Twilight Forums

Today I was walking to the Institute I study, when a well built, bald man pointed at me, in the middle of the street and said in broken english:

"You there! do you speak english?"

I got near him and he introduced himself using a name that made Cthulu mythology names look like baby giberish.

Aparently, he was of Indian birth (that is, in India, not a native american indian..) and he has been a monk for 20 years. After rising in rank and obtaining the right to leave the monastery, he became a missionaire, currently in his campaign to demonstrate his humility.

Until that point, mostly everything seemed to me like a marketing trick but I found the whole scenery amusing, and thought it would be interesting to spend some time discussing (I don't think I needed those PHP classes anyway...)...

My initial reaction to all street or door to door sellers is to amuse myself by making extreme pseudo scientific technical questions, like asking...

"What frequency is the signal output of your sweep cleaner? You know, because I would be interested to buy 3-4 of them, should the frequency be the one I want for my automation project..."

And I procceded with this monk in a very similar way... What made me exclaim inside me, was the fact that he responded in questions extremely cryptic and to an extent, even offensive, like...

"So, you call your god Krisna. What makes him so different from the numerous other gods?"

"There are no differrent gods, like there are no numerous copies of yourself. The god is one, religions merely try to interpret his will."

"...and what about his will? What difference will be in my life if I consider joining with the religion you represent?"

'You do not have to join. You do not have to label yourself in any particular way. His will does not change wether you call him Krisna, God or Allah. What changes, is the prespective. One religion wants his followers to be slaves of the god, the other wants them to pray his grace continuously. The prespective I am proposing you, is to accept your status, and extend your capacity so as to impove yourself. the god, will be pleased to see that you can follow his teachings, and that his creation is not bound to him, but is prospering without his continual aid."

(I merged several of his answers and a small part of the introduction, in the booklet he gave me at the end of the conversation, in the above paragraph)

We discussed many things, like life in the monastery, minor details of the faith, the priesthood and I found him quite open minded, yet a bit ignorable in social matters (something that pretty convinced me that he was trully who he claimed to be.)

As I said, in the end, he gave me a booklet (entitled "Sri Isopanisant") and a cd rom containg various mantras. I spent some time reading the booklet, and seemed quite interesting...

Now, about opinions, I am a firm atheist, and that does not change wether a weird monk gives me a good discussion or the Pope himself decides to tutor me. Yet, I found both the discussion and the content of the booklet rather interesting and good food for thought.

Well, that's all. I felt sharing, and so I did... Any similar experiences from the part of the comunity?

_________________

Yeah, I'm also an atheist, but I would really support these beliefs if I wasn't.

Would the two of you consider changing your atheist stance if there was evidence that
a) the Biblical God exists
b) evolution did not occur
c) Jesus was a real figure in history
d) the Bible is more reliable than most other ancient texts of that era
e) there is physical evidence that Noah's flood occurred?

It's all true, or at least better than the current (more widely accepted) theories.

Just thought I'd throw this out there seeing as this thread has a sort of religious slant at this point in time.

_________________
Have a nice day.

Hmmm... let me expand my thoughts...

A) Undeniable evidence that God does exists, would convince me of his existance. Yet, I do not consider evidence,such subjects that are curently unexplained by science, like the depth of the universe and the creation of man. Any evidence would have to fall in the scientific model of evidence, except probably for the capacity of said evidence to be repeated.

B) Well, I think there is sufficient evidence that evolution did occur. On the other hand, I do not consider evolution as a contraposition to the possibility of god's existance, even if church states otherwise. God could very well exist but I am mostly firm that the God described by human religions is more probably an immaginary being.

C) I do not deny Jesus' existence. I do accept that he was a true historical figure, a teacher that chose to deviate from the accepted ideals of his era for the better. As for his miracles and supernatural activities, I mostly consider them 1) either symbolic 2) or exagerations of believers.

