Do You Believe in Karma?

Off Topic
61

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If I found myself in the unlikely position that I had to rule over, govern and control significant populations, how would I go about keeping the masses in line?

Hmmmm… I MIGHT make up a story about some “entity” that lived in the sky (but could somehow communicate with people on earth, although no one ever saw it) and let people in to heaven or condemn them to hell (even though no one can prove that either) depending on how they behaved. I would kill, burn or crucify anyone who disagreed. That would probably work.

OR on a different part of the planet AROUND the same time (Amazing how the Agricultural Era appeared simultaneously in different world zones creating COMMON problems that were addressed with VERY similar solutions). I MIGHT make up a set of “noble truths” for people to live by so that they may reach “enlightenment” in one of their MANY lifetimes. I would comfort them that if this lifetime sucked, you can always come back as a PRINCE in your NEXT lifetime - as long as you are good…

I think that BOTH of those ideas would be GREAT! I could control the population, coerce them into giving me ten percent of their money (on top of taxes), I could use it as an excuse to exercise ANY policy that I wanted but that might be a little “distasteful”, I could influence marriage and children (and increase my tax/tithe base), I could even have sex with a bunch of little boys and cover it up and not have any consequences!

Did I mention I could avoid paying taxes?

Sounds WIN/WIN to me!

Who want’s to start a religion with me? C’mon, these idiots will believe ANYTHING! Who’s with me?

[/quote]

This is a flawed argument in many, many ways.

First of all the concept of religion first came into existence not as a way to rule, subjugate or coerce any civilization; it simply was a way for people who (at the time) had no contact with anyone outside their “tribes” to explain natural phenomena around them, ie earthquakes, floods, lightning, etc etc.

Secondly, while there certainly have been rulers who used religion to better organize and consolidate their power (Emperor Constantine being perhaps the best example), none of these rulers “invented” a religion. Religions started out as a way to explain things happening around them. As various civilizations sprang up around the Meditarranean basin and the Indian Ocean basins, these religions grew and changed, but in many ways the rulers simply adopted what was popular amongst the people in order to gain more legitimacy in the peoples’ eyes. Different cultures came into contact with one another as trade spread further and further across the continent and this helped introduce new religions that were simply variations of previous religions (Buddhism, Islam and Christianity to name a few).

Of course, there is the example of the concept of a “mandate of/from heaven” that was present during the Song and Tang dynasties in China, but again, this was not an invention of religion. You seem to assert that religion is a tool created specifically for the advancement of totalitarian regimes bent on subjugating those around them.

While religion has been used in this manner more often than not, religions were not created for this purpose whatsoever. The exist because people need to believe in something greater than themselves. But people also inherently need some sort of way to identify themselves and to belong to something. Religion fits this mold for the masses.

Regarding your “Agriculture Era”, this is easily explained and there is nothing “amazing” about it whatsoever. Civilizations grew larger and larger and the need for more advanced agricultural methods (in order to create food surpluses) became necessary. The Agriculture Era simply happened all over the globe at roughly the same time because of the latitudes in which they happened. Look at the areas in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Asia that flourished during this time. They all occurred along the same general latitude because these areas were the best-suited to grow a wide variety of crops.

Some people reject organized religion, and this is fine. But I think very little people actually reject the concept of a Higher Power. Even many atheists I talk to aren’t even aware that they are actually agnostics; people who simply accept that they do not understand or comprehend whatever it is that is “out there”. There are some who place more importance on the messenger than the message, but the reality is that these people are not wholly representative of any religion. They may be the most vocal, but they are in the minority. While this minority may be unfortunate, it is even more unfortunate to dismiss the concept of a Higher Power of any kind due to these sorts of people.

Faith is an essential part of being a human, and while this does not have to entail organized religion, it does entail a belief in Something bigger than ourselves. If we are our own Higher Power, than we are doomed, because we are inherently flawed. I don’t think this is a concept that is foreign to anyone. After all, like they say in the Marines: there aren’t any atheists in a foxhole. I think those who deny that there is any sort of Higher Power are being dishonest to a certain extent due to the feeling that a belief in such would lump them in with the crazies who are a part of ANY religion.[/quote]

It was more of a round about way of saying that I think Karma is a man made concept vs. a divine one. I was shooting for sarcasm rather than expressing a theory. I don’t have the energy for a drawn out religious debate, but I will make a few comments. I’ve seen too much bad shit happen to good people and vice-versa to give any credence whatsoever to a divine plan or a “god” that loves you. Look at the world - if there is someone “up there” pulling all of the strings then FUCK HIM - he’s an asshole.

