What's your religion?

[idiffer]

Originally Posted by Vexx

wow.. .utterly missed or ignored what I said. You keep using "before" ... and no, that's not how the theory works or is described. Might want to look it up before trying that again.

so u say that time and space didn't exist before big bang? i read some info on wikipedia...and it says that big bang theory covers what happened AFTER said bang. so why does it make no sense to talk about, yes, BEFORE the big bang?

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

In other words, you subscribe to a God of the gaps perspective, which basically amounts to a form of argumentum ad ignorantium. Noted.

not quite. i think that its impossible to go in an endless asention of causality, that would be a paradox. so there has to be an origin point - god. i'm not saying its the loving christian god, just a metaphysical thing. and no, i'm not saying that its true because it can't be proven wrong. i'm saying it because that is what i deduced with my shitty logic. *puts cap on, smokes pipe*
but nice to know that ppl are noting me, lol)

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by idiffer

not quite. i think that its impossible to go in an endless asention of causality, that would be a paradox. so there has to be an origin point - god. i'm not saying its the loving christian god, just a metaphysical thing.
but nice to know that ppl are noting me, lol)

In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?

[idiffer]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?

so basically u like to link, i get it. but i'm drunk and i have'nt slept in ages. i'm gonna get back to u soon...just after i write a poem and get some sleep.
but still try to describe things in your own words, it helps ... uhh ...something.
and also...zzzzzz....uh, what where, what was it again? okay, nighty night...

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?

In the interest of accuracy I would like to make a comment with regard to Spinoza.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding of this man's theistic view of Ain Sof (the infinite being/God).

Mr. James Craig Green is not correct about Spinoza when he says:

Spinoza asserted that for a concept of god to make any sense at all, it must simply be nature. That is, god cannot be something outside nature that controls it, but must necessarily be part of it. According to Spinoza, God IS nature.

Henry Walter Brann points out in Spinoza: Context, sources, and the early writings By Genevieve Lloyd that Spinoza was heavily influenced by Kabbalah, in particular a book called The Door to Heaven.

This explains Spinoza's view of God as Ain/En Sof or the Infinite being who does not directly effect the world but uses the ten sephirot (spheres of creation) to influence and alter the world.
To a lay person not familiar with Kabbalah it is very easy to confuse this concept (Ain/En Sof) with God being the same as nature.
However, that is not the case.
The concept of Ain/En Sof is the belief that God exists outside of nature/the universe and is infinitely powerful, thus incapable of direct interaction with the natural world lest it/God destroy it.

Therefore, God is not nature per se, but rather both "Nature Naturata, and Nature Naturans."
Put simply, Nature is a mechanism created by Ain/En Sof for the universe to operate and can only be effected by him/it via the ten emanations of power (sephirot).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

In other words, your perception is that of Baruch Spinoza's God, which is simply a "placeholder" name for nature itself?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to add an "a" and make it "palaceholder"?

Come to think of it, most attempted iterations of "god" usually put it as, well, "godly". Overpowered, unrealistic, and fantastical. Like how the general population of ancient times perceive a king of the ancient times that held absolute rule and right of "mercy, justice and equality", when the person is nothing but a very lucky or charismatic human being like the rest.

This isn't progress. This is a backward mentality and giving too much credit.

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Come to think of it, most attempted iterations of "god" usually put it as, well, "godly". Overpowered, unrealistic, and fantastical. Like how the general population of ancient times perceive a king of the ancient times that held absolute rule and right of "mercy, justice and equality", when the person is nothing but a very lucky or charismatic human being like the rest.

You might say that a king is just a man, but a deity would still be a deity.

This isn't progress. This is a backward mentality and giving too much credit.

That's a very subjective view.

[FlavorOfLife]

Originally Posted by idiffer

so u say that time and space didn't exist before big bang? i read some info on wikipedia...and it says that big bang theory covers what happened AFTER said bang. so why does it make no sense to talk about, yes, BEFORE the big bang?

Not interested in the religion talk but this requires some explaination

Because at the point of the big bang, infinite values appear and cannot be calculated as yet. Same ith a black hole's infinite gravity.

The big bang actually has several successors because everyone who knows the big bang theory knows its full of flaws that do not gel with data collected in the last 30 years. Its very successful in capturing the public imagination and explaining basic principles but it is 60 years old.

