Can The Theories Of...

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@9 March 2004 - 18:01
My point was that fear is an emotional reaction to an outside stimuli and that with an understanding of the nature of emotion you are not as prone to reacting to disturbing events.

Ok, when death comes, I won't over-react, in fact, I will be the face of stoicism .

So you can learn to understand emotion and not react to certain situations, Thein my point that fear is not fundamental to the existence of god because it is an emotion that if understood properly brings you closer to god.... Don't know if that makes sense, i could probably explain it better.

If it is not clear, when I state that I "fear" death, I specifically mean arriving at a situation which is eternally irreversible, completely unpreventable, and an outcome that is unknowable.  A total loss of autonomy.

I want to contrast this to "living in fear of death", which seems more relevant to your story.  "Get busy living or get busy dying" is what Morgan Freeman said in Shawshank Redemption.  I live my life acknowledging that death will come, but it will have to find me because I am not waiting at home for it.  If I were some hypochondriac shut-in avoiding risk at all costs, your points would be well taken, but I would rather be skydiving.

The question is: Why does the cliff strike fear in the archer? Well nature preserves us with very specific receptors to detect danger to life and a way to react to such threats.  To the animal, he is unaware what death means, but does everything to avoid it.  We humans, are the only creatures that abstractly understand this concept and it creates a unique concern for us to deal with.  This unease, which stems from complete lack of control over said eventuality is why we created God, so we can sleep at night and comfort our children when Grampa bites it.

As a bit of perspective, this attempt to gain autonomy over death has been the core of every Religion.

Early religions centered about the forces of nature, and temples and offering were made to the elements.  Human and animal sacrifices to bring fertility, good crops, and to keep the volcano calm.  This is how these people tried to buy some sanity in a world that functioned under rules they could not understand or control.

As we now know, killing chickens and sacrificing virgins won't make it rain, but they MADE their belief work.  If it rained, the God was thanked, if it didn't, the Gods were not abandoned, but rather someone was sacrificed for "bad behavior" to appease the rain witholding God.

We may laugh at this, as our God concept is more abstract, but we still "fix" the game.  A baby with cancer is pulled from death and the recovery is heralded as a "miracle from God".  What do we tell the parents of the other 99 that are dead?  "God fucked you, big time'?. No, not all all.  We whip out the old "God works in mysterious ways and we cannot appreciate his grander scheme.  This  hurts now, but God will look after you".

Don't you see it is the same game, and it is fixed to assure the "faith " in a God.  The reason - fear- fear of death and it's uncertainty. Fear of  something we cannot control, avoid, or even understand what it will bring..

[Wizard_Mon1]

Ok, when death comes, I won't over-react, in fact, I will be the face of stoicism  .

It is not something that is as easily done. Developing that level of mental calmness in all situations can take a very long time to learn. I am saying it is possible but not easy.

This unease, which stems from complete lack of control over said eventuality is why we created God, so we can sleep at night and comfort our children when Grampa bites it.

This assumption that we created god is wrong in my opinion. We have created different explanations for the existance of god. Yes, i agree that one of the functions of religion is making people feel more at ease in themselves and their existence. To say that that is what god is and that god is a mental construction for only that purpose is, if you don't mind me saying it, slighely narrow minded. Seeing it in that way means you miss out all the individuals through out many ages that have experienced god in one way or another. That, i would argue, is how religions were created not mearly because there was a social need for it but because someone had a direct connection with the divine and decided that the information they learnt could benefit many people. Possibly that connection came at a time when there was a social need, it could be argued that it shows the omniscience of god.

Do you think there is nothing other than what you can see or understand?

The recognition that we, in terms of the universe, are only a very small thing that has been around for a very small time is one that brings into perspective how little we know of this universe. It also begs the question 'what will it take for us to understand more of this universe', here again we meet the original point of this discussion, how can the combination of religious thought or recognition work with science in order to build our understanding.

[Johnny_B]

Let's get these things straight.
Creationism and Evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Creationism tries to explain how life first began, by introducing a deity, a superior being that created everything.

Evolution DOES NOT try to explain how life first began. Evolution explains how life forms have mutated and adapted throughout the years. It assumes that life, whether created by God(s) or by random natural processes, has evolved into different and diverse life forms.
Supported by all the evidence, evolution is undoubtetly a fact.

Creationism is opposed to Abiogenesis, not Evolution.
Abiogenesis is the field of science that tries to explain how life came to be on Earth, by random natural processes.

Evolution may dismiss many things written in the Bible, for example, but it does not, in any way, prove the inexistence of God.

Many religions, taking advantage of people's ignorance (like they have done so many times throughout History), have tried to discredit the fact of Evolution.
This can only be because Evolution is a threat to the validity of religious arguments and their self-proclaimed holy books.
Unlike religion, people's belief in God is not affected by admitting Evolution as a fact.

With this in mind, you should learn how to separate religion from God. You will see that one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Remember that religion and holy books were created by men, not God...

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@11 March 2004 - 18:16

This assumption that we created god is wrong in my opinion. To say that that is what god is and that god is a mental construction for only that purpose is, if you don't mind me saying it, slighely narrow minded. Seeing it in that way means you miss out all the individuals through out many ages that have experienced god in one way or another. That, i would argue, is how religions were created not mearly because there was a social need for it but because someone had a direct connection with the divine and decided that the information they learnt could benefit many people. Possibly that connection came at a time when there was a social need, it could be argued that it shows the omniscience of god.

No, it cannot be argued at all, you believe it or you don't. I could argue that God created us when drunk and completely forgot that we existed and that is why life is hard for so many. We have been forsaken.

You see "omniscience" ONLY because you chose too. I may see neglect and thus a world filled with pain and conflict. Poor leadership skills I would say. My view point is equally valid to yours, but we cannot argue this point as we just don't know.