But there isn’t, WE HUMANS are the assholes and are responsible for the pain and misery of our planet through the ignorance and shortsightedness of our actions and/or lack thereof. Religion is just a way to avoid responsibility: “the devil made me do it”, or “I must have been bad in former life, karma is catching up with me”. NO, you just made bad decisions! That’s it. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Evolution has a way of weeding out those who fail to adapt. The information age has no place for religion.

Faith is NOT an essential part of being human no more than believing in fairy tales is. We have created myth and metaphor throughout the ages to explain parts of our psyche that we couldn’t easily understand. Some of it has been interpreted literally and taken as “gospel” with no critical though applied. I can argue scientifically about the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe, creationism and religious explanation cannot.

How about life? Prove that God created life… oh, you can’t? Well there are MANY well documented experiments where trace elements of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen (the same elements that were abundant when the earth was forming) placed in a vacuum and heat and electric shocks were applied (the same conditions on the early stages of earth). Within DAYS organic material began to form! Lipids, amino acids, and yes, eventually, DNA… Fast forward four billion years of evolution and here we are - It’s not GOD, it’s fucking science.

Faith falters before FACT.[/quote]

Sir, I suggest you learn your sciences. Is chemistry for the purpose of proving or disproving of God? No? Then you have the wrong science and any “results” will never be correct. You should direct your purpose of proving God to exist (or in your case, not exist) towards theology. Using chemistry to prove God does not exist is a straw-man argument. That is putting false attributes to God and saying see, because we can’t find these. God doesn’t exist. Wrong science, bad results.

62

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Keep in mind that religion ultimately exists as a spiritual guide.[/quote]

I want to point out something here. The main purpose of religion (from the religious studies) is to answer the simple (but big) question of, “Why do we die?” I believe the Catholic Church has the best and true answer to this question. And, that is what it ultimately comes down to, who has the best answer.

63

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Remember, we really don’t know how the universe was started. Some theories are certainly more sound than others, and I would say that the Big Bang Theory is much more sound than the book of Genesis. But a more pertinent question is: WHY was the universe created? No scientist can answer this. For many people, science is just a quantification of whatever it is that we don’t understand about the universe. No matter how much we learn, we will never know it all. Why? And is it important to understand how the universe works in regards to spirituality?[/quote]

The big bang theory agrees with observations. Genesis does not. In fact, under reasonable assumptions about energy conditions, a homogenous isotropic universe that undergoes expansion at some point must necessarily have a singularity. This can be shown using simple calculus. There is no religious text that describes anything resembling a credible cosmological model.

“Why was the universe created?” is a loaded question. And why can no scientist answer it? Because it is an unanswerable question. It’s like if asked you to tell me why unicorns don’t exist. There does not need to be a reason why unicorns don’t exist, they just don’t.

[/quote]

What is with all the hating on Genesis? Genesis (Catholic teaching) matches up with evolution, plain and simple. Now, it is up to the individual Catholic whether they believe in evolution. Nevertheless, the two match.

64

I don’t believe in karma or in any system of believe but:

The OP said that believing karma is when you think that doing good thing will reap you benefit.
I think part of the supreme answer to everything in life to stop thinking in term of benefit or personnal interest. Living in your mental projection of what should be and of course while constantly striving for it by whatever mean you think will lead you to it (like if anyone could ever see the entire complexity of every factor that is involved and make the right decision) is like being dead. You never see things how they are, you only live in your mental construction but that is out of the subject.

And beside there is nothing to win really.

I also do think that no one can look at the truth. It blinds you and burn the back of you skull

but what do I know

65

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You must be that omniscient person I have been hearing about, knowing if there is or is not any purpose in something. Of course there is a purpose in everything, can’t really say what, because there is not enough information. However, saying that there is no purpose in something is the philosophical equivalent to everything is nothing. Wrong, everything is something. Every event has a purpose, even if we do not recognize it.
[/quote]

You’re essentially claiming that the universe is deterministic? This is by no means proven.
[/quote]

No, the universe is not deterministic. I did, however, say that their is a purpose (something good) comes out of everything. That has not revelation on if we have free will. I have argued tooth and nail with some people about people not having “free will.”

