|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Oct 5, 2019 15:47:10 GMT
Okay then, how about Scientology? or better still, the Prince Philip movement?  L. Ron Hubbard, formerly a science-fiction writer, said on many occasions, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, he'd start his own religion.". To me, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, all formed their respective religions for power or money. And there are millions of gullible people being led down the primrose path. I'd like to throw Mike Murdock, Kenneth Copeland, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and countless others under that same bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 5, 2019 16:22:06 GMT
I am not familiar with either of them. Do they claim to be the only true religion? If they do: Are they free of contradictions? The Prince Philip Movement is a cargo cult from Vanuatu that worships Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh & Queen Elizabeth's husband, as an actual god. I believe that Scientology claims to be the true religion & free of contradictions. They do? And are they theistic? Well then, maybe there are more ways to find out if a religion is true. Like the following test: If a religion makes claims about the real world, past and present: Are these claims verifiable? From skimming the Wikipedia article about Scientology, I say Scientology fails. But anyway: My theorem was about the Abrahamic religions. If we are to extend it to all religions, then maybe more tests have to be made to determine that they are false.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Oct 5, 2019 20:23:58 GMT
The Prince Philip Movement is a cargo cult from Vanuatu that worships Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh & Queen Elizabeth's husband, as an actual god. I believe that Scientology claims to be the true religion & free of contradictions. They do? And are they theistic? Well then, maybe there are more ways to find out if a religion is true. Like the following test: If a religion makes claims about the real world, past and present: Are these claims verifiable? From skimming the Wikipedia article about Scientology, I say Scientology fails. But anyway: My theorem was about the Abrahamic religions. If we are to extend it to all religions, then maybe more tests have to be made to determine that they are false. What about the Prince Philip Movement? What do you think about that religion, based upon what I just told you?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 5, 2019 21:02:21 GMT
They do? And are they theistic? Well then, maybe there are more ways to find out if a religion is true. Like the following test: If a religion makes claims about the real world, past and present: Are these claims verifiable? From skimming the Wikipedia article about Scientology, I say Scientology fails. But anyway: My theorem was about the Abrahamic religions. If we are to extend it to all religions, then maybe more tests have to be made to determine that they are false. What about the Prince Philip Movement? What do you think about that religion, based upon what I just told you? I am not familiar with that particular cult; but I've heard from various cargo cults that their adherents tried to imitate the white men, by building stuff that looked like technical equipment, but didn't work. These cults are apparently deeply mistaken about how the real world works. Therefore, they are false religions. If this was true for the Prince Philip cult, then this would make the Prince Philip cult false.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Oct 6, 2019 1:10:50 GMT
What about the Prince Philip Movement? What do you think about that religion, based upon what I just told you? I am not familiar with that particular cult; but I've heard from various cargo cults that their adherents tried to imitate the white men, by building stuff that looked like technical equipment, but didn't work. These cults are apparently deeply mistaken about how the real world works. Therefore, they are false religions. If this was true for the Prince Philip cult, then this would make the Prince Philip cult false. Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 6, 2019 9:56:30 GMT
Where does faith come from? I believe faith is a natural reaction for humans...humans the animal, because so often in life we have to make decisions on less than perfect/complete information. I think that's a form of "faith." And this had to have been part of our naturelong before humans developed religious beliefs. IMHO, faith preceded belief in god(s) in the course of human evolution. I think it was and sometimes still is a matter of survival. I kind of think it relates to "erring on the side of safety" as in cases when it isn't clear something is a risk, but you take evasive actions or take care to avoid the potential risk.
Think about how even lower animals react based on assumptions...of based on a kind of faith. I walk through the house and even though I've never hurt/hit or tried to do anything violent to our cats, they will often dodge out of the way as I step over them. It's their "better safe than sorry tendency."
EG primitive human or precursor to the human species hears something in the bushes...does he wait 'til he's certain it's a lion and not a harmless deer? He's safer if he assumes it's a lion and leaps into the tree. If it turns out it's a deer, then no problem, but if it was a lion, he's saved his life. That had to have been an instinctive reaction depending on genetic makeup...IE they couldn't wait to learn something that, if not known, would result in their death and reduced chances of survival and reproduction. Of course THAT is a simple example and could fall apart with careful examination, but it demonstrates a reason to make safe assumptions.
