Ableton Forum

Totally agree with Koze there...

But I would not disregard all religion in the same way. Not all beliefs put humans at the centre of the universe.

elemental wrote:Totally agree with Koze there...

But I would not disregard all religion in the same way. Not all beliefs put humans at the centre of the universe.

I think that's consistent with what has been said in this thread (for the most part). 'God' as a universal force isn't objectionable to me at all. On the other hand, the belief in a 'personal' god puts humans very much at the centre of everything. I've often wondered what will happen when we (inevitably) find life on other planets (even very simple orgnaisms like bacteria). To me, this SHOULD be the end of this type of belief, since it automatically removes human beings from their place at the centre of everything. Frankly, the recognition that natural selection has resulted in the development of human beings over millions of years should do the same thing, so perhaps I'm being a little naive here.

Oh yes, I agree. I was just stating one of my earliest thoughts on a personal god.

I have, in all my posts, I think consistently said I simply use probability as my guide in that I believe the probability of a god existing is so low that it can be ignored. Which I do apply to all religions and live my life as such.

In agreement with Bertrand Russell, if I do get to my judgment day and I am confronted by god as to why I didnt believe I shall simply say:

"Not enough evidence god, not enough evidence"

(After which of course I shall be forgiven and collect my 20 virgins...thats how it works isn't it?)

Seyser Koze wrote:
(After which of course I shall be forgiven and collect my 20 virgins...thats how it works isn't it?)

Raisins, raisins!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_revi ... 32,00.html

edge100 wrote:Religious moderation is simply bad faith.

Now you guys are scaring me, you're promoting fundamantalism, which IMO is the heart of the problem with religion.

'Live a life you love
use a god you trust
and don't take it all too seriously'
Love and Rockets, good line.

Hating the sin and not the sinner is the bullshit middle ground christians take to get the mud off their faces. There is no sin without the sinner. total bullshit line.

As for what you guys are saying the bible says, what the bible says depends on who's interpreting it, which version you're referring to, which church you're going to, which religion to belong to. Take the old testament and how jews and christians view it.


So what do you cross/star huggers think of my old pal satan?? If you talk to god, what's satan been saying to you? Did he mention me ?

Tone Deft wrote:Now you guys are scaring me, you're promoting fundamantalism, which IMO is the heart of the problem with religion.

Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that religious moderation betrays both reason AND faith equally. Moreover, if god really does want us to be "fundamentalists" (as much of the writing he inspired suggests), then religious moderates have it all wrong.

But the worst of it is that religious moderates, by discouraging any real public discourse on religion (this thread notwithstanding), provide shelter for religious extremists. Religion is protected from critical analysis, whereas virtually everything else that guides our world is openly debated and policies made based on the best conclusions to be drawn from the available data. Religion permits no such thing. In fact, we've codified "freedom of religion", which I support insofar as it is an extension of "freedom of belief". But "freedom of religion" has become a central influence on policy here in the real world, which operates ONLY on physical reality (as the name implies!).

Tone Deft wrote:As for what you guys are saying the bible says, what the bible says depends on who's interpreting it, which version you're referring to, which church you're going to, which religion to belong to. Take the old testament and how jews and christians view it.

The interpretations ARE difference. But the literal words are the same. And what's more, the fact is that the Bible (especially the OT, but also the NT) CAN be interpreted in a way that suggests that homosexuality, eating shellfish, and sin against the 10 commandments is punishable by death, whereas slavery is perfectly acceptable.

If you choose to ignore these tenets in the face of "civility" (that is, 'interpret' them differently), that's great. Of course, others don't. Where are the loud Christian voices standing up against those who proclaim these things, using scripture to justify their moderate views.

We need religious moderates to help fight extremism, but we also need a frank discussion about the nature of physical reality, and an agreement that whether heaven and hell exist, THIS world can only be governed by Earthly laws, based on literal, observable fact.

edge100 wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:Now you guys are scaring me, you're promoting fundamantalism, which IMO is the heart of the problem with religion.

Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that religious moderation betrays both reason AND faith equally. Moreover, if god really does want us to be "fundamentalists" (as much of the writing he inspired suggests), then religious moderates have it all wrong.

But the worst of it is that religious moderates, by discouraging any real public discourse on religion (this thread notwithstanding), provide shelter for religious extremists. Religion is protected from critical analysis, whereas virtually everything else that guides our world is openly debated and policies made based on the best conclusions to be drawn from the available data. Religion permits no such thing. In fact, we've codified "freedom of religion", which I support insofar as it is an extension of "freedom of belief". But "freedom of religion" has become a central influence on policy here in the real world, which operates ONLY on physical reality (as the name implies!).