66

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
My karma ran over your dogma.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

You got no mojo.[/quote]

I am not familiar with the term mo-jo? :wink:

67

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Keep in mind that religion ultimately exists as a spiritual guide.[/quote]

I want to point out something here. The main purpose of religion (from the religious studies) is to answer the simple (but big) question of, “Why do we die?” I believe the Catholic Church has the best and true answer to this question. And, that is what it ultimately comes down to, who has the best answer.[/quote]

No, Catholics are wrong.

68

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If I found myself in the unlikely position that I had to rule over, govern and control significant populations, how would I go about keeping the masses in line?

Hmmmm… I MIGHT make up a story about some “entity” that lived in the sky (but could somehow communicate with people on earth, although no one ever saw it) and let people in to heaven or condemn them to hell (even though no one can prove that either) depending on how they behaved. I would kill, burn or crucify anyone who disagreed. That would probably work.

OR on a different part of the planet AROUND the same time (Amazing how the Agricultural Era appeared simultaneously in different world zones creating COMMON problems that were addressed with VERY similar solutions). I MIGHT make up a set of “noble truths” for people to live by so that they may reach “enlightenment” in one of their MANY lifetimes. I would comfort them that if this lifetime sucked, you can always come back as a PRINCE in your NEXT lifetime - as long as you are good…

I think that BOTH of those ideas would be GREAT! I could control the population, coerce them into giving me ten percent of their money (on top of taxes), I could use it as an excuse to exercise ANY policy that I wanted but that might be a little “distasteful”, I could influence marriage and children (and increase my tax/tithe base), I could even have sex with a bunch of little boys and cover it up and not have any consequences!

Did I mention I could avoid paying taxes?

Sounds WIN/WIN to me!

Who want’s to start a religion with me? C’mon, these idiots will believe ANYTHING! Who’s with me?

[/quote]

This is a flawed argument in many, many ways.

First of all the concept of religion first came into existence not as a way to rule, subjugate or coerce any civilization; it simply was a way for people who (at the time) had no contact with anyone outside their “tribes” to explain natural phenomena around them, ie earthquakes, floods, lightning, etc etc.

Secondly, while there certainly have been rulers who used religion to better organize and consolidate their power (Emperor Constantine being perhaps the best example), none of these rulers “invented” a religion. Religions started out as a way to explain things happening around them. As various civilizations sprang up around the Meditarranean basin and the Indian Ocean basins, these religions grew and changed, but in many ways the rulers simply adopted what was popular amongst the people in order to gain more legitimacy in the peoples’ eyes. Different cultures came into contact with one another as trade spread further and further across the continent and this helped introduce new religions that were simply variations of previous religions (Buddhism, Islam and Christianity to name a few).

Of course, there is the example of the concept of a “mandate of/from heaven” that was present during the Song and Tang dynasties in China, but again, this was not an invention of religion. You seem to assert that religion is a tool created specifically for the advancement of totalitarian regimes bent on subjugating those around them.

While religion has been used in this manner more often than not, religions were not created for this purpose whatsoever. The exist because people need to believe in something greater than themselves. But people also inherently need some sort of way to identify themselves and to belong to something. Religion fits this mold for the masses.

Regarding your “Agriculture Era”, this is easily explained and there is nothing “amazing” about it whatsoever. Civilizations grew larger and larger and the need for more advanced agricultural methods (in order to create food surpluses) became necessary. The Agriculture Era simply happened all over the globe at roughly the same time because of the latitudes in which they happened. Look at the areas in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Asia that flourished during this time. They all occurred along the same general latitude because these areas were the best-suited to grow a wide variety of crops.

Some people reject organized religion, and this is fine. But I think very little people actually reject the concept of a Higher Power. Even many atheists I talk to aren’t even aware that they are actually agnostics; people who simply accept that they do not understand or comprehend whatever it is that is “out there”. There are some who place more importance on the messenger than the message, but the reality is that these people are not wholly representative of any religion. They may be the most vocal, but they are in the minority. While this minority may be unfortunate, it is even more unfortunate to dismiss the concept of a Higher Power of any kind due to these sorts of people.

