Religion, what's the point?

If Curiosity manages to stumble on something amazing I wonder how that would go down with the religious. Keplar's findings of hundreds of universes in one dark patch of sky has given me much hope for future exploration. Surely an all-knowing god would have mentioned all these universes, let alone how our very own solar system works.

Hopefully within the next 50-100 years of planet and space exploration mankind will discover something that completely alters our thinking of our existence. Then the bullshit Genesis story would surely lose all credibility (to the religious only as science and non-religious already reject it) and along with it religion itself.
 
MrMarcello said:
If Curiosity manages to stumble on something amazing I wonder how that would go down with the religious. Keplar's findings of hundreds of universes in one dark patch of sky has given me much hope for future exploration. Surely an all-knowing god would have mentioned all these universes, let alone how our very own solar system works.

Hopefully within the next 50-100 years of planet and space exploration mankind will discover something that completely alters our thinking of our existence. Then the bullshit Genesis story would surely lose all credibility (to the religious only as science and non-religious already reject it) and along with it religion itself.
Click to expand...

Multiverses/infinite universes is a part of buddhist and vedic cosmology.
 
niMic said:
In Sweden.

He also didn't say it didn't happen at all. Not to mention that he said "50 years ago", and the best example you could come up with was 55 years ago. Not exactly a massive knock to his argument.
Click to expand...
Eh? 'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people'.
 
MichaelS said:
Multiverses/infinite universes is a part of buddhist and vedic cosmology.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should clarify... batshit religions based on a god creating man, great floods and arks, a messiah/son of god, and other nonsense. I do not consider Buddhism as batshit. It's more focused on the body and mind, and I feckin' love yoga.

I've never heard of vedic cosmology.
 
niMic said:
Eh what? Yes, I have heard that quote before. It is a nice quote. But what is your point?
Click to expand...
That people were critiquing religion few years back? I know Plech has just had a kid but what's your excuse.
 
I'm not religious but there's nothing inherently ridiculous about religion. None of us really know the answers about the meaning of life so believing in a creator and a set of beliefs to be governed by is not really ridiculous.

It's the misuse of religion that is the "bollocks" rather than religion itself.
 
MrMarcello said:
If Curiosity manages to stumble on something amazing I wonder how that would go down with the religious. Keplar's findings of hundreds of universes in one dark patch of sky has given me much hope for future exploration. Surely an all-knowing god would have mentioned all these universes, let alone how our very own solar system works.

Hopefully within the next 50-100 years of planet and space exploration mankind will discover something that completely alters our thinking of our existence. Then the bullshit Genesis story would surely lose all credibility (to the religious only as science and non-religious already reject it) and along with it religion itself.
Click to expand...

In my Father's house there are many rooms.

John 14:2

Maybe it was mentioned.
 
peterstorey said:
That people were critiquing religion few years back? I know Plech has just had a kid but what's your excuse.
Click to expand...

No one has said that nobody was critiquing religion. Hell, some were critiquing religion in Ancient Greece. But the point was that it has been confined to a very small group of people. In the modern world it is a lot more accepted to publicly criticize religion. This should be a completely uncontroversial statement, and I have no idea why you're getting so caught up about it.
 
oates said:
In my Father's house there are many rooms.

John 14:2

Maybe it was mentioned.
Click to expand...

An incredible reach. If not, then Jesus is talking about space travel, which I don't believe is the most common interpretation.

I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”​

John 14:2
 
niMic said:
An incredible reach. If not, then Jesus is talking about space travel, which I don't believe is the most common interpretation.

I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”​

John 14:3
Click to expand...

Fixed for you :)
 
niMic said:
Actually 4 too. I'm not much of a bible scholar, to be fair.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't expect you to be given your feelings.

I would have thought that the vernacular of the day was employed both originally and in subsequent versions of the bible and the true meaning is subject to many interpretations of course.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I'm not religious but there's nothing inherently ridiculous about religion. None of us really know the answers about the meaning of life so believing in a creator and a set of beliefs to be governed by is not really ridiculous.

It's the misuse of religion that is the "bollocks" rather than religion itself.
Click to expand...

The strongest intellectual case you can make for this creator stuff is that there is no good evidence against it, which really isn't an argument in favour of it. Wouldn't it be better to keep an open mind in the absence of evidence for a creator?
 
