|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Do You Agree? |
 |
|
What if there had been no religion to start with in the beginning? No concept of God to start with? We would still have this same life as we have right now.
And then faced with questions of Life and the mysteries of Life, Science would itself be creating the concept and the possibility of a supreme knowledge right now....with the rest of humanity following such a belief also.
The concept and idea of a supreme being would be here with us anyways, regardless had there been any concept of religion or God in the beginning. The pursuit of higher meaning for life would have started anyways, and the concept of God does not exist just because of what happened in history but would have existed anyways.
God Bless.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lyzandra Daria
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 919
Location: Safe and sound
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: Do You Agree? |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| What if there had been no religion to start with in the beginning? No concept of God to start with? |
>>>
What do you mean 'what IF there had been no religion to start with in the beginning'?
Even if you believe the creation story, which can't be verified as true at all, there wasn't any religion in the beginning.
"I the lord thy god am a jealous god. thou shalt have no other gods before me.' didn't tell adam and eve to pray or have any regular rituals. Just don't eat from that tree with the snake hanging around it. That's the 'special' tree and if/when you eat from it you will know death/life or gain knowledge (depending on which fairy tale you choose to believe).
Who/what did/does 'god' have to be jealous about if he/she/it created all, knows all and is everywhere at all times? God obviously created jealousy too (along with all the other carnal sins).
People (hominids) didn't start developing 'religion' until they were fairly certain they would survive as a species.
Religion refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
faith is a profound belief or trust in a particular truth, or in a doctrine that expresses such a truth
Since god can't be proved, there can be no faith in a god or gods. Without proof, religion is just a bunch of people genuflecting in unison (usually)in a group. I won't call them lunatics, but it is tempting...very tempting.
>>>
_________________
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
Lyzandra |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Lyzandra, how are you? Thanks for the reply.
Well, you got my question wrong. To put it in more simple words...now the year is 2008. So let's imagine, there were no religion nor the concept of God till now. The life and the questions and mysteries of life would be the same as it is now.
I believe sooner or later, we humans would have thought of a higher meaning of Life anyways, even if there were no religion or concept of God before.
Perhaps, in such a situation, it would have been Science to hint at something beyond human knowledge. Science would have created something similar to religion and everyone would be looking at a higher meaning of life anyways.
At the present situation, Science feels a "challenge" from religion and in an effort to prove superiority, Science creates Atheists, evolutionists etc.
Now, had there been no religion nor any concept of God, there would be nothing for Science to "fight" with. And this would have lead to perhapds a science based religion that looks for higher meaning to life. This higher meaning of life would have been the same religon teaches us today.
In short, divine knowledge would be here anyways as the question and mysteries of life are ever with us always.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyzandra Daria
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 919
Location: Safe and sound
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
Hey Lyzandra, how are you? Thanks for the reply.
Well, you got my question wrong. To put it in more simple words...now the year is 2008. So let's imagine, there were no religion nor the concept of God till now. The life and the questions and mysteries of life would be the same as it is now.
I believe sooner or later, we humans would have thought of a higher meaning of Life anyways, even if there were no religion or concept of God before.
Perhaps, in such a situation, it would have been Science to hint at something beyond human knowledge. Science would have created something similar to religion and everyone would be looking at a higher meaning of life anyways.
At the present situation, Science feels a "challenge" from religion and in an effort to prove superiority, Science creates Atheists, evolutionists etc.
Now, had there been no religion nor any concept of God, there would be nothing for Science to "fight" with. And this would have lead to perhapds a science based religion that looks for higher meaning to life. This higher meaning of life would have been the same religon teaches us today.
In short, divine knowledge would be here anyways as the question and mysteries of life are ever with us always. |
>>>
We started out with polytheism (belief in multiple gods). A rain god, A sun god, etc. We (they) 'prayed' to rocks and trees, rivers, whatever.
Over the centuries, they wittled down the number of gods/godesses they prayed to and made sacrifices to. The rituals got more elaborate, but the outcomes were little different. Humankind is down to (for the most part) one god left (if you don't count jesus and the holy ghost as separate but equal).
It's a wonder to me that we are down to one god after all this time (depending on whether you are a evolutionist or a creationist). I don't believe it would have been any different.
