Comments on: Morbid news or morbid public?

By: The Viscount

The Viscount — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:15:09 +0000

The Enlightenment is not exactly analogous religion as we think of it. 1) Unlike other religions, you can be a Christian, Muslim, whatever, and believe in the Enligtenment. Of course, you will be going on faith alone, but for the true believer, thats the point anyway. 2) What is interesting about the Enlightenment is that even though it was great period of intellectual advancement, the Enlightenment wasn’t so much about discovering previously unknown knowledge as it was challenging the basis for previous knowledge. For example, challenging the validity of Natural Religion, which claimed to explain the workings of the world, or undoing the idea of cause and effect. Unlike religion, the Enlightenment doesn’t make claims to truth so much as it puts claims to truth to rational test.

By: Fyodor

Fyodor — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:08:38 +0000

Although I do not consider myself a religious person and find organized religion often times abhorrent, it is pretty amazing what it can do. Let’s remember that the Civil Rights movement in this country was started in Baptist churches in the South, that Gandhi was profoundly religious as was Mother Theresa. Religion can create communities and make people do good things in the world and can be personal transforming experiences. But I think that when it becomes a dogma–a blind belief in something at the exclusion of everything else–then it becomes a political weapon and a literal weapon eventually in times of war.

Also, the Enlightenment is a religion in itself. The whole scientific method, while I firmly believe in it, is also based on a large amount of faith. That is, we still have to believe that 2+2=4. And finally, even an atheist has faith: he/she believes that there is no God. This in itself requires a leap of faith.

By: moody

moody — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:54:46 +0000

Ok, here it goes.

X(would)+die(for)+Y = love

Where X is me and Y is my wife. You can apply this formul to anything.

Besides, my question was about belief not a proof.

By: xcwillix

xcwillix — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:53:26 +0000

If you dont get it — I would say that was your choice… not that you were too “dumb, but that you chose to put your faith in something else, be it science, money,USA, Mohammed, or Michael Jordan….
Its a concious choise to believe or not .

By: xcwillix

xcwillix — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:50:26 +0000

Ok … well prove too me with scientific facts, and figures…that you love your wife, and while your at that prove that love exists…

By: moody

moody — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:49:06 +0000

“You either get it , or you dont, thats totally up to YOU.”
And who’s it up to if i am dumb and cannot get it? I think its up to my creator. Don’t you think?

By: moody

moody — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:46:36 +0000

But if the evidence that God exists is so overwhelming (according to bible and the church) then there is no free will. In order for me to believe is by evidence. If you believe that God exisist just on faith then something is worng with you. You need some kind of evidence, and christians and catholics claim that Bible is undisputed book with overwhelming evidence, which proves my point that there is no free will, otherwise christians would debate bible not blindly follow it.
This is a chicken-egg paradox. If God came down and told us to believe then there would be no free will. If God didn’t came down and no one heard of God then there would be no reason to believe and we would probably make up a higher being just not to feel alone. Therefore it is a paradox.

By: xcwillix

xcwillix — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:38:17 +0000

Moody –
Lets think about what you just said… If God came down looked you in the eye, and said I am in charge…. then I would totally agree with you — that there is no free-will in that. Thats exactly the whole premise of free-will in Judeo/Christian thought. The Angels for example, dont have free-will , why - because they see, and know God, hence no free-will. Mankind on the other hand must decide for himself whether or not too believe, and there you get your free-will. You either get it , or you dont, thats totally up to YOU.

By: moody

moody — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:22:59 +0000

My biggest problem with God is the “free will”.
If God gave us free will and then came down to save us and then said “the only way to gates of heaven is through Me”, then what kind of a choice is that? There is no choice so there is no free will. If God tells you: you can belive in me and accept me as your saviour and you’ll go to heaven or don’t believe in me and you’ll be eternally damned, which choice you will pick? Hmmm let me think…
Not much of a choice there. it’s already laid out for you.

And as far as the religion goes , i think its the opiate for the masses. There are some good things about religion but if you’re going to believe in God, then by all means have faith and believe, but thats between you and God. not between you and church. I don’t need to show off to everyone around me that i belive in God and go to church on every sunday, nor do i need prayer to be publicly presented over the PA on the stadium right before football game. To me thats showing off. you think God will not hear you if you’re not going through the PA? Like i said, it is between you and God. Not between God and stadium or God and church.

By: The Viscount

The Viscount — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:08:36 +0000

Another thing about the stuff you hear in church is that much of it involves miracles. Now, there very well maybe a God, but I think the justification for miracles is pretty lame.

First off, unless you actually witness the miracle yourself with your own eyes, it contradicts good judgement to believe in a miracle. On one hand you have the testimony of someone telling you about an event that makes no logical sense. On the other you have a life time of experience concerning the world that tells you such a thing could not occur. Unless your life experience has been a novel by Garcia Marquez, reason dictates you have to go with the latter. To choose the former would be an act of faith, not sound judgement based on reason.

Second, have you ever noticed how miracles, like UFO sightings, tend to be told by the mentally insane and/or substance abusers? Kind of hurts the whole credibility of it all, doesn’t it? I knew a guy who “witnessed” to me about how he was saved… This occured when his daily breakfast consisted of three shots of Jack Daniels.

Third, the idea of miracles is often self-contradictory. A lot of Christians (among others) argue that the world and everything that happens on it is directed by the will of God, and that everything has its purpose. Well if thats the case, whats the need for divine intervention? Does God have an indecisive personality, so that he contradicts his own will from time to time? This is kind of frightening: The ruler of the universe is a “flip-flopper.”

So to restate, there is no news in church, mosques, or any other such facilities. Just speculation with no rational basis.