Faith is an essential part of being a human, and while this does not have to entail organized religion, it does entail a belief in Something bigger than ourselves. If we are our own Higher Power, than we are doomed, because we are inherently flawed. I don’t think this is a concept that is foreign to anyone. After all, like they say in the Marines: there aren’t any atheists in a foxhole. I think those who deny that there is any sort of Higher Power are being dishonest to a certain extent due to the feeling that a belief in such would lump them in with the crazies who are a part of ANY religion.[/quote]

It was more of a round about way of saying that I think Karma is a man made concept vs. a divine one. I was shooting for sarcasm rather than expressing a theory. I don’t have the energy for a drawn out religious debate, but I will make a few comments. I’ve seen too much bad shit happen to good people and vice-versa to give any credence whatsoever to a divine plan or a “god” that loves you. Look at the world - if there is someone “up there” pulling all of the strings then FUCK HIM - he’s an asshole.

But there isn’t, WE HUMANS are the assholes and are responsible for the pain and misery of our planet through the ignorance and shortsightedness of our actions and/or lack thereof. Religion is just a way to avoid responsibility: “the devil made me do it”, or “I must have been bad in former life, karma is catching up with me”. NO, you just made bad decisions! That’s it. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Evolution has a way of weeding out those who fail to adapt. The information age has no place for religion.

Faith is NOT an essential part of being human no more than believing in fairy tales is. We have created myth and metaphor throughout the ages to explain parts of our psyche that we couldn’t easily understand. Some of it has been interpreted literally and taken as “gospel” with no critical though applied. I can argue scientifically about the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe, creationism and religious explanation cannot.

How about life? Prove that God created life… oh, you can’t? Well there are MANY well documented experiments where trace elements of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen (the same elements that were abundant when the earth was forming) placed in a vacuum and heat and electric shocks were applied (the same conditions on the early stages of earth). Within DAYS organic material began to form! Lipids, amino acids, and yes, eventually, DNA… Fast forward four billion years of evolution and here we are - It’s not GOD, it’s fucking science.

Faith falters before FACT.[/quote]

Sir, I suggest you learn your sciences. Is chemistry for the purpose of proving or disproving of God? No? Then you have the wrong science and any “results” will never be correct. You should direct your purpose of proving God to exist (or in your case, not exist) towards theology. Using chemistry to prove God does not exist is a straw-man argument. That is putting false attributes to God and saying see, because we can’t find these. God doesn’t exist. Wrong science, bad results.[/quote]

That’s like saying, “is the english language for the purpose of proving or disproving of God?”. Chemistry and Physics are sciences. Science can be applied to ANYTHING THAT’S REAL. Science has exposed Religion for what it is: A LIE. There is no evidence for ANY of it. While science has proved that the earth and the various species in the earth’s biosphere have evolved independently and over a FAR greater amount of time than claimed by any Judeo-Christian religion. The Buddhists had it wrong in the exact OPPOSITE direction. They claim that an “age” or Kalpa can be described as, “If there were a stone of granite one mile wide, one mile long and one mile high and every 100 years a man would be permitted to wipe it once, gently, with a silk cloth, a kalpa would be the amount of time it would take to wear that stone away to nothing. Furthermore, there have been hundreds of thousands of Kalpas”… So they got it WAY too old. (the earth is estimated to be ~13.7 Billion years old)

I’m not interested in finding a religious text that backs up my argument - how could there be one? Why don’t you find a scientific text that backs up YOUR argument and support ANY of the claims made by the Catholic Church.

Prove with science that Mary was a virgin.

Prove with science that Jesus was/is the Son of God.

Explain why Catholic priests keep molesting little boys and aren’t punished, does the Catholic church condone the behavior? How have their actions shown that they are against child sexual abuse? Are there ANY priests in prison?

69

I know that the Church has paid millions in reparations to various victims, but that isn’t holding the PRIESTS accountable. How does it feel to know the money you donate is going to a fund to “shut up” the victims of WIDESPREAD sexual abuse perpetrated by the pedophile representatives of YOUR religion?