Tone Deft wrote:As for what you guys are saying the bible says, what the bible says depends on who's interpreting it, which version you're referring to, which church you're going to, which religion to belong to. Take the old testament and how jews and christians view it.

The interpretations ARE difference. But the literal words are the same. And what's more, the fact is that the Bible (especially the OT, but also the NT) CAN be interpreted in a way that suggests that homosexuality, eating shellfish, and sin against the 10 commandments is punishable by death, whereas slavery is perfectly acceptable.

If you choose to ignore these tenets in the face of "civility" (that is, 'interpret' them differently), that's great. Of course, others don't. Where are the loud Christian voices standing up against those who proclaim these things, using scripture to justify their moderate views.

We need religious moderates to help fight extremism, but we also need a frank discussion about the nature of physical reality, and an agreement that whether heaven and hell exist, THIS world can only be governed by Earthly laws, based on literal, observable fact.

Whilst I agree with the general flow of your views, regardless of how this world can be governed, it is, and always will be, governed by overweight rich power-hungry men who often openly use religion to justify their policies, which is why it is so protected from crytical analysis in the first place.

I'm not buying what you're selling.

If one must follow the bible to the letter, that's fundamentalism.

Religion is protected from scrutiny by CHURCHES. The elders of a sect, say The Baptist Church (tm), believes in X, Y and Z. If a minister who receives funding from those elders disagrees, he gets booed off stage, excommunicated and his church can lose money.

The interpretations ARE difference. But the literal words are the same.

The literal words are NOT the same. The bible's been rewriteen many many many times over a longer period of time than we can probably really grasp.



So no word from satan? If you believe in god you must believe in satan, and angels, and the easter bunny, and santa claus (OK, maybe not the last two, unless you have kids you have to LIE to.)

NorthernMonkey wrote:Whilst I agree with the general flow of your views, regardless of how this world can be governed, it is, and always will be, governed by overweight rich power-hungry men who often openly use religion to justify their policies, which is why it is so protected from crytical analysis in the first place.

werd brotha! we just said the same thing.

2 points atheists... christians still stuck at the gate praying to the baby jesus for a win. Apparently jesus was a big Colts fan this year, Chicago Bears, not so much, maybe there's a homersexural on the team.

Tone Deft wrote:I'm not buying what you're selling.

If one must follow the bible to the letter, that's fundamentalism.

I agree; 100%. Many religious people don't do this, and I'm saying that if god really does want his inspired word to be followed to the letter, then moderates are just as bad as the rest of us

Tone Deft wrote:Religion is protected from scrutiny by CHURCHES. The elders of a sect, say The Baptist Church (tm), believes in X, Y and Z. If a minister who receives funding from those elders disagrees, he gets booed off stage, excommunicated and his church can lose money.

Absolutely, no question. Religious institutions hold an enormous amount of influence, but they themselves are held aloft by the rank and file believers. If people stopped putting money into the collection plate (metaphorically, of course...I mean contributing financially), the institutions would feel it where it hurts most.

Tone Deft wrote:The literal words are NOT the same. The bible's been rewriteen many many many times over a longer period of time than we can probably really grasp.

Fair enough. There are differences. I still put it to you that you can walk into any church in North America and find a bible that contains a version of the OT that expressly states that homosexuality and eating shellfish and other unclean animals are "abominations", and with a NT (and OT, of course) that expressly condones the keeping of slaves.

If you believe the literal truth of this, there's no getting around it: fundamentalism is where it's at.

Tone Deft wrote:So no word from satan? If you believe in god you must believe in satan, and angels, and the easter bunny, and santa claus (OK, maybe not the last two, unless you have kids you have to LIE to.)

Agree, 100%. The literal existence of all of the things you mention are supported by precisely the same amount of evidence: zero.

Tone Deft wrote: 2 points atheists... christians still stuck at the gate praying to the baby jesus for a win. Apparently jesus was a big Colts fan this year, Chicago Bears, not so much, maybe there's a homersexural on the team.

Statistically speaking, there is. You should find out about it sometime around 4-5 years after his retirement.

Out of interest Edge, as religion seems to be slowing losing popularity, at least within the general masses, do you think it will disappear altogether and be replaced by something else? Regardless of the chosen religion, the fundamental (NOT fundamentalist!) theme seems to be having the faith to believe in something that ultimately can't be proven one way or the other that obviously satisfies some sort of primeval subconscious need within the believers. Without religion to fulfil that need, there has to be some sort of viable alternative don't you think?