If we started w/ 'religion' now, today, we would most definitely IMO be polytheistic...with probably every country having it's 'supreme' and maybe even a few regular or demi-gods/godesses.
Polytheism - Modern World
Polytheism still represents much of the world today. Except for the monotheistic (belief in one God) religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, most of the world's religions are overwhelmingly polytheistic. Polytheism characterizes the beliefs of Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism in the East, and also contemporary tribal religions in Africa and the Americas. These religions are widely practiced throughout the world and remain very popular in their ancestral areas.
Pantheism is distinguished from panentheism, which holds that God is in everything, but also transcends the Universe.
Strict pantheism is not a theism. It does not believe in a transcendent or personal God who is the creator of the universe and the judge of humans. Many pantheists feel the word "God" is too loaded with these connotations and never use the word in their own practice - though they may use it to simplify, or to explain things to theists.
PS: science doesn't 'create' atheists and evolution (I hope you were joking). It does prove or disprove some things. Science cannot prove a mystery (hence it wouldn't be a mystery anymore). Just because something is a mystery doesn't, however, mean science can't explain.
As for the 'higher meaning of life' (?) religion doesn't answer that question. And who believes there is a 'higher meaning of life'? Life IS or is not. What higher meaning can there be?
Or are you talking about QUALITY of life? IMO, religion can't answer that either. Science can.
PS: There are still in this world today (2008) people who have never seen any of the modern marvels of civilization or been indoctrinated to the monotheistic trinity cults of abrahamic tradition. They would get along just fine if we 'civilized' humans would leave them alone and stop polluting their environment. They also still 'worship' their god(s) and don't believe in other 'religions'.
What do you think? If I brought a tribe up from the amazon and they saw a tornado (frequent in the north american continent and not elsewhere). Would that be 'god', the hand of 'god', finger of 'god', judgment of 'god' or just a natural phenomena and something to be avoided at all costs (scientific explanation).
>>>
_________________
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
Lyzandra |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lyzandra Daria wrote: |
science doesn't 'create' atheists and evolution (I hope you were joking). It does prove or disprove some things. Science cannot prove a mystery (hence it wouldn't be a mystery anymore). Just because something is a mystery doesn't, however, mean science can't explain.
As for the 'higher meaning of life' (?) religion doesn't answer that question. And who believes there is a 'higher meaning of life'? Life IS or is not. What higher meaning can there be?
Or are you talking about QUALITY of life? IMO, religion can't answer that either. Science can.
PS: There are still in this world today (2008) people who have never seen any of the modern marvels of civilization or been indoctrinated to the monotheistic trinity cults of abrahamic tradition. They would get along just fine if we 'civilized' humans would leave them alone and stop polluting their environment. They also still 'worship' their god(s) and don't believe in other 'religions'.
What do you think? If I brought a tribe up from the amazon and they saw a tornado (frequent in the north american continent and not elsewhere). Would that be 'god', the hand of 'god', finger of 'god', judgment of 'god' or just a natural phenomena and something to be avoided at all costs (scientific explanation).
|
I think there are Atheists, evolutionists only because there is religion today. If there was no religion today, there would be no Atheists or eovlutionists. There would only be Scientists.
In such a situation Scientists themselves would try to give a higher meaning to life because the answers to life is not Science. A higher meaning is same as our present belief in God.
I attribute this life we have to a divine knowledge and everyone is the product of that same knowledge. In the above example of the tribal guy, that would be a natural phenomenon to us but to him it would be perhaps something divine. We look at life with scientific eyes, they do not look at it with scientific eyes. If there is indeed a divine hand involed in life, then the tribal guy would not be wrong completely would he? Remember Science has not yet proven that there is no God, so you cannot deduce anything attributed to God as wrong...not just yet.
Science knows the evaporation and how rain is made stuff. But you only know the process but not where it all came from, except you will say it all came from nothing which is utter crap. So even if a tribal guy attributes rain to divine source, he would not be completely wrong either.
IT WOULD BE WRONG TO ATTRIBUTE THINGS TO DIVINE BEING ONLY IF THERE IS NO DIVINE BEING AFTER ALL.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyzandra Daria
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 919
Location: Safe and sound
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Imaging no religion... |
|
|
I think there are Atheists, evolutionists only because there is religion today. If there was no religion today, there would be no Atheists or eovlutionists. There would only be Scientists.