I hope you sleep well thinking about it.

70

More importantly, why does the Catholic church tell people in Africa not to use condoms, when they know that it will result in more people dying of AIDS?

71

[quote]debraD wrote:
I’m an atheist but I still believe that being a dick increases your chances of being dicked around. It’s more of a mathematical question than spiritual IMO.[/quote]

I agree with this. It’s a probability thing, like poking dogs until one bites you. The more you poke, the better the chance of you losing a finger.

The reverse is also true, if you treat people well, there is a better chance of you being treated well in return.

It’s not really a law or rule, just a general way that people interact with each other and their environment.

72

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

That’s like saying, “is the english language for the purpose of proving or disproving of God?”.[/quote]

No, no it is not. English has a purpose of communicating. Chemistry is the science of chemicals…It is more like using geology (science of rocks) to prove God (who is not a rock) does or does not exist. It does not work that way.

[quote]
Chemistry and Physics are sciences. Science can be applied to ANYTHING THAT’S REAL. Science has exposed Religion for what it is: A LIE.[/quote]

Actually it hasn’t. I’ve yet to hear science prove God or the Catholic Church to be a lie.

Maybe you should read Catholic documents, I’m pretty sure She is in agreement with science about evolution. Let me think, yeah she is. Next point.

Buddhism is wrong, what is your point?

There is a few, I am leaving for class in a minute, so it will have to wait.

We’ll have to pull out the theology then.

Plenty of documents pertaining to theology show this.

Some of the Church Militant of the Catholic Church made a mistake in trying to cover up a scandal, no it doesn’t condone that behavior. It didn’t when those priests were hurting people, and it doesn’t now or never has before. If you paid any attention to the recent movements by the Vatican it would be clear that this is not condoned. I can copy and paste the letter to Ireland by the Pope if you wish. Yes, there are priests in prison for their actions. My personal policy of child molesters (just FYI, the percentage of child molesters that are priests are not different than the rest of the population, so it is not some phenomenon going on inside the Church) is to hanging 'em all until they stop twitching.

73

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know that the Church has paid millions in reparations to various victims, but that isn’t holding the PRIESTS accountable. How does it feel to know the money you donate is going to a fund to “shut up” the victims of WIDESPREAD sexual abuse perpetrated by the pedophile representatives of YOUR religion?

I hope you sleep well thinking about it.[/quote]

Let me give a prelude to further comments. I don’t know it is because I grew up in the country, but I do not tolerate child molesters. It sickens me. I rarely have the urge to kill someone, especially by lynching, but when I think about people that molest children I really do feel like taking them to a tall oak tree and stringing them up.

I can say that I have no clue where they got that money. I could venture to guess it was diocese money (so, someone who gave money in Boston wouldn’t be giving money to people in New York). I have never lived in a diocese that dealt with child molestation. Another thing is that unless the paid hush money in the last year, I have never given money to fund “shut up” money.

I always sleep good, even though it is short lived. I do not think much about the situation. The real issue that people have seems to be with people in the Catholic Church, not the Her. I love the Catholic Church and I love my family (which includes the Church Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant), however, not everyone deserves my peace. Those that do not receive my peace is those that hurt the children.

74

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
More importantly, why does the Catholic church tell people in Africa not to use condoms, when they know that it will result in more people dying of AIDS?[/quote]

You know what prevents people from dying of AIDS, stop sleeping with people that have AIDS. If a husband or wife has AIDS they should practice chasteness. The Catholic Church teaches its Militant to be Chaste.

75

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
More importantly, why does the Catholic church tell people in Africa not to use condoms, when they know that it will result in more people dying of AIDS?[/quote]

You know what prevents people from dying of AIDS, stop sleeping with people that have AIDS. If a husband or wife has AIDS they should practice chasteness. The Catholic Church teaches its Militant to be Chaste.[/quote]

Yes, that seems like a foolproof plan.