Slavery good, homersexurality and oysters are bad. That makes it pretty clear to me that the bible is fallible and not something I'm going to trust with FAITH but with skepticism. If that's wrong it goes without saying that there are other fallicies in there too. So, you pick and choose? I understand why you say you can't pick and choose, that's weak. Me, I gave it all a chance and I'm a better person as an atheist, I no longer carry those contradictions.

Churches are very slow to change and they harbor a lot of hatred, mistrust and lo and behold they were used by the GOP to spread GOVERNMENT. Corruption.

My example of the easter bunny and stuff was meant to invoke the idea that the church teaches people to LIE, to believe in stuff like a large rabbit that goes around the world on easter morning leaving eggs and chocolate for children. Or that a fat man who lives in the most extreme environment on earth does a similar thing with material desires, and he brings it all down the chimney. In my eyes it's priming children to become adults who can be manipulated to believe any damn thing. LIES.


I respect that you're a thinking person. Religion has to be THE most debated topic in all of history, weird wacky stuff. This can go on forever. Notice that the orignal poster has disappeared? Which one of you was it?

NorthernMonkey wrote:Out of interest Edge, as religion seems to be slowing losing popularity, at least within the general masses, do you think it will disappear altogether and be replaced by something else? Regard of the chosen religious, the fundamental (NOT fundamentalist!) theme seems to be having the faith to believe in something that ultimately can't be proven one way or the other that obviously satisfies some sort of primeval subconscious need within the believers. Without religion to fulfil that need, there has to be some sort of viable alternative don't you think?

Now we're on a topic!

You're quite right, people tend to need something to cling to, and religion has filled this role very well indeed.

I'm not sure we'll ever see the total collapse of religion. The thing about the Olympian gods, for instance, is that while they reached 'critical mass' in Greece and Rome (as modified by the Romans), that was the end of it. Unfortunately, the big three modern religions have planted roots nearly everywhere, and probably won't be going anywhere for a while.

I'm a firm believer that lack of education is the tool that has kept religion going all these years. That's not meant to imply that religious people aren't intelligent, but simply to state the fact that (near) universal access to higher education has only become possible in the very recent past. Even today there are clear inequities in this regard; I wasn't 'rich' growing up by any means, but I always had access to education.

Once we begin to learn about ourselves (in terms of our philosophies, our history, our physical being, our art), our world (and its physical, chemical, and biological laws), and our universe (and its vastness, which is probably the hardest thing to grasp), I think (hope) that we will begin to lose the stubbornly held idea that we are "special".

The issue is, I'm not sure most people will be able to (or want to) grasp this. For instance, when most people see "Pi" on their calculators, they think of some number they had to memorize in high school math, and perhaps they think of it as the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter. But there is far more in it than that. Here is a real, literal number (e, Euler's constant is another good one) than cannot be derived from ANY equation. We see a circle, and we see its circumference and diameter as real, literal, measureable quantities. We also recognize the relationship between these for all circles (and have done for 4000 years). And yet, we can NEVER precisely measure this relationship. We can get as close as we'd like, but never it the real, literal relationship. This, to me, is simply amazing, and speaks to a grandness of this universe which is bastardized by the simple reductions present in most religious texts.

There is far more wonder in considering the following question than has ever been suggested in any religious text:

How thick is a piece of paper, which has been folded in half 100 times?

OR,

What is the solution to this equation: x^2 = -1?

These types of questions inspire me to believe in the universe as a marvellous thing, and immediately suggest to me that I mean virtually nothing. This might seem depressing to some; I find it paradoxically comforting. There IS something bigger than me; the universe, which exists as an absolutely dumbfoundingly vast entity, containing a still more vast number of questions.

edge100 wrote:What is the solution to this equation: x^2 = -1?

These types of questions inspire me to believe in the universe as a marvellous thing, and immediately suggest to me that I mean virtually nothing. This might seem depressing to some; I find it paradoxically comforting. There IS something bigger than me; the universe, which exists as an absolutely dumbfoundingly vast entity, containing a still more vast number of questions.

the square root of -1 is 'i', an imaginary number whose use introduces a second dimension (typically phase, ie a time shift) in math and engineering.

I totally agree, the basics of science blow my mind. After watching the Nova series on String Theory I was introduced to the question of 'why is the gravitational force the weakest of all the fundamental forces?' The show goes on to say that that might be because we live in a plane of existence that's nearly parallel to the gravitational force, like wtf? wow! It also shows th posibility that the big bang was the result of two sheets of energy in the 11th dimension touching each other, we're the result of one speck of energy transferring from one plane of existence to another... in 11 dimensions.