Most of these successors await more information and data. Some are mathematically sound but unprovable as of now such, as the multiverse theory. For more information about the successors such as the universal brane concept

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ical_cosmology

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by monster

You can say that a king is just a man, but a deity would still be a deity.

I imagine what Saintess means is that "traditional" religious treatment of the divine is often similar to treatment of royalty.

Which is not surprising. In many cultures royalty and divinity are understood to overlap. The Yamato line of Japan claims divine descent and through it the divine origin of the Japanese people; Roman Emperors are regularly deified upon their deaths, their cults serving to enhance the prestige of the state; God-kings ruled ancient cities of Sumeria, one written into history as the half-divine hero of the world's first great epic; Medieval Christian monarchs, through the Church, claim their right to rule "By Grace of God"; the entire Imperial system of China functions through the ritual glorification of the Son of Heaven; hell, a certain Jonathan Edwards of colonial America, the Puritan preacher who introduces "hellfire and brimstone" into common usage, made in his infamous sermon a direct reference to God's arbitrary sovereignty.

And of course, in a sufficiently large kingdom a king might as well be a god, since many of his subjects never ever get to see him. So how do you make people you never ever get to see in person be loyal to you? You create a whole system of rituals and beliefs surrounding your entity. Like a god.

Equate yourself with omnipotence, with holiness and supernatural authority and you have a good show going.


Ergo, when the Enlightenment philosophers rise, they minimize their Christian God into Nature, into Mathematics, to Reason -- Deism. And when the socialists rise, they kill God. For in their worldview a sovereign is to be guillotined, not worshiped, and power to be held by the common peoples of the world.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I imagine what Saintess means is that "traditional" religious treatment of the divine is often similar to treatment of royalty.

Sure, I'm not disputing that. But even with similar treatments, there are still differences with respect to the nature of a king and a deity. That's why I said that SaintessHeart's last two sentences express a purely subjective view.

[LeoXiao]

For in their worldview a sovereign is to be guillotined, not worshiped, and power to be held by the common peoples of the world.

It's then ironic that there were, in all of history, no emperors with power more absolute than that wielded by Mao or Stalin.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

It's then ironic that there were, in all of history, no emperors with power more absolute than that wielded by Mao or Stalin.

It is worth noting that both of the Communist dictators came by their absolute power through the creation of personality cults centered around themselves; in other words, replacing traditional religions with their own form of dogma, based on unquestioning obedience to the will of a central authority figure, themselves. In short, elevating themselves to the position of god-kings, using the same kind of rhetoric that have been perfected by generations of religious god-kings before them.

[Leo Keichi]

Originally Posted by FlavorOfLife

Not interested in the religion talk but this requires some explaination

Because at the point of the big bang, infinite values appear and cannot be calculated as yet. Same ith a black hole's infinite gravity.

Infinite? Is that even possible? Unless by infinite you mean extremely huge values. Or do you mean the formulas being used aren't comprehensive enough?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Leo Keichi

Infinite? Is that even possible? Unless by infinite you mean extremely huge values. Or do you mean the formulas being used aren't comprehensive enough?

The calculations keep spitting out infinities for reasons as simple as values in the denominator drive to zero while numerators expand ----> 1/0->infinity.
The model works great except at the margins... which is what drives most overhauls of a model (Copernicus->Newton->Einstein->Hawkings et al)

Most people whining about the "Big Bang theory" are about 20 years or more behind current thinking... they might as well still be whining about Einstein's changes or the loss of the earth-centered solar system model.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

It is worth noting that both of the Communist dictators came by their absolute power through the creation of personality cults centered around themselves; in other words, replacing traditional religions with their own form of dogma, based on unquestioning obedience to the will of a central authority figure, themselves. In short, elevating themselves to the position of god-kings, using the same kind of rhetoric that have been perfected by generations of religious god-kings before them.

I think this just shows a trait in human nature; we need rulers. To deny the need to be ruled just leaves room for people like Mao or Stalin. Now of course it's not that simple but this is a general observation.

[Asuras]

Personally, I believe half these religions are meant to control those who cannot compose themselves appropriately without some authority figure to guide them.