I hypothesize that the idea of a spirit world, the supernatural and gods came about as people tried to explain dreams and hallucinations (perhaps brought on by hallucinogenic plants or some sort of deprivation, sleep, food, water, sex, whatever). So people, early humans or perhaps precursors to the human species, developed the idea of another world, a world of spirits, a world they visited in their dreams. They began to apply this built in tendency to err on the side of safety and assume the worst most of the time to the events they dreamed about. Mog would dream about Redek his dead mate. That suggests to Mog that Redek might still be living, albeit in this other realm. Cog his neighbor dreams about monstrous lions in HIS dreams, so when they talk about their dreams, they reason out that Redek and others living in this dream realm might meet up with those monstrous lions. So he and others in his tribe imagine they need to do things for/about this eventuality. And they start to put weapons or other paraphernalia that they think would protect one from the monstrous lions near/with/on dead people. And if those dream monsters turn into really powerful scary beings they start to imagine one must do something to pacify those powerful scary beings. Or perhaps others dream of warm cuddly super beings...beings that love and care if...and only if they do, think, or say things they imagine this warm cuddly powerful being wants them to say. It all revolves around "better safe than sorry."
Eventually humans came up with a word for that "better safe than sorry" instinct and called it faith. So now, we have people imaging they are better safe than sorry to believe in god and do what (they think) this god wants them to do including but not limited to helping the poor and needy, having lots of kids, spending your life preaching about said god, or killing others in that god's name. Heck they even have a name for the better safe than sorry argument called Trump's wager...no that's not it, I forget the person whose name is associated with this wager, but it goes something like this.
I don't know if there is a god or not.
IF there is a god and I believe in him, I might get rewarded...a lot.
If there IS a god and I don't believe in him he might punish/destroy me and I might lose a lot.
If there IS NOT a god and I do believe in him, I've lost little.
Conclusion: it's better TO believe...
see? better safe than sorry. better to HAVE faith than to be cynical.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 6, 2019 10:02:55 GMT
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas That sounds laudable, so lets look at some history: When I was four years old, I had faith, faith that Santa would be at my house on Christmas eve. But, I had more than faith, I had EVIDENCE. Mom and dad assured me that Santa was coming. I sat on his lap at Macy's. I left cookies and milk for him on Christmas eve. The milk was partially gone and there was a bite out of one of the cookies I left for him. And the gifts. Who can forget the presents. As most of you know, that was all a ruse, a conspiracy by mom, dad, Macy's, Hasbro, Mattel and many others. They all lied to me. I had faith, but I was deceived. Then, a couple of years later, my faith was tested when I lost a tooth. Again, I had more than faith, I had evidence. At the insistence of mom and dad, I put the tooth under my pillow. Low and behold, there was a money there in the morning. I continued to have faith for another four teeth until I learned the truth. Again, I had faith, but I discovered I was decieved. So if you have faith of God's existance, how do you know you are not being decieved. After all, everything you know about Yahweh you were told by another party, a party who could be deceiving you in their own self interest, be it power, control, money, or their own desperate hope of Heaven. As for St. Thomas Aquinas, I quote Matt Dillahunty. or another of his quotes, Maybe faith is also the reason people can make decisions and proceed with life with less than adequate/perfect evidence. Do you ever know everything that is going to happen as a result of a decision you are about to make? I say we hardly ever...IF EVER have that kind of knowledge. Yet, we have to make decisions...every day in every way. Sometimes we make momentous decisions based on lots less than complete info. It's how humans can avoid freezing up and making no decisions...which of course becomes a decision in itself and could be just as dangerous AS making a (different) decision. I'd say faith is unavoidable.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 6, 2019 11:18:57 GMT
I don't know if there is a god or not. IF there is a god and I believe in him, I might get rewarded...a lot.
If there IS a god and I don't believe in him he might punish/destroy me and I might lose a lot.
If there IS NOT a god and I do believe in him, I've lost little. Conclusion: it's better TO believe... see? better safe than sorry. better to HAVE faith than to be cynical.
The observation here is that, unless one is a deist or pantheist, then the danger is in believing in the wrong god. It seems to me that the wrath of a god not chosen is just as bad for the individual when either through atheism, apostasy, or infidelism. Given the number of deities which have been followed in the past then choosing, say Islam, or Christianity over the rest (most of which have similar claims of omnipotence and as First Mover etc) once one removes the predisposition to follow one's culture, can be seen as just another Argument from Popularity. Or to put it another way: if you don't know there is a god, then it is even less likely you can tell between them.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 6, 2019 13:25:11 GMT
I don't know if there is a god or not. IF there is a god and I believe in him, I might get rewarded...a lot.
If there IS a god and I don't believe in him he might punish/destroy me and I might lose a lot.
If there IS NOT a god and I do believe in him, I've lost little. Conclusion: it's better TO believe... see? better safe than sorry. better to HAVE faith than to be cynical.