D) I strongly dissagree (always in the spirit of good conversation ). The most prominent fact about bible not being a historical book, but an alegoric teaching text, is the fact that at the begining, there were numerous branches of christianism. When christianism became the dominant religion of the roman empire, teachers from around the empire were called to oficialize the christian dogma. Many debates followed, and at that time each branch had its own version for what was fact and what was fiction. The emperor, himself having been baptized, chose to favor the branch that introduced himself to christianity. Three other branches where mostly similar to the version of the primary branch, and the new testament was formed. Many years later, the Apocalypse was added, and the rest of the branches that where left unheard, where considered deviants and heretics. That is how the forbiden holy books where formed: they where the versions of the branches left outside. Later on, on of the four primary branches, became what we now know as catholic christianity, and catholic means "the total [of the belief]" for they accepted many texts previously believed heretic. The main branch was the "Orthodox" since orthodox means "true faith" and with that, it was ment that they made no change to the initial dogma.

As it can be seen, the bible is not a single book wirtten with a historic prespective but rather a collection of books with mostly a teaching prospective, chosen to be considered canonical, not for their depth and accurancy of information, but because they better represent the dogma as it was presented in the imperial roman court.

E) Nobody can deny that floods occured in the prehistoric world. It also mostly accurate to say that three major floods occured, that resulted in earth's complete covery of water. The earth's ground itself provides numerous evidence for that claim. Archaeologists calculate the age of fosils with various means. The most easy way, for a vague estimation of the era that this fosil comes from, is the type of ground it is found. Since now, not a single human skeleton has been found on ground suggesting a heritage dating back to (at least) the last flood. Instead, the most advanced organisms dating from that era are crustaceas. Furthermore, the bible gives extremely inaccurate information relative to the flood. Some examples are the following:

a) There is suficient proof that the last major flood occured millenia before the first man walked the planet.

b) In case that for some extreme reason humans did exist that era, then they most certainly predate the dinosaurs, so we should have at least one evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.

c) The bible clearly suggest that in the flood, along with all life, the fish were also perished. A claim, that sincerely amuses me...

d) The mount Ararat, where is supposed the Arc to have finely landed when the flood was cleansed, would lead to accept that that all life leaving in more elevated ground would survive (numerous mountains are taller). On the otehr hand, if the case is that earth was flooded up to the peak of Everest, and then the waters were lowered, it should be noted that such an enormous quantity of water would have led to the destruction of planet earth due to the extreme pressure. I should also note that I have presented similar arguments to priests and strong believers and the three most prominent answers I got, where the following:

1)In each case God would have intervented so as this would not happen.

2)What really happened is beyond human comprehension and thus, using the term 'flood' (or whatever the subject is) is a way for the bible to comunicate facts.

3)The bible is an alegorical text, and should be taken as such, with the scope of teaching ethics, not history.

Before passing the word, I would also like to pinpoint the fact that I even as an atheist, I leave much ground for doubt, and would accept the possibility of God's existence. What I would never accept, is that the contemporary church, wether catholic, protestantic or orthodox, is a representative of that God...

EDIT: spelling and grammar corrections. I do not wish IcyFreak's eyes plucked out from the savage errors I make...

_________________

You show me a God, I will believe in him. All that other stuff really doesn't mean shit as far as proving God, it just means the Bible was based off of true events.

In most cases, two things are messed up: belief in religion and belief in god. Naturally, one would think that the first implies the second, and vice versa, but trully, aren't they different, the people that act as zealots for their curch, from those quietly praying before bedtime without giving regard to the church?...

Yes, the majority of believers fall in between, but I wander, what will happen if god is proven, and it is discovered to be something totaly different than that the church indicates? What if in the middle of a hot summer, a cartoonish, goat-hoofed figure walks in the Maiami beach and starts proclaiming devil worship?...

What if one day, a big flying pan of fries floats above NY and starts spitting hot frying oil all around?

What if a winged pink elephant soars above the world singing with the genuine voice of Elvis Prisley?

What if... ok fine. u.u

_________________

Icy, I'm not trying to disprove your religion here. I think I'm an agnostic, but in all honesty I'm not sure. I would like to think there's a higher power, I do believe that that's possible, but I also believe that the higher power may just be the thing we call Chance.