76

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And counter point, one by one:

  1. The whole “everything happens for some divine reason” argument is ridiculous. People make decisions that are selfish cruel and cause pain a suffering to other people. That’s it. There is not an other explanation. A ten year old child getting molested here in the US or another one in Iraq getting their arms and legs blown off because of a bomb dropped trying to kill a terrorist is NOT serving any purpose. It is a consequence of selfish HUMAN behavior - nothing more. If there WAS a “god” out there with the powers that ALL religious texts attribute to him and he allows this to happen then he is an asshole. Certainly not the “all loving, gather your flock” kinda guy… So religion has it wrong. And if they are wrong about that, they are most likely wrong about everything else. There isn’t a SINGLE shred of evidence to support ANY of it.

  2. Heaven and Hell, God and Lucifer, Angels and Demons are all religious concepts. No more real than the three headed dog in the Harry Potter series. But people say things like “the devil made me do it” or they go into church and “confess their sins”. Rather than receiving a consequence, they are told to say ten Hail Mary’s and I’ll see you next week - “all is forgiven”. If that isn’t teaching irresponsibility, I don’t know what is! The fact that the Catholic Church has been molesting little boys for A LONG FUCKING TIME and there hasn’t been anyone locked up is just crazy. Same with those crazy Muslim muther fuckers blowing themselves up. It’s blatantly wrong, yet there isn’t a consequence. God sure must “love his flock” if he condones that type of behavior. It’s all just an excuse. It serves a selfish agenda, not a divine one. But the “all powerful” man upstairs seems to be fine with it. I call bullshit.

3 & 4) Religion and science have often been at odds, because science proves that religion is a bunch of made up bullshit. Most notably when Galileo was tried before an Inquisition in Rome and condemned to house arrest for the rest of his life for “daring” to suggest the heliocentric theory, that the earth revolves around the Sun. In fact it wasn’t until 1965 that the the Catholic Church revoked it’s condemnation of Galileo - I guess those pictures from space was enough evidence that he was right. But until then, EVERYONE believed the earth was flat, because they didn’t have the perspective to understand anything else. I submit for your consideration that event’s PRIOR to the Big Bang and other questions of “why” are simply beyond our current understanding, and that it will eventually be worked out and explained by science. The fact is that science has DISPROVED the divine origins of everything else, so why should the beginning of the universe be an exception?

As for spirituality, Go read The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov. It’s a discussion about quantum physics and draws some pretty spectacular parallels between physics and “spirituality”. There’s not a whole lot that’s “spiritual” about it.

My argument about religion is that it does NOT exist as a spiritual guide, but rather was evolved to keep populations of people “in line”. I mean the King James version of the bible, the most popular translation that is currently being used, bears the name of the King who “translated it more accurately”. The questions you need to ask yourself is not about whether or not you are going to heaven, it’s why does the Church need my money? or Why aren’t any Catholic priests in jail for child abuse? Those are the questions that come to MY mind.

As for what I believe in, I believe in the laws of Thermodynamics, Gravity, Electromagnetism and other proven laws of physics. Perhaps those “laws” are God. If so, then we are on the same page. But do I think that Jesus’ MARRIED mother was a virgin? Riiiiiiiiight… That’s just fucking ridiculous![/quote]

AC, I think you are failing to see the forest for the trees here, in a way. It’s pointless to continually demand that there be proof of the existence of God or whatever name one assigns to their Higher Power. That’s what faith is: the belief in something without proof. Keep in mind, while I cannot prove that “God” exists, neither can you DISprove that he exists. So if someone believes in God despite a lack of evidence, this is not dogma (belief in something despite strong evidence to the contrary). For some people, science is just a way to explain how God works in terms that we can understand. So science doesn’t disprove anything about God. Nowhere is it written that science and God are two separate, mutually exclusive entities, despite many organized religions’ rejection of science. But that rejection is a discredit to the religion itself, not the concept of religion or the concept of a god(s).

Yes, selfish human behavior is the result of human action and not some sort of “divine plan”. But religion seeks to prevent this sort of behavior through doing good. There will always be evil. Without it, good has no value and there is no sacrifice to be made for the sake of “goodness”.

Let’s get into the realm of moral relativism for a moment here, in order to put things in perspective. There must be some sort of absolute authority, or an absolute morality, that we hold up as a standard. Now we could use science, but science is still extremely limited and science does not answer any questions about morality. Moral relativism is the concept that what is good and what is bad is entirely relative; it is dependent on the environment in which the moral choice is being made. In other words, WE become our own higher power because when these morality issues come up, we go with what feels right, not what IS right according to an unwavering ideal. So sometimes something may be good, other times it may be wrong.