Wrong...there was religion before. There would be atheists, evolutionists, creationists, philosophers, doctors, lawyers, bakers, laborers...
In such a situation Scientists themselves would try to give a higher meaning to life because the answers to life is not Science. A higher meaning is same as our present belief in God.
Wrong...Nor did I say that science can answer questions such as the 'meaning' of life. I believe the PURPOSE of life is to survive as a species.
I attribute this life we have to a divine knowledge and everyone is the product of that same knowledge.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. That also doesn't mean you are correct in your assumption.
In the above example of the tribal guy, that would be a natural phenomenon to us but to him it would be perhaps something divine.
Which doesn't actually make (a tornado) devine. It is a natural phenomena and can be, to a certain degree, explained by and even predicted to a certain degree by scientific methods (called meteorology). Just because the 'tribal guy' doesn't understand doesn't mean that 'god did it'.
We look at life with scientific eyes, they do not look at it with scientific eyes. If there is indeed a divine hand involed in life, then the tribal guy would not be wrong completely would he?
If...if...you haven't proved that there is any 'divine hand' involved in life. Therefore, yes, he would be wrong to attribute rain to 'god'.
Remember Science has not yet proven that there is no God, so you cannot deduce anything attributed to God as wrong...not just yet.
Oh yes I can. Just because you 'believe' in a god doesn't make it so. Who are you that I should believe whatever you say? Because it's in the bible? (chuckle/giggle)
Science knows the evaporation and how rain is made stuff. But you only know the process but not where it all came from, except you will say it all came from nothing which is utter crap. So even if a tribal guy attributes rain to divine source, he would not be completely wrong either.
A) I never said rain didn't come from somewhere. It came from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen mmolecules. And B) Yes, IMO he would be wrong to say that rain was from a 'divine source'. Just because he is ignorant of hydrogen and oxygen molecules and weather phenomena such as tornadoes doesn't justify letting him believe that 'god did it'.
IT WOULD BE WRONG TO ATTRIBUTE THINGS TO DIVINE BEING ONLY IF THERE IS NO DIVINE BEING AFTER ALL.
There...you are correct. It is 'wrong' to attribute things to a divine being when there is no PROOF that such a divine being exists.
Letting some illiterate, ignorant person believe a natural phenomena is caused by 'god' is unconscionable. Just like letting someone believe that because 'Eve' offered 'Adam' a bite from fruit condemned all humankind to hell is wrong. Original sin is the greatest hoax perpretrated on the human species...and religion is the cruelest.
>>>
_________________
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
Lyzandra |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Lyzandra,
you have got the question wrong. you are welcome to debate me in my other thread. I am more than happy to spank your scientific ass there.
Your type of questions that you posted above have all been answered in my other thread.
God Bless.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyzandra Daria
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 919
Location: Safe and sound
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
Hello Lyzandra,
you have got the question wrong. you are welcome to debate me in my other thread. I am more than happy to spank your scientific ass there.
Your type of questions that you posted above have all been answered in my other thread.
God Bless. |
>>>
This thread?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34804
Thanks but no thanks 
You have had enough damage from your failed logic there my good man.
If I misunderstood your post...then there is no point inviting me to 'debate' you on another thread. If I did understand, I believe I have responded sufficiently on this topic.
Again, thanks for the invitation, but I'll pass.
>>>
_________________
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
Lyzandra |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lyzandra wrote: |
This thread?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34804
Thanks but no thanks
You have had enough damage from your failed logic there my good man.
If I misunderstood your post...then there is no point inviting me to 'debate' you on another thread. If I did understand, I believe I have responded sufficiently on this topic.
Again, thanks for the invitation, but I'll pass.
|
Yes my friend, you misunderstood it. I am not looking for a debate in this thread but some views and a discussion, but you stretched it the wrong way, which would be similar to what i am discussing in my other thread.
It would be a good idea to pass this invitation if you lack knowledge and i do not blame you for that. In fact if you ever wanted to see Scientists panic, then my other thread would be a good choice.
You will see that Atheism is in fact a cult based on whims and fancies and lacks any real knowledge as foundation.
If indeed there was any knowledge involved behind Atheism, we would all have seen it by now.
I would just request to you my friend, if you are an Atheist, make sure you have the right answers.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
