|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 236 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 181 of 236:
| 
Sep 7 00:31 UTC 2000 |
It is not incumbent upon anyone to disprove a fantastic supernatural myth
based upon no evidence whatever. It is incumbent upon people making such
claims to prove them - otherwise they should be ignored (or perhaps
studied sociologically, as among the strange things people do).
|
scg
|
|
response 182 of 236:
|
Sep 7 04:48 UTC 2000 |
It could also be argued that those wishing to dispute something that's been
accepted "common knowledge" for hundreds of years should have proof, but none
of that's relevant.
I'm pretty much an atheist, because I find it extremely hard to believe that
a "god" in the traditional Christian or Jewish sense exists. I don't know
to what extent that's really a religious belief, as I don't feel very strongly
about it. I'm certainly somewhat mystified when I hear news stories about
that missing woman who was supposedly the leader of the atheists, since I
can't imagine atheists being enough of a group to have somebody lead us in
our atheism. But in the context of religious freedom, it makes very little
sense to think of atheism, agnosticism, and the like as anything but
religions. Religious freedom is the freedom to believe what you want to
believe, whether that's a belief that everything the leader of some
established religion says is true, a personal belief in a god or set of gods
and how that god or gods wants you to live, a belief that no such gods exist,
or any other set of religious convictions. As such, for the government to
declare the nonexistence of any god, or of a certain god, would be just as
inappropriate as it would be for the government to declare that a god exists.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 183 of 236:
|
Sep 7 12:34 UTC 2000 |
It may not be 'incumbent' on anyone to disprove a 'myth' but that tends
to be because you can't.
|
ric
|
|
response 184 of 236:
|
Sep 7 14:37 UTC 2000 |
Doesn't something like 95% of the human population of this earth believe in
some sort of "supernatural being" (or beings?)
And it's been that way for thousands of years, not hundreds of years.
|
jazz
|
|
response 185 of 236:
|
Sep 7 14:39 UTC 2000 |
Governments shouldn't, ideally, be in the philosophy business.
|
bru
|
|
response 186 of 236:
|
Sep 7 14:43 UTC 2000 |
Well, they could always do what I was taught to do when someone other than
my religion was saying a prayer, put your hand behind your back and stand
there quietly until they were done praying.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 187 of 236:
|
Sep 7 17:48 UTC 2000 |
Most of the "supernatural beings" that humans have believed in since we
evolved into existence (100,000 years ago +/-), no one today believes in
any longer, because they (the supernatural beings) never did anything for
anyone (except as myths to prop up various potentates and dynasties). This
is still true today. Humans have also believed in numerous other
untruths: flat earth, celestial sphere, Ptolemaic cosmology, luminiferous
ether (these being all quite recent). Humans are extremely gullible.
|
jazz
|
|
response 188 of 236:
|
Sep 7 18:02 UTC 2000 |
Every early society that I can think of, however, had supersitions,
taboos, and it's own pantheon. Why would *every* society have these same
features, and why would there not be an athiestic or cynical early society
there to beat them at the games that cultures play?
|
ric
|
|
response 189 of 236:
|
Sep 7 18:02 UTC 2000 |
Most of the other things that you mentioned, Rane, have been proved to be
untruths. Nobody has proven that there isn't a god.
|
ric
|
|
response 190 of 236:
|
Sep 7 18:03 UTC 2000 |
(jazz slipped in)
|
jazz
|
|
response 191 of 236:
|
Sep 7 18:06 UTC 2000 |
If you have a slippery definition, then it's not possible - "prove
that something which you can't see, feel, taste, hear, or smell, and no
instrument or technology can detect through any means whatsoever exists".
You can tackle the question edge-wise and disprove a certain theology,
though there's not much point to it, because proving to someone that their
faith is unfounded with historical arguments and logic is like arguing with
a horse in Urdu. But it is possible, for instance, to disprove the popular
conception of God in mainstream Christian society.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 192 of 236:
|
Sep 7 18:23 UTC 2000 |
Because everyone knows that you must argue with a horse in *Marathi*!
|
jerryr
|
|
response 193 of 236:
|
Sep 7 18:35 UTC 2000 |
Some Important Theological Questions are Answered if we think of God
as a Computer Programmer.
Q: Does God control everything that happens in my life?
A: He could, if he used the debugger, but it's tedious to step through
all those variables.
Q: Why does God allow evil to happen?
A: God thought he eliminated evil in one of the earlier revs.
Q: Does God know everything?
A: He likes to think so, but he is often amazed to find out what goes
on in the overnite job.
Q: What causes God to intervene in earthly affairs?
A: If a critical error occurs, the system pages him automatically and
he logs on from home to try to bring it up. Otherwise things can wait
until tomorrow.
Q: Did God really create the world in seven days?
A: He did it in six days and nights while living on cola and candy
bars. On the seventh day he went home and found out his girlfriend
had left him.
Q: How come the Age of Miracles Ended?
A: That was the development phase of the project, now we are in the
maintenance phase.
Q: Will there be another Universe after the Big Bang?
A: A lot of people are drawing things on the white board, but
personally, God doubts that it will ever be implemented.
Q: Who is Satan?
A: Satan is an MIS director who takes credit for more powers than he
actually possesses, so people who aren't programmers are scared of
him. God thinks of him as irritating but irrelevant.