Also, I can agree with your last three points. The last... is arguable though. There is physical evidence that something in a similar vein to the Great Flood may or may not have happened, and as such, I don't think you can say e) is 'true'.

Jesus was a real historic figure... Yes, I agree with you there. He's been mentioned in so many texts and depicted so many times that it's hard to think he could not have existed. However, I believe he existed as a prophet, much like Mohammed, and was not in fact a miracle worker. If there is a God, then maybe He can resurrect people, but I find it hard to believe that Jesus came back from the dead. I believe that he existed, was a very well-known figure, and did a great job of spreading the word of God. But then again, the word of God was what Jesus believed in, and as such he was merely teaching people his beliefs. I would like to think he was a very spiritual, helpful and particularly caring & peaceful person, and believe that this could be how he came to be so well-known around the world.

What I can not agree with you over, not one iota, is your second point: evolution did not occur. You can not say this is a 'fact'. There is significant, MORE than significant evidence that some form of evidence occured. Maybe we're not entirely sure of how exactly it happened, but something similar did. Please, inform me how you can prove that evidence did not occur.

Also, you can't say firmly that the Biblical God exists. However much you believe, and however much I'd like to believe, there is no physical evidence to prove an existence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't a God, just that there's no proof. As I said, I think I believe in God myself.

My final point... While the Bible does seem to be very reliable, at least for the time in which it was written, you have to remember that it was written by people. Normal people. Humans are the only species that have an imagination, we are the only creature to write stories, and we are heavily prone to exaggeration.

Those were all hypotheticals, not actual points he was making. He was asking us that, if all of that was proven, would we convert. Hence my "show me God is real" post.

While I could discuss other points, I'd like to bring attention to this one, as I know it better with onhand info.
The waters began to recede before the ark landed on Ararat (Gen 8:3-4 if you want the reference), so higher mountains could have been covered.

I've not heard your second point made there. I'll look into that sometime.

The whole rest of this discussion is where things get sketchy and no matter how much I believe what I do, there really is no scientific way of proving some of it, so I shall take my leave.

_________________
<==
Well, I've got a hat!

Ah but Therum, the words were "This is all true".

Kind of a defining statement there.

You know, I've read that post ten times, and I've never noticed that.

Wow. What a fucked up thing to say.

What in this is offensive? I mean, I can see how the religious might be offended if some monk claims that his religion includes theirs, or that their religion falsely dictates them to be 'slaves of the god', but were you, as an atheist, actually offended?

Oh, I always thought he meant that his own questions might have been construed as offensive by the monk. Looks like I failed to notice something in this topic too!

I'm a pretty faithful Christian, but I also believe there is undeniable scientific proof that evolution occured. But I personally have a theory that allows both the bible and evolution to be true. I won't bother explaining it, however, as I'm sure nobody wants to hear it and it's hard to explain anyway.

_________________
TheK3vin- #325

http://soundcloud.com/thek3vin

Actually... I really kinda wouldn't mind hearing it.

Sorry, K3v!

I'd like to hear it, too. Especially if by 'true' you mean 'literally true,' as in 'six-day-creation-Noah's-flood-God-literally-killed-every-firstborn-in-Egypt true.'

I don't know, I truly believe in just about everything in the bible, but different things kind of mean different things to me. Like I know no one got swallowed by a giant fish and was spit out and lived days later, but stories like that really teach good lessons. It's REELLY hard to explain. It's like... Some of the stuff totally happened, like the miracles Jesus performed, and the ressurection etc. I believe that. And hell (ooh, bad word choice :_), maybe somebody really did get swallowed by a fish. Because as of now, no one's been able to tell me how the universe was created. They go "Ooooh the big bang theory, oohhhh it all exploded blah blah." Ok, so how did all the shit get there in the first place? Nothingness doesn't explode. I believe God exists, and if God exists anything's possible. I mean, you can't just create stuff, even if your God. It needs to be thought out EXACTLY how everything would work. God created science. He created molecules, and atoms, and cells and everything. And maybe when he created earth, he created it as if it had already existed. Maybe he created fossils right out of the gate that had all the physical signs of being millions of years old just so there could be an explanation of it all.