In all seriousness, I like reading about religion. I've studied history, and a bit of social science, and religion is pretty much a mix of those. But I do think it would be an unreasonable reach to assume that he was in any way, shape or form talking about the stars in the Universe. I just don't see how it fits into the context at all.
 
niMic said:
In all seriousness, I like reading about religion. I've studied history, and a bit of social science, and religion is pretty much a mix of those. But I do think it would be an unreasonable reach to assume that he was in any way, shape or form talking about the stars in the Universe. I just don't see how it fits into the context at all.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are right niMic, however Jesus was basically being asked how and where everyone going to heaven would fit in. Without attempting to explain quantum physics to his disciples he reassured them that it would work out okay.
 
oates said:
I'm sure you are right niMic, however Jesus was basically being asked how and where everyone going to heaven would fit in. Without attempting to explain quantum physics to his disciples he reassured them that it would work out okay.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Jesus had a comprehension of quantum physics?
 
Quantum mechanics may not be the answer anyway. It's only the answer for now. So Jesus would have been right not to put his faith in it.
 
niMic said:
Because that's at least 1600 years before anyone knew anything about quantum mechanics. Far before anyone even had the tools to be able to know anything about quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

Oh right. Yes that's if he wasn't the Son of God or God made corporeal who, given that he had created the Heavens and Earth would have a a quite comprehensive understanding of, well, everything.

Who knows? Well, you do of course plus all of the rest of the atheists so I must be wrong. :)
 
surf said:
The strongest intellectual case you can make for this creator stuff is that there is no good evidence against it, which really isn't an argument in favour of it. Wouldn't it be better to keep an open mind in the absence of evidence for a creator?
Click to expand...
Well exactly. We don't have any evidence for a supreme creator so why embrace it?
 
oates said:
Possibly. Maybe. Why wouldn't he? Maybe he'd been told not to worry about it too. I don't know. Who does?
Click to expand...

There are a million and one things that he could have imparted to his followers to prove his heavenly credentials, should he have had such a comprehension. Things that were far beyond the knowledge of the day would have proven his legitimacy as the true prophet of God for all time. He was well into his divine revelations, that was his whole trip, if he had such comprehensions he would have shared them.

Saying that the lords house has 'many rooms' is simply a smart answer to someone asking about the incomprehensible concept of heaven and the room within it. It is fanciful, at the least, to try to relate the answer to the vastness of the universe.
 
niMic said:
Because that's at least 1600 years before anyone knew anything about quantum mechanics. Far before anyone even had the tools to be able to know anything about quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

Actually there was quite a lot of talk about atoms and stuff in Greece and India well before the time of JC. Of course it's not really comparable to what's going on these days.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
There are a million and one things that he could have imparted to his followers to prove his heavenly credentials, should he have had such a comprehension. Things that were far beyond the knowledge of the day would have proven his legitimacy as the true prophet of God for all time. He was well into his divine revelations, that was his whole trip, if he had such comprehensions he would have shared them.

Saying that the lords house has 'many rooms' is simply a smart answer to someone asking about the incomprehensible concept of heaven and the room within it. It is fanciful, at the least, to try to relate the answer to the vastness of the universe.
Click to expand...

For myself I think that Jesus had already proven his divinity with miracles, some of which possibly had a lot to do with quantum physics, but really, how many times did he have to prove he was who he said he was? Again and again for some people obviously. My thoughts are that his audience just weren't ready for the how.

I say "To-may-to" and you say "Tom-ah-to".

I'm happy to concede that in the here and now I sound like a fecking idiot. Not the first time, won't be the last eh? :)
 
surf said:
Quantum mechanics may not be the answer anyway. It's only the answer for now. So Jesus would have been right not to put his faith in it.
Click to expand...

Eh

If Jesus is the son of the God, he would have known the answer. We wouldn't have to be pissing about with theories of quantum physics at all if he could have been arsed imparting the real answers. If he was just a little more gracious, if he had just shared something concrete to give us the answers or some proof that his word is true, then he could have saved the world from a whole lot of pain and suffering over the next 2000 years.............and counting.

I wonder why he didn't.
 
niMic said:
In Sweden.

He also didn't say it didn't happen at all. Not to mention that he said "50 years ago", and the best example you could come up with was 55 years ago. Not exactly a massive knock to his argument.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the Swedes? It's the best example I could come up with, because I believe it to be one of the best examples of a popular medium i.e. cinema doing what was claimed was 'practically non existant 50 years ago'. What examples will satisfy you? Voltaire, Schopenhauer , Kierkegaard?