I see the statement that God is "omniscient" as another product of our fear. It allows us to feel comfort that no how bad things appear to be getting, God is in charge, and darn it, he knows what he is doing.

I more see God in a celestial couch, observing all the "Earths" he has created and enjoying us as some type of cheap entertainment. Once we blow ourselves up, he just makes more.

You seem to be taking a preconceived idea that God is omniscient, then retrospectively making history fit your expectations.



Do you think there is nothing other than what you can see or understand?

Let me be clear. There may be a God, but since we cannot see it nor understand it, then how can be describe it. So when I say we "created" God, I mean in the setting of organized religions where we give him properties and a philospohy on how we should live.

Who is to say that Moses really got the 10 Commandments from God. Maybe he thought them up and liked them so much he decided that it was God inspired.

There are lots of people who believe they are vehicles of God and they live in the funnyfarm today. So many charismatic cult leaders out there, as well.  Why don't we believe these people? How come it has to be found in a book thousands of years old for it to be true?  Notice how they attract the miost desperate people, people who NEED to believe.

You know the Bible didn't drop to Earth as a signed book, it was decided on by vote from a selection of material. Those who wish to believe say that God used these men a vessels to select his "word", I say there is not way of knowing.

The recognition that we, in terms of the universe, are only a very small thing that has been around for a very small time is one that brings into perspective how little we know of this universe. It also begs the question 'what will it take for us to understand more of this universe',

Don't know but why create these Gods and their rules when we actually have no way to know them. Man created Gods for peace of mind.

It also begs the question 'what will it take for us to understand more of this universe', here again we meet the original point of this discussion, how can the combination of religious thought or recognition work with science in order to build our understanding.

Already answered this in my first post.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by hobbes+9 March 2004 - 03:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 9 March 2004 - 03:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@9 March 2004 - 03:56
I don&#39;t have a fear of death. I have no idea what happens when one dies and neither does anyone else, so without any reliable information to go on, I am going to reserve my opinion on the matter until I die.

Never have any expectations. You will constantly be surprised and never be disapointed. B)

(Thats my view on death. It does not nessecarily apply to every situation, however it is remarkably comforting when confronted with the genuinly unknown.)

We would all go insane if we thought about death on a daily basis, so we push it to the back, after all, we are young, and watch soccer.

Let me put a gun to your head Alex, let me cock the trigger and hear you say "Do it man, this will probably be fun".

You may say, but I haven&#39;t fullfilled my goals here. So what, death deals in eternity not in a piddly few human years and pointless accomplishments.

In a million years, who will care if Alex didn&#39;t finish college, much less in a billion or trillion or zillion or try a trillion to the zillionth power. That is what we are facing in death, eternity baby, eternity.

You ready to die Alex? Why do you hesitate. Ah, the delusional immortality of the young. Come talk to me when you are 78 and experiencing a sudden chest pressure and numbness. [/b][/quote]
Like you said hobbes, I am small and insignificant. Nobody would really care if I died (apart from my family and friends, and they will all be dead relitivly soon anyway), so whether I die today or 50 years from now doesn&#39;t make much difference.

I don&#39;t know about whether I&#39;m ready to die, but I&#39;m not going to be afraid of it when it comes. There are way too many factors out of my control for me to worry about trying to avoid it, so I&#39;m going to live a happy and full life until the reaper man comes and taps me on the shoulder.

What else can I do?

[hobbes]

My point was that if I put a gun to your forehead right now, you would shit yourself, quite literally, and beg for mercy. This would suggest a fear of what is/ or is not, on the other side of the bullet. That is what I meant by "fearing" death.

Living in fear of death is another matter, altogether.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 March 2004 - 00:40
My point was that if I put a gun to your forehead right now, you would shit yourself, quite literally, and beg for mercy. This would suggest a fear of what is/ or is not, on the other side of the bullet. That is what I meant by "fearing" death.

Living in fear of death is another matter, altogether.

In theory yes but if you put a gun to my head and i was at peace in this world and with the next i would not fear it right?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1+17 March 2004 - 01:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_Mon1 &#064; 17 March 2004 - 01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@17 March 2004 - 00:40
My point was that if I put a gun to your forehead right now, you would shit yourself, quite literally, and beg for mercy. This would suggest a fear of what is/ or is not, on the other side of the bullet. That is what I meant by "fearing" death.

Living in fear of death is another matter, altogether.

In theory yes but if you put a gun to my head and i was at peace in this world and with the next i would not fear it right?[/b][/quote]
Not if you have swallowed your pill of delusions and can keep it down. The God you cannot know, but created to patch your fears. I tried to swallow the pill, but my stomach keeps puking it back up.

Anyway, lots of people talk tough about being at peace, only to go to pieces when philosophy and reality meet.

Are you ready to roll the dice?

Edit: I do envy those of pure faith, really I do. In addition, I do not attempt to sway them to the world of "agnostics", becasuse then I have destroyed their world. I&#39;m pretty considerate for a Godless dude.

[J'Pol]

It is heartening to find that your agnosticism is not missionary. In spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Firstly it is the destruction of delusions that helps you to understand your fundamental nature, you would not fear death if you understood the true nature of existance.

Secondly, i am not saying i can do it, i am saying that is what is taught in buddhism, and many have achieved that level.

Thirdly, i did not mention god.

I consider myself as having faith, possibly not pure. That is only through experience not through what i have been taught by one book or another. Of course we have no way of knowing, but i believe that you don&#39;t give your self a chance to know without experience of some sort.

As you have mentioned in another thread, morals are morals with religion or without, so good luck to you. My only thought is that if you don&#39;t open a door you will never know what is on the other side. That sounds shit but if you can only know through experience and you dismiss it so you can&#39;t experience how can you ever know.