This probably isn't making any sense.

Like I said, it's extremely difficult to explain. But you know what? Maybe God doesn't exist. But what's the point in living if there's nothing to look forward to when you're gone? Whats the harm in people like Mother Theresa? There's no reason not to believe, and plenty of reason to do so.

_________________
TheK3vin- #325

http://soundcloud.com/thek3vin

I think that one was by us, actually.



Why must there be an afterlife to make your life worth living? How do you know that the opposite (no afterlife) is worse? For me, the possibility that there's no afterlife makes life even more valuable.


To get back to topic... I've been approached by missionaries quite a few times, especially by Mormons. I must admit that I find missionaries quite baffling. Their main arguments are usually: you'll know that this is the true religion, if you believe in it, you'll know true happiness and what have you got to lose? That's all very nice, but that still doesn't explain why this religion is any better than the others or how a person who is happy and content should gain extra happiness through organised religion. I've never quite got a satisfying answer to those.

If I would ever have to choose a religion, however, I sure as hell wouldn't choose Christianity, mainly because my people have mostly seen the ugly, greedy and violent side of it. Something like Buddhism on the other hand seems far more palatable, especially its earlier forms.

Oh, and I've got nothing against gods, personally -- it's their fanclub that gives me the chills

Spot on. Before I go on, I ask you not to take offense. I have nothing against your religion, just religion in general.

Now.

I would only believe that events such as a man (among other things) walking on water, transmuting water into wine, multiplying food, summoning fish, and being resurrected from death happened if I was provided with evidence. Now, I won't assume anything, but I'm guessing you'd quote the Bible as this evidence. The problem is that the Bible has been written by heavily biased sources and then recopied and handed down through many people, some of whom purposefully or accidentally changed or mistranslated it, and regulated by several ecclesiastical bodies with political aims. You can say it's the word of God if you want, but in reality it's had many different authors and can be trusted no more than any other history.

Why, then, do we have the accounts of Jesus' miracles and the resurrection? Because, as you said,

He did tell parables, after all, and these can become changed over time so the storyteller becomes the character. Either Jesus literally created hundreds of loaves and fish to feed the masses, or this was simply a story he/an apostle told in order to teach about the power of generosity. Which is more logical? Which would you rather believe? Not to mention that some of the stories are copies of earlier myths. The resurrection myth, for example, dates further back than Jesus, to the Egyptian Osiris, the Norse Baldur, the Babylonian Mithras, and many others. Any particular reason why you believe in Jesus' resurrection over that of the others?

As a matter of fact, Jesus was a great preacher, but so was Muhammad. What makes the Bible, rather than the Koran, the Word of God? What about the Buddha, the world's most famous atheist? If the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament, which one do you believe? Why? What about testaments written later, like the Book of Mormon? What about books thrown out of the Bible, like the Apocrypha -- or books never admitted, like the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Now, on to God itself.

This makes some sense. Unfortunately, it has a rather large fallacy. You say the universe has to have a cause -- "nothingness doesn't explode." So God must exist, to have caused the universe. But doesn't something have to have caused the creation of God? If God doesn't have a creator, then we've got some metaphorical nothingness exploding, an exception to our rule. Why, then, can't the universe be another exception? It is equally valid to say the universe created itself as to say that God created itself, and then the universe -- and the first statement is simpler.

I'm going to lay out some solutions to this dilemma. You can compare and contrast them, if you want.

1. The universe spontaneously arose out of nothing via a Big Bang, without a cause.
2. The universe spontaneously arose out of nothing via a Big Bang, caused by God, who has no cause.
3. The universe spontaneously arose out of nothing via a Big Bang, caused by God, who was in turn caused by a higher power or chain of higher powers, ending in one who has no cause.
4. The universe spontaneously arose out of nothing via a Big Bang, caused by God, who was in turn caused by an infinite chain of higher powers.
5. The universe has always existed. Its supposed expansion is in fact caused by dark matter or by the continual creation of new matter. (This was Einstein's theory. It's called the steady-state theory. There are still problems, as you can see, so you can insert God where you feel it's appropriate.)
6. The universe does not exist.
7. The universe was created randomly and causelessly, and consists of random events. The laws of physics as such are explained only by luck.
8. The universe and God created and continue to sustain each other. Neither is capable of existence without the other. (I think this is mine.)

