or another, to be complete human beings.