On to point #2. Heaven and Hell may not exist, but we’ll never know whether or not they do. You saying that they are figments of the imagination is no less ridiculous than me saying that I KNOW for a FACT that they do exist. Neither of us will ever know the truth. But again, religion does not require proof. It’s FAITH and proof is immaterial. Don’t forget, there’s no proof that these things DON’T exist either, so this belief isn’t pure dogma.

Now, I can’t speak for the Catholic Church because I have not been a practicing Catholic in years and it isn’t a source of spirituality for me. But I am familiar with the concept of confession. You claim that there are no consequences handed out by the Church during confession, except for penance. That is entirely correct, but the Church is not there to punish, nor is religion in general. If I murder someone and then confess my sins to a priest, of course there is no consequence…from him. But I most certainly will suffer the consequences from someone somewhere down the line, whether it be an act of revenge or the legal system. Or perhaps his punishment will come in the next life or in Hell.

#3-4 Science has disproved nothing in regards to God or religion. Sure, there are people who reject science within religious organizations, from the Pope on down. But as I have stated over and over, this is a messenger problem, not a message problem. Saying that God is bullshit because science has disproven him is just as ridiculous as denouncing science because it is at odds with God. Nowhere in the Bible does it disprove science, just like nowhere in science does it disprove God. And science will NEVER answer such philosophical questions as “why does the universe exist”. Yes, it can say that it exists because a bunch of scientific stuff happened, but this is very limited and in no way actually answers the question.

If someone asks me why I hit someone, I wouldn’t answer by saying that I hit him because my fist moved forward at a rapid speed until it contacted his face and then it decelerated. I would answer by explaining what it was in my psyche that led me to move my fist forward rapidly. But the first explanation is how science answers these metaphysical questions.

Religion seeks to answer these sorts of questions like the second explanation about hitting someone does. Believe me, I understand your perspective, and I was there at one point. But religion, Higher Powers, God, Allah, etc, etc does not exist in order for a power to right our wrongs. These things exist as the Absolute Morality, the standard that we strive to live up to in order to not only right wrongs, but to prevent them from happening in the first place. We will never succeed %100, but, in the words of the great philosopher Mike Singletary, if we strive for perfection then we can settle for excellence. I think most of your problems with religion stem from who is spreading the message rather than the message itself and it also stems from a mistaken idea of what a Higher Power is and what it exists for.

I’ll add this as well. Most people it seems have a tendency to anthropomorphize God and evaluate him or whether or not He exists through our own lenses. But God may not be a He or a She but rather an It. So to say that He condones things by letting them happen is insufficient because He may not actually have any sort of humanistic qualities. Humans condone things. Hell, look at science. If science is the Higher Power that we should look to for all the answers, then do we say that science condones the killing of innocents? Of course not. And it may be the same with God. We just don’t know, but we don’t NEED to know.

77

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I know that the Church has paid millions in reparations to various victims, but that isn’t holding the PRIESTS accountable. How does it feel to know the money you donate is going to a fund to “shut up” the victims of WIDESPREAD sexual abuse perpetrated by the pedophile representatives of YOUR religion?

I hope you sleep well thinking about it.[/quote]

Just because the Catholic Church does horrific things, even in the name of God in some cases, does not mean that the concept of a Higher Power should be rejected. Spirituality is at the top of a mountain and there are many paths to the top of that mountain. Some are hard, some are easy, some wind around the mountain for miles and miles, but they all get there. You can take any path you want. If one path is does not work for you, take another path, but don’t get off the mountain and condemn the rest of the paths. However, there is one prerequisite to being “spiritual” and that is the belief in a Higher Power. It can be any Higher Power, whatever works for you, but it must be bigger than you.

78

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
More importantly, why does the Catholic church tell people in Africa not to use condoms, when they know that it will result in more people dying of AIDS?[/quote]

You know what prevents people from dying of AIDS, stop sleeping with people that have AIDS. If a husband or wife has AIDS they should practice chasteness. The Catholic Church teaches its Militant to be Chaste.[/quote]

Yes, that seems like a foolproof plan.[/quote]

Do you weaken your standards because other people cannot control themselves? Neither does the She.