So it's not all that cut-and-dried. Some of those are pretty silly, but each has very deep logical ramifications.

This looks like a contradiction to me. Also, I wouldn't say that God's existence means that "anything's possible." I'd say that the fact that the universe has continuously obeyed several fundamental rules suggests that any deity would be a limiting, orderly, and restraining one.

Ah. Intelligent design theory. This is all entirely plausible, even if I would phrase it a bit differently. It's doesn't prove that God exists, though. Again, the universe can just as easily be explained through physical laws.

I would NEVER believe in a God who is willing to lie to its people "just so there could be an explanation." If this is your theory that allows Biblical fundamentalism and evolution to coexist, I'm kind of disappointed.

To improve the human condition? To leave a legacy behind?

What's the harm in people like the Dalai Lama, Bertrand Russell, Dave Barry, or Mikhail Gorbachev, all of whom were atheists? How about people like Richard III, Ronald Reagan, Brigham Young, or Adolf Hitler, all of whom were Christians? A single example of a Christian humanitarian is far from proving your point...

For most people, scepticism and Occam's Razor. There is simply no proof of God's existence.

Because, apparently, the Bible is absolutely true, the universe must have been created by a higher power, and Mother Teresa is representative of Christianity.

I'll believe in God's existence on principle. This rest requires some proof.

Logically, my mind tells me that a random and unfeeling universe that really doesn't benefit that much from (or care about) my continued existence, and that doesn't have an afterlife where the just are rewarded and the wicked punished, is the most likely option.

And I'm cool with that.

The reason I don't go leaping off a building all "there's no point in life, bawwww" is mostly from a desire to see how things turn out. That, and even if there is no point in living, there's also no point in not living. If there is no otherworld, then obviously you should get as much as you can out of this world, while you can.

(Without getting too crazy about longevity, mind you, which I think is a waste of time and money. No matter how "vital" I am at ninety-five, I'm still nearly a century old at that point. It's over! Shoot my bones to the moon and let the world's resources go to the rest of the monkeys.)

Personally, in my heart, I do believe in the existence of gods and myth and all the good stuff. I happily accept the possibility of every deity from every belief existing in one chaotic jumble sale. But I don't think that they need to be worshipped or given tribute or anything. I don't think that they matter in my personal life.

(And certainly not in the scientific world either, but that's a grumble for another time.)

When it comes to studying history -- the way religion affected the motivation for certain acts in the past -- it does play a part, and a big one. But on a personal level, it's not a big deal and it shouldn't be. It's only when the beliefs turn into "my god says I should go killin' folk" that there's a problem.

(And speaking of which, why is it that when people start hearing voices or seeing things, and the voices tell them KILL THE DEMONS THAT HAPPEN TO BE YOUR NEIGHBORS or DROWN YOUR BABIES... they do what the voice tells them to? Just because a voice says it doesn't mean you have to. Man.)

And after that digression, I think I've wandered around this topic one too many times, and am going to end this post now.

_________________
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
"By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."

That seems to be the biggest question I can think of. Most other things have been explained.

When I examine religion I think of the reasons religions were created.
1. To explain the unexplainable, such as lightning, volcanoes, and the creation of the universe. Almost all of this is now explained by science.
2. To provide a more code. (commandments)
3. To provide an incentive to follow this moral code. (heaven, etc.)

I have a rather apathetic outlook on religion. I do not believe that I need a religion to do the right thing. I have a conscience that will suffice. I can do the right thing if I have a religion telling me to do so or not. Also, society provides an incentive to be morally just. Or rather, the reverse. Society provides a punishment for the unmoral folk.

As to whether God or another super-natural being exists.
I do not ask myself this question. If it makes no difference as to how a behave, then I am not willing to spend countless hours contemplating this question and likely never coming up with a sufficient answer.