[Anh_Minh]

Personally, I believe no religion is meant for any one thing.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

It's then ironic that there were, in all of history, no emperors with power more absolute than that wielded by Mao or Stalin.

In what sense? I'm not disputing their power but I don't quite follow your logic. Surely there were rulers with similar levels of influence in the past? Or do you mean their influence over such a large group of people, combined with their dictatorial power (ie they're the most powerful due to higher populations in modern times, not because of their actual abilities as leader)?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

I think this just shows a trait in human nature; we need rulers. To deny the need to be ruled just leaves room for people like Mao or Stalin. Now of course it's not that simple but this is a general observation.

Hoho. It does go to show that charismatic dictators like the aforementioned couple (as well as several others in history) draw the source of their power from the general population's tendency towards blind, unquestioning faith of authority figures; the exact same kind of faith that religious institutions draw their staying power from. History has demonstrated all too many times that the favouring of blind faith over critical thinking tends to lead to bad things.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Hoho. It does go to show that charismatic dictators like the aforementioned couple (as well as several others in history) draw the source of their power from the general population's tendency towards blind, unquestioning faith of authority figures; the exact same kind of faith that religious institutions draw their staying power from. History has demonstrated all too many times that the favouring of blind faith over critical thinking tends to lead to bad things.

This is all true. But what I'm saying is that it's practically inevitable for people to follow and yearn for authority, or at least some sense of it.

Spoiler for Long rant on social dynamics:

Let's take revolutionary Russia for instance. The socialist movement was most broadly characterized by philosophers and other educated, often rich people, who were looking for ways to improve the country. They decided that the way to achieve this was by inspiring the rise of the proletariat and overturning the existing social order. Ideally, there would be no more Tsar or nobility after it was all over, and Russia would be a free, prosperous nation guided by the will of the people. And this all made perfect sense at the time.

But things did not go that way. Throughout its entire history, Russia has been a nation and culture with a high emphasis on centralized, royal power. Even in the 19th and 20th centuries when great social and economic changes were happening in Europe, Russia's people were not feeling this change the same way that those in Germany or the UK did. They were indeed unsatisfied by the failing Tsarist system and the irresponsible, out-of-touch nobility, but because of the historical considerations, Russia could not simply change like the West.

So when the Tsar's regime lost legitimacy, the people did rise up, but not as the mainstream socialists had hoped. Instead, the Bolshevik radicals (an offshoot of socialists), in their claim to absolute power, appealed to this cultural and social need for authority, while at the same time promising change and freedom. From the very start, it fulfilled this role of a decisive ruler by making peace with Germany, killing the Tsar, and initiating the so-called "War Communism".

Now at this point, there were still many Bolsheviks and socialists in Russia who were earnestly trying to improve their country and pave the road for "enlightened development" like the West experienced (in their view, communism was even in fact a step ahead of Western capitalism, according to Marx). But with the [inevitable] rise of Bolshevism, the path to authoritarianism was already set. Thus, when Stalin took power in the late 20s and later had all of the Old Bolsheviks purged, he was simply utilizing the preexisting cultural leanings of Russia to make himself into a new Tsar.
Despite claiming to cast off the burdens of the past, the Russian socialists had no way of changing the fact that Russia is Russian, and thus a Stalin appeared. In turn, the rise of this rebellious gangster from the Caucasus was facilitated by the ideology of violent revolution and forced overturn of the the social order espoused by the socialists and then Bolsheviks.

In the end, Russia was not fundamentally changed but through the surface attempt to destroy the past and force a shift to the unattainable dream of egalitarianism, the nation suffered a blow to its historical identity which still ails the country to this day. Even though the original creators of Russian socialism were as rational and critical-thinking as could be, their failure to respect their nation and culture for what it was led to tragedy.

The same thing happened in China, another country with an even longer history of imperial rule. But in both cases the governments in question pretend that they are representing the rational, Marxist creed, and deny the original faces of their respective civilizations.

For those who managed to slog through all that, the moral of the story is that society, people, and the whole world have their own patterns and truths that may or may not be verifiable, and that claiming that the whole truth can only be obtained through empirical analysis (even though, like I said in an earlier post, human beings are imperfect in their perceptions) only leads to a more long-term, underlying blindness and the rise of tragedy.