79

I think I’m done arguing about religion. I’m not going to change your mind and you aren’t going to change mine.

Let’s agree to disagree then.

80

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And counter point, one by one:

  1. The whole “everything happens for some divine reason” argument is ridiculous. People make decisions that are selfish cruel and cause pain a suffering to other people. That’s it. There is not an other explanation. A ten year old child getting molested here in the US or another one in Iraq getting their arms and legs blown off because of a bomb dropped trying to kill a terrorist is NOT serving any purpose. It is a consequence of selfish HUMAN behavior - nothing more. If there WAS a “god” out there with the powers that ALL religious texts attribute to him and he allows this to happen then he is an asshole. Certainly not the “all loving, gather your flock” kinda guy… So religion has it wrong. And if they are wrong about that, they are most likely wrong about everything else. There isn’t a SINGLE shred of evidence to support ANY of it. [/quote]

The selfish and cruel decisions that humans make are, from a Christian perspective, due to free will which God bestowed upon humans, meaning that they are free to choose to be good or evil.

I’m not a Christian myself, but that would be the argument. You also seem to be confusing the idea of God with the idea of the Christian God. The latter has been defined clearly by religion throughout the years, but the former, just the idea of a God of some kind, is much harder to disprove or say that he (or it) is an asshole because he doesn’t seem to care.

‘God’ may just be a sort of force or energy outside the universe that kicked it all off, or a cosmic entity that doesn’t care about us for the same reason that we don’t care about ants fighting on the dirt below.

People tend to humanize God so that when the word is mentioned we immediately think of the Christian God, or an old man in the sky, but the just idea of some supernatural being outside the known universe is much harder to rail against or disprove.

Again, you are humanizing the idea of a God. With regards to the Christian and Muslim God again though, the answer is free will. Bad things are done by supposedly religious and good people, but this only presents a problem if you accept the idea of a caring God but reject the argument of free will.

Science gives us an understanding of the universe and the laws that govern it. This does not necessarily disprove religion, only claims of religion that pertain to the physical universe and can be tested. Since religion by definition concerns itself mainly with the divine, this means that it and science can be reconciled quite happily.

Also, I disagree with you about finding out what was before the Big Bang. There is a limit to our understanding and ability to find things out. We haven’t reached it yet, but due to our position in and the nature of the universe I don’t think we will ever be able to know the answer to every question.

The problem with finding out what was before the Big Bang is that the Big Bang theory states that all matter expanded outwards from a singularity. Singularities by their nature erase all information from their past state, so it is extremely unlikely we will be able to do anything other than theorize what came before, if anything. Also, I’m not too sure about this one, but I think time was supposed to start with the Big Bang as well, which poses another problem with finding out what was before it, as it would be very hard to understand a universe or existence without time.

In fact, I think that the Big Bang could be seen to offer some evidence of perhaps some divine force, due to the fact that it inflated outwards. A singularity is what is at the center of black holes. It has infinite density, so the gravitational forces acting upon itself would be infinite. Add to this the fact that space and time only existed within that singularity, and I can’t see a reason other than a divine force as to why it expanded outwards, and due to the nature of the singularity I think it will be nigh on impossible to find a scientific explanation.

[quote] As for spirituality, Go read The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov. It’s a discussion about quantum physics and draws some pretty spectacular parallels between physics and “spirituality”. There’s not a whole lot that’s “spiritual” about it.

My argument about religion is that it does NOT exist as a spiritual guide, but rather was evolved to keep populations of people “in line”. I mean the King James version of the bible, the most popular translation that is currently being used, bears the name of the King who “translated it more accurately”. The questions you need to ask yourself is not about whether or not you are going to heaven, it’s why does the Church need my money? or Why aren’t any Catholic priests in jail for child abuse? Those are the questions that come to MY mind. [/quote]

Religion was never intended as a means of control, rather as a way to explain the world by primitive cultures. Many have used it as a means of control, but this was not its original purpose.

The questions about the Catholic Church and its accountability regarding pedophile priests indeed need asking, but they do not make the claims of the church any more or less valid.