Q: What is the role of sinners?
A: Sinners are the people who find new and imaginative ways to mess
up the system when God has made it idiot-proof.
Q: Where will I go after I die?
A: Onto a DAT tape.
Q: Will I be reincarnated?
A: Not unless there is a special need to recreate you. And searching
those .tar files is a major hassle, so if there is a request for you,
God will just say that the tape has been lost.
Q: Am I unique and special in the universe?
A: There are over 10,000 major university and corporate sites running
exact duplicates of you in the present release version.
Q: What is the purpose of the universe?
A: God created it because he values elegance and simplicity, but then
the users and managers demanded he tack all this senseless stuff onto
it and now everything is more complicated and expensive than ever.
Q: If I pray to God, will he listen?
A: You can waste his time telling him what to do, or you can just get
off his back and let him program.
Q: What is the one true religion?
A: All systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so just pick
the one that best suits your needs and don't let anyone put you down.
Q: Is God angry that we crucified him?
A: Let's just say he's not going to any more meetings if he can help
it, because that last one with the twelve managers and the food turned
out to be murder.
Q: How can I protect myself from evil?
A: Change your password every month and don't make it a name, a common
word, or a date like your birthday.
Q: Some people claim they hear the voice of God. Is this true?
A: They are much more likely to receive email.
Q: Some people say God is Love.
A: That is not a question. Please restate your query in the form of
a question.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 194 of 236:
|
Sep 7 18:38 UTC 2000 |
Re #188: Because of ignorance. I think that humans evolved to *want* to
believe in superstitions. For one thing, they had no other explanations
for the multitudes of mysteries around them - in effect, they did not know
for millenia what anything was or why anything happened. Assuming
explanations and holding to them would have "solved" this cunumdrum for
early humans, and that is likely to have had survival benefits. Even if
the relation between actions and consequences were random, coincidences
would still have fortified beliefs that certain actions had desirable
consequences, and they would have been repeated until they became
traditions. For example, Rain Dances. Sometimes it rains, and sometimes
people like to dance, and sometimes they coincide: so why not try that
dance again? One can see how all sorts of rites and rituals would become
established, and eventually codified in "religons".
An atheistic perspective would not have provided any answers that were
anywhere near as "satifying" as the answers that were invented along the
way. However, wherever humans have left a written record of beliefs, among
them are the atheistic beliefs of some. They just did not get much support
because they did not address the problems that people were trying to
solve. Praying and burning offerings and cutting out the hearts of
sacrificial humans, were at least *doing* something. Certainly, *doing*
something would have appeared to have a better chance of attaining desired
goals, for societies steeped in ignorance, than not doing anything because
it was likely all that ritual really was useless.
This argument is even made today: why take a chance not carrying out
rituals when *doing* a ritual just might have a desired consequence?
|
ashke
|
|
response 195 of 236:
|
Sep 7 19:28 UTC 2000 |
Jerryr, that is priceless!
|
mooncat
|
|
response 196 of 236:
|
Sep 7 20:58 UTC 2000 |
And Rane replies with the standard answer. Same debate, same theories
repeated. <sighs>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 197 of 236:
|
Sep 7 21:17 UTC 2000 |
Since they are correct, why should they change?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 198 of 236:
|
Sep 7 22:37 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 199 of 236:
|
Sep 8 00:32 UTC 2000 |
So Rane, we know what your religious beliefs are. We also know what the
beliefs of the Christian Coalition are. It's obvious that you and they
disagree widely, but you and they both believe that your beliefs are the one
true path. The question, then, is whether it is appropriate for the
government to pick one of those as the official beliefs for our society, and
our constitution says it isn't.
|
richard
|
|
response 200 of 236:
|
Sep 8 00:37 UTC 2000 |
so who has seen any good movies lately?
this IS the movie review item, but this agora has been so bizarre that
the movie item turning into a theology discussion isnt that surprising
|
mcnally
|
|
response 201 of 236:
|
Sep 8 00:55 UTC 2000 |
It's been a pretty rotten summer for movies, which may explain why we've
wandered so far astray..
|
gull
|
|
response 202 of 236:
|
Sep 8 03:17 UTC 2000 |
I've always suspected the same people who complain bitterly about prayers
not being allowed at graduations would be the first to cry foul if there
was, say, an Islamic prayer at the beginning of one. They're all for
religious expression as long as it's the RIGHT religion.
|
ashke
|
|
response 203 of 236:
|
Sep 8 03:32 UTC 2000 |
I watched 10 things I hate about you again tonite. I love that movie. It
was a great adaptation of "the taming of the shrew" both tastefully done, and
not overly "hyped up" like American Pie (which I liked, but WAS over the top
in some parts). Besides, Heath Ledger....Yummmmm
|
rcurl
|
|
response 204 of 236:
|
Sep 8 05:04 UTC 2000 |
Re #199: (first, I have no "religious beliefs", but we've been through
that several times). Now, what is your point? I agree that the government
should not allow the "establishment" of a national religion.
|
scg
|
|
response 205 of 236:
|
Sep 8 05:10 UTC 2000 |
Ok, let's say that we accept that atheism is not a religion, but rather a
complete lack of religion. Could we truely claim to have religious freedom
if the government made it an official policy that all theistic religions were
wrong, and made it an official policy to subject theistic religious people
to that message?
|