I have an English translation of The Diary of Antoine Roquentin that is 60 years old - the translation published by Penguin books - is 48 years old. This material and discussion is older than the internet and has been going for longer than half a century. It has played a major part in shaping our culture and history. I don't see what purpose it serves to ignore and dismiss it.
 
MichaelS said:
Actually there was quite a lot of talk about atoms and stuff in Greece and India well before the time of JC. Of course it's not really comparable to what's going on these days.
Click to expand...
Well my man Epicurus pretty much reamed the god thing about 300BC:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
 
MichaelS said:
Actually there was quite a lot of talk about atoms and stuff in Greece and India well before the time of JC. Of course it's not really comparable to what's going on these days.
Click to expand...

Not atoms as we know them, though. They simply didn't have the tools to know about atoms or molecules. Vague ideas that everything is built up by different building blocks, sure.
 
peterstorey said:
Well my man Epicurus pretty much reamed the god thing about 300BC:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Click to expand...

Why was epicurus talking about God if he was a greek and all?

Anyway, I looked up yahweh on wiki some weeks ago and was surprised to see he was reckoned to have consort a long time ago. Also the fact that he tells Moses that they shall not worship other gods than him, but doesn't actually say there are no other gods than him.
 
dumbo said:
What's wrong with the Swedes? It's the best example I could come up with, because I believe it to be one of the best examples of a popular medium i.e. cinema doing what was claimed was 'practically non existant 50 years ago'. What examples will satisfy you? Voltaire, Schopenhauer , Kierkegaard?

I have an English translation of The Diary of Antoine Roquentin that is 60 years old - the translation published by Penguin books - is 48 years old. This material and discussion is older than the internet and has been going for longer than half a century. It has played a major part in shaping our culture and history. I don't see what purpose it serves to ignore and dismiss it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then no one has said that we should ignore and dismiss it. There's been a lot of straw man arguments floating around lately.

The claim wasn't that it never, ever happened. Just that it is a lot more accepted today. I've studied (a little) philosophy, and some people on here call me a militant atheist. I am familiar with these great thinkers who questioned religion. But the original claim was that it was confined to "certain circles". He exaggerated when he said "practically non-existent", I'll give you that.

My point about Sweden is that it's been a much more progressive society than.. well, most countries. We also had quite a few atheists in Norway. One was a famous poet. Of course, we put him on trial for blasphemy. Mind you, he won.
 
Jesus proved himself with miracles... as only mentioned in religious texts. Certainly not proof of anything. If this Jesus was causing miracles and was famous all over there would have been far more written about him during his lifetime. And there's not, it's all hearsay written at minimum 30 years after his supposed death. This is not legitimate.

Jesus was a collaboration of all the supposed messiahs running around the ancient world for centuries. He was a fabrication of ancient myths. His life sounds quite similar to a handful of other messiahs/saviors that predated his era.

There are 16 crucified saviors in history that predate Jesus. The Jews may very well have believed in a messiah - there was said to be countless self-claimed messiahs running around in those times. There may very well have been a Jesus claiming to be the man of god - we've seen this in our time with men claiming to be a son of god or a prophet.

Constantine and his minions created this Jesus to unify Rome. Councils of Nicea, Councils of Constantinople, Lateran councils all followed. Most if not all of Christian rituals are of Pagan origin. What further proof is required?

Lastly, if there is a 'god' it would be nice if this god would actually ensure starving kids are fed, that amputees are healed, that disgusting violations of rape and molestation would be intervened prior to the act, and so much more.
 
As far as the whole Jesus thing goes I tend to agree with the idea that he was a philosopher/preacher type person who taught his followers to be kind to others not the idea that he is God incarnated.
 
peterstorey said:
Well my man Epicurus pretty much reamed the god thing about 300BC:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Click to expand...
That certainly debunks the Christian idea of God, but there's nothing really to suggest that there is or isn't a god/gods who acted as creators of the universe. That said, even if something did create the universe, why would it want us to worship him? That's the thing I never really understood, okay fine, we don't know everything about the universe yet (thus not completely debunking god) but why would it follow that we need to go church?
 
Okay that's just a song lyric but the Big Man does seem like a hilarious prankster. My favorite was when he told Abraham to kill his son but then at the last second he was all like LOL JK and then they all played banjo music and smoked hookah.

What are some other God as joker stories? Discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.