20th March 2004, 1:07 PM
Quote:We don't need a missionary to tell us we're believing the 'wrong' thing. It reinforces my opinion that atheism is a religion all to itself.
Though, the difference between you and ABF is that ABF states why he doesn't believe, but you seem to hold a nasty grudge against anyone who does.
That was actually the third time I wrote that post... it got deleted twice and the result was much shorter than I had planned, obviously. :)
And I also don't hate you for believing, as I said. You can't really help it, and I outlined why I think that is (psychologically)... not believing is a more daring step, one most people wouldn't and don't want to take. Losing that comfort blanket can be rough... that's not the whole of it of course, but it's certainly a big part.
Quote:ABF, that's certainly not the way I view that situation. Why would it matter if there is a machine involved? The body isn't actually a part of one's soul, but a tool, albeit a squishy one. I certainly would view using a gun to kill someone with the same evil as using one's own fists to do the job.
In your examples, they appear exactly the same and produce a different conflict, the one you should have went with. The "lesser of two evils" paradox. Now then, I don't believe such a situation will ever occur. No one who is so evil as to engineer such a conundrum will ever be capable of actually putting it all together and doing it. Your examples are also solvable without killing anyone. First off, a fat man wouldn't be enough to slow down that trolley. Assuming it would, why do that? There's always another way. I have taken a very Vash attitude towards things like that. There's always a way to save everybody if you just think hard enough. For example, why not YELL at the 5 people to MOVE THEIR ARSES. Easy solution there.
In the first example, throw the switch midway but not all the way. This will jam the tracks and cause the trolley to derail, but everyone will survive.
That was copied straight from an article I read in a magazine that day... it was a research test. The subjects were in a machine that scanned their brains while they asked them questions... the result (the article said) showed that with the 'push' one people didn't think as logically about it as the instinctual response came up but with the switch they were able to do that more so. I can understand that...
As for questioning the question, well, it's not designed that way. Just assume that that's the only way out. :D
Oh, here's something that got lost in the third rewrite... another thing.
The peer pressure one. This is a classic question outlining this.
A B C D
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
Okay, which two lines are the most similar?
So, there is a group of people and the question is asked to them one at a time. Each of the first five people says "C and D". You are last. What do you say?
A LOT of the time people say "C and D", despite their better judgement. It's been proven. They either think that the others know something they don't or that they should go along to not look different...
Now, religion isn't quite like this. It's hardly that obvious. And for primitive man it wasn't obvious at all. But now? We know better! We can see that those lines aren't quite the same and the old things (physical representations of the power of various deities) is wrong. Science has explained many "religious" things and continues to add more and will have more in the future. As I (think I) said, in the future we will answer more. It might take a long time but eventually we should answer most of the big questions, like ASM's "how did the universe form/how did the big bang work/since we didn't know didn't god do it"... and prove that third part wrong. But as I also said religion will take it hard and argue very hard against it but in the long run they'll have to admit the obvious. Over time belief builds up and after so long people don't want to believe that those lines aren't the way they thought they were... so as I said that won't destroy religion, it'll just retreat it to some nebulous position that God created the universe and guided it or something... something that science can't disprove because there would be no hard-science things left for "god" to have done. THAT aspect of God can't be proven nonexistent ever.
However, from my view it's not a sane position. It to me sounds exactly like this question you might have heard...
Okay, why wasn't the universe created one minuite ago? I KNOW it was! Faith says that it was created one minuite ago exactly as it is.
Now, that cannot be disproven, just like that final form of God can't be. But does that make it LOGICAL? No! But as I said I don't think God will go anywhere because somehow it's been burned into us, over the millenia, and it'd take something like killing anyone who's ever heard of God and completely starting over and only teaching people science to get people to stop such beliefs...
As for Darunia... you did mention a few good points. Previous religions. From my perspective, I see absolutely no reason that "God" is true and "Zeus" or "Odin" aren't... and objectively, I'd say, there is none... just blind religious faith. And blind faith is NOT a good thing. Ever. Your point about Christian sects (and other modern religions) is the same. How can two Christian sects which disagree both be right? It's all in the eye of the beholder. I see no logical reason why any one religion is more right than any other... well unless said religion involves human sacrifice, or something. :)
Though, Darunia, I wouldn't call that blind faith stupidity... it's might seem objectively stupid but to them it is not. So it might be stupid in a way but they don't know it, and will never accept it, which makes the point kind of moot... and anyway it's taught and learned from everyone around you and people are social creatures, as I showed above, so I can hardly blame people for believing what they are told. It's not stupid to do that. It's a survival trait actually... so no it isn't really stupid. It's just not really thinking it all the way through and refusing to let yourself do that.
Quote:10.) In Genesis, God created man first, and later woman. Whereas Man was created instantaneously by God, Woman had to be taken from one of Adam’s ribs…this is simply ridiculous; wouldn’t it have been easier to have just spontaneously created a Woman too? Furthermore, why a rib?
11.) God made man in all his form. Surely, this including reproductive genitalia. Then, as an afterthought, God later created woman from one of Adam’s ribs…why didn’t he create man and woman together? If not to reproduce with a woman, what were the penis and testicles for originally…? Using logic, if not to reproduce with, they could only realistically be used for masturbating to obtain self-sexual gratification. Does this then not mean that masturbation is acceptable, despite the Catholic Church being against it?
12.) If God made man in his image, and Eve could not resist temptation, doesn’t this
The second creation story in Genesis has man and woman created at the same time, you know, not Eve from Adam's rib... of course having two creation stories is one of those numerous problems with the Bible, but it's a point that should be said. :)
Quote:9.) A prominent, recurring theme of Christianity is forgiveness. If that is true, why does God not forgive Adam and Eve for Eve’s having eaten the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden? Furthermore, why does he make all of humanity suffer eternally for it…? Furthermore still, if the fruit was forbidden and never to be touched, what purpose did it serve, and why did he put it there, within reach and sight of the humans who, imperfect as we are could be easily tempted? Wasn’t this a trap waiting to happen?
The Old Testament god isn't especially forgiving... How about Sodom and Gomorrah? The Great Flood? Moses killing the idol-worshippers? Etc etc etc...
Quote:28.) The Bible was written by prophets of Jesus and God. Why wouldn’t he just write it himself, knowing that men are easily confused and distorted, and thusly that what they say could easily be mistranslated and laughed at?
God guided the prophets' hands and wrote it by proxy, many believe... that means that it's infallible of course and that isn't true because even within the bible there are contradictions and as you say we've proven parts wrong and our morals are quite different now, but they say it anyway.
Quote:21.) If God exists, why does he allow his Church to be so corrupt, knowing that in so doing, it is hurting belief in him and his teachings?
God is too busy to deal with the affairs of men... he did early in the Old Testament but I guess he got tired of us or something... :D
Quote:4.) The human body is definitely flawed; and yet if Man is created in God’s image, does this not also mean that the perfect God is also flawed?
'In his image' doesn't mean that we are in every way like God.