I can see Rile's point, I think
Basically, you have faith that God exists, and thats a religion.
In science, you have to have faith that certain laws are true. Kind of a religion, but definately based on faith.
Scientific process doesnt use faith.
Have you seen with your own eyes the world is round?
DeaditeDanWell usually anything that exists even if you can't see it you see it's effects. Like if there is a star we cannot see, we can still know it's there from the light it's eminating or the gravitational effect it's having on other celestial bodies we can see. If God is there, why the 43,000 kids a day dying of starvation? It seems to me if he is all powerful and then stuff goes on he either doesn't care, or he is a serious underachiever.
I will never claim to understand God nor will i try its impossible for our minds to comprehend his actions. However, if god let everyone live for ever and poofed food right in front of them then men would (being man) would probably become such sloths that we would do nothing and just rely on god to do everything for us. We would take his blessings lightly, why should we try to worship him when he's our servant. Im going to sound pretty bad here but those kids are better off. God has saved them from a world of pain and suffering and they will live an eternity with god. I dont really know im just a man. :)
vladtemplarScientific process doesnt use faith.
Have you seen a fish evolve into a land creature? Have you seen a early primate evolve into modern man?
17th June 2002
I think my beliefs regarding the origins of religion are well-known. Remember the whole comparison to an operating system? Yeah? Well if not, there's no way I'm typing that all out again. My fingers hurt :(. I'll try and find the old thread somewhere.
No! I'm Spamacus!
17th June 2003
I believe this is it...
Mr. MattI think that humans have a similar operating system to Microsoft Windows. No, seriously. Hear me out. We are driven primarily to survive. Going to work and earning money to buy food is a direct result of that, if a more evolved and complicated version of stabbing a llama and eating it. It is our entire motive. The one reason we don't kill ourselves when we feel pissed off. The very nature of every single thing we do, even procreation to an indirect extent (instead of personal survival, it's survival of the species). Most animals are fortunate in that they lack the intelligence to realise that for all their survival efforts, all their struggling, they will ultimately die anyway. As they say, what you don't know can't hurt you. Unless you don't know there's someone standing behind you with a big spiky stick, but that's for another intense debate. Thus, they have no problem. They tootle on through existence, none the wiser that they'll die regardless of what they do. Humans, on the other hand, somewhere along the way came to a horrific realisation. We're going to die, and there's nothing we can do about it. That's like a binary computer which knows only 0 and 1 being offered a third possibility. We couldn't handle it. And as the realisation spread, conflict emerged. Our instinct to survive was incompatible with the knowledge of our impending doom. Windows by now would have performed an illegal operation and shut itself down. Our blue screen of death was a little more unique. We know only existence. We don't know what it's like to not exist. True nothingness is beyond even Sheepeep's understanding, regardless of his claims to the contrary. But we knew that death was inevitable. We knew that a dead person doesn't seem to show any signs of existing beyond their physical mass; no consciousness, no reactions to any stimuli, nothing. What must that be like? What does it mean? If something is unimaginable, then a secondary theory is produced. We don't die. Well, we do, but move to another level of existence, or according to some beliefs, restart our lives as a new entity in this existence. But we don't know nothingness. As humans across the globe developed this realisation of death, so did various theories on the afterlife. Initially these theories were based on observations and extrapolations. Gods soon followed as humans looked to explain not only death, but their surroundings. Initially, these gods were very simple, such as sun gods, rain gods and the like. Later, either through conquest by other cultures or evolving far enough to question the validity of some of the existing gods, these religions developed into those we read about in mythology books. The observations and extrapolations were augmented with stories of great feats by the gods and those associated with them. And the latest, and current, evolution of religion has given us those we know today. Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. Some of the ancient religions have seen a revival in this 'New Age' obsessed society, Kemetism being of particular interest to me. The newest religion is science. It is based not on stories, or extrapolations (sometimes ), but purely observation and analysis. Arguably, it is the most 'accurate' religion to date (perhaps a better word would be 'productive'), judging solely by what technologies it has made possible. It is unique not in that it has no gods or spiritual realms, no; these have simply been replaced by 'forces' and 'dimensions'. It has no afterlife, at least not in a conscious sense. Whether this is a sign that scientists are pessimists or humans are beginning to evolve to a point where they can gain some measure of control over their instincts isn't for me to say, but it is unique none-the-less. So I do not ever dismiss the religions of others as foolish fantasies. Not out of respect for their feelings, but don't get me wrong this would be the reason in any case, but because religions represent an intriguing sociological development, highlighting possible conflicts of interest between instinct and intelligence. They are also of possible historical value beyond that which is written in their various texts, as they may demonstrate how human theories of creation, and just basically how everything works, may have begun before historical records. Anyway, that's what I believe. The afterlife is a remedy to a critical systems conflict between instinct and intelligence. Note that if you've taken any offence to anything I've said, it was not my intention. Also note that my opinions don't stand up well to 'aggressive criticism'. Not because of their validity, but because of my reaction . And finally note that I have not once suggested that your religions are 'wrong' in any way. Just pointed out where they may have developed.
I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)
14th April 2004
:clap: :clap: :clap: mr.matt
I miss the days mr. matt wrote essays instead of posts ... :'(
17th June 2002
the StaplerI miss the days mr. matt wrote essays instead of posts ... :'(
They're not gone completely. I did my fingers in yesterday... there's just a lack of topics worth substancial typing these days, or topics which have already been covered and I don't fancy typing out a whole new 'essay' for it :D.