In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos. Empirical science is but an extension of man's natural physical existence, and we should not be boxed in by its limited scope.

In what sense? I'm not disputing their power but I don't quite follow your logic. Surely there were rulers with similar levels of influence in the past?

It's not actually important to my point, but what I'm saying is that despite the new, supposedly improved ideologies surrounding them, those rulers were able to despite this, or perhaps because of this, reach the top and attain such great power. A king of old had to place himself under Heaven, but to those people ruled by Stalin and Mao, Heaven was on earth and ruled through human gods.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

This is all true. But what I'm saying is that it's practically inevitable for people to follow and yearn for authority, or at least some sense of it.

Spoiler for Long rant on social dynamics:

Let's take revolutionary Russia for instance. The socialist movement was most broadly characterized by philosophers and other educated, often rich people, who were looking for ways to improve the country. They decided that the way to achieve this was by inspiring the rise of the proletariat and overturning the existing social order. Ideally, there would be no more Tsar or nobility after it was all over, and Russia would be a free, prosperous nation guided by the will of the people. And this all made perfect sense at the time.

But things did not go that way. Throughout its entire history, Russia has been a nation and culture with a high emphasis on centralized, royal power. Even in the 19th and 20th centuries when great social and economic changes were happening in Europe, Russia's people were not feeling this change the same way that those in Germany or the UK did. They were indeed unsatisfied by the failing Tsarist system and the irresponsible, out-of-touch nobility, but because of the historical considerations, Russia could not simply change like the West.

So when the Tsar's regime lost legitimacy, the people did rise up, but not as the mainstream socialists had hoped. Instead, the Bolshevik radicals (an offshoot of socialists), in their claim to absolute power, appealed to this cultural and social need for authority, while at the same time promising change and freedom. From the very start, it fulfilled this role of a decisive ruler by making peace with Germany, killing the Tsar, and initiating the so-called "War Communism".

Now at this point, there were still many Bolsheviks and socialists in Russia who were earnestly trying to improve their country and pave the road for "enlightened development" like the West experienced (in their view, communism was even in fact a step ahead of Western capitalism, according to Marx). But with the [inevitable] rise of Bolshevism, the path to authoritarianism was already set. Thus, when Stalin took power in the late 20s and later had all of the Old Bolsheviks purged, he was simply utilizing the preexisting cultural leanings of Russia to make himself into a new Tsar.
Despite claiming to cast off the burdens of the past, the Russian socialists had no way of changing the fact that Russia is Russian, and thus a Stalin appeared. In turn, the rise of this rebellious gangster from the Caucasus was facilitated by the ideology of violent revolution and forced overturn of the the social order espoused by the socialists and then Bolsheviks.

In the end, Russia was not fundamentally changed but through the surface attempt to destroy the past and force a shift to the unattainable dream of egalitarianism, the nation suffered a blow to its historical identity which still ails the country to this day. Even though the original creators of Russian socialism were as rational and critical-thinking as could be, their failure to respect their nation and culture for what it was led to tragedy.

The same thing happened in China, another country with an even longer history of imperial rule. But in both cases the governments in question pretend that they are representing the rational, Marxist creed, and deny the original faces of their respective civilizations.

For those who managed to slog through all that, the moral of the story is that society, people, and the whole world have their own patterns and truths that may or may not be verifiable, and that claiming that the whole truth can only be obtained through empirical analysis (even though, like I said in an earlier post, human beings are imperfect in their perceptions) only leads to a more long-term, underlying blindness and the rise of tragedy.

In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos. Empirical science is but an extension of man's natural physical existence, and we should not be boxed in by its limited scope.

Non sequitur. Marxism was a philosophy, and the empirical method is the collection of data on which to to base a theory or derive a conclusion in scientific inquiry. Therefore, how does the failure of the application of Marxist ideology in real life lead to a demonstrated weakness in the empirical method?

Additionally, Straw Man. Nobody's making the argument that empirical analysis is sufficient to lead to the whole "truth" (whatever it may be), but it is by far our best possible toolbox for the purpose....or to be more accurate, if ever we find a better alternative, it will be incorporated into that same toolbox. So, since you're trying to invoke the "other ways of knowing" argument, why don't you give a few examples?

Try again.