The obvious problem here is that, unless one is a deist or pantheist, then the danger is in believing in the wrong god. It seems to me that the wrath of a god not chosen is just as bad for the individual when either through atheism, apostasy, or infidelism. Given the number of deities which have been followed in the past then choosing, say Islam, or Christianity over the rest (most of which have similar claims of omnipotence and as First Mover etc) once one removes the predisposition to follow one's culture, can be seen as just another Argument from Popularity. Or to put it another way: if you don't know there is a god, then it is even less likely you can tell between them. Well of course. My point was not that this was good reasoning, but that it fell in line with the tendency of folks to go with "better safe than sorry." I never said it always made sense or led to correct decisions. People make foolish decisions all the time thinking they are erring on the side of safety. Consider the antivaxxers. Consider those who hang magic crystals from their mirrors. Consider those who wear seat belts. (just kidding on the last one)
Yet we all do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 6, 2019 17:01:26 GMT
Where does faith come from? I believe faith is a natural reaction for humans...humans the animal, because so often in life we have to make decisions on less than perfect/complete information. I think that's a form of "faith." And this had to have been part of our naturelong before humans developed religious beliefs. IMHO, faith preceded belief in god(s) in the course of human evolution. I think it was and sometimes still is a matter of survival. I kind of think it relates to "erring on the side of safety" as in cases when it isn't clear something is a risk, but you take evasive actions or take care to avoid the potential risk.
Think about how even lower animals react based on assumptions...of based on a kind of faith. I walk through the house and even though I've never hurt/hit or tried to do anything violent to our cats, they will often dodge out of the way as I step over them. It's their "better safe than sorry tendency."
EG primitive human or precursor to the human species hears something in the bushes...does he wait 'til he's certain it's a lion and not a harmless deer? He's safer if he assumes it's a lion and leaps into the tree. If it turns out it's a deer, then no problem, but if it was a lion, he's saved his life. That had to have been an instinctive reaction depending on genetic makeup...IE they couldn't wait to learn something that, if not known, would result in their death and reduced chances of survival and reproduction. Of course THAT is a simple example and could fall apart with careful examination, but it demonstrates a reason to make safe assumptions.
I hypothesize that the idea of a spirit world, the supernatural and gods came about as people tried to explain dreams and hallucinations (perhaps brought on by hallucinogenic plants or some sort of deprivation, sleep, food, water, sex, whatever). So people, early humans or perhaps precursors to the human species, developed the idea of another world, a world of spirits, a world they visited in their dreams. They began to apply this built in tendency to err on the side of safety and assume the worst most of the time to the events they dreamed about. Mog would dream about Redek his dead mate. That suggests to Mog that Redek might still be living, albeit in this other realm. Cog his neighbor dreams about monstrous lions in HIS dreams, so when they talk about their dreams, they reason out that Redek and others living in this dream realm might meet up with those monstrous lions. So he and others in his tribe imagine they need to do things for/about this eventuality. And they start to put weapons or other paraphernalia that they think would protect one from the monstrous lions near/with/on dead people. And if those dream monsters turn into really powerful scary beings they start to imagine one must do something to pacify those powerful scary beings. Or perhaps others dream of warm cuddly super beings...beings that love and care if...and only if they do, think, or say things they imagine this warm cuddly powerful being wants them to say. It all revolves around "better safe than sorry."
Eventually humans came up with a word for that "better safe than sorry" instinct and called it faith. So now, we have people imaging they are better safe than sorry to believe in god and do what (they think) this god wants them to do including but not limited to helping the poor and needy, having lots of kids, spending your life preaching about said god, or killing others in that god's name. Heck they even have a name for the better safe than sorry argument called Trump's wager...no that's not it, I forget the person whose name is associated with this wager, but it goes something like this.
I don't know if there is a god or not.
IF there is a god and I believe in him, I might get rewarded...a lot.
If there IS a god and I don't believe in him he might punish/destroy me and I might lose a lot.
If there IS NOT a god and I do believe in him, I've lost little.
Conclusion: it's better TO believe...
see? better safe than sorry. better to HAVE faith than to be cynical.
You have an interesting hypothesis. Perhaps before there was what we could recognize as “religion,” Stone Age humans began magical thinking assuming their self awareness as an entity or product separate from themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 6, 2019 17:13:14 GMT
Where does faith come from? Romans 10:17
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 6, 2019 17:15:18 GMT
Where does faith come from? Romans 10:17
According to one guy...who never met Jesus.
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 6, 2019 17:21:50 GMT
Romans 10:17
According to one guy...who never met Jesus.
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
If you're talking about Paul, He did meet Jesus on the Damascus Road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 6, 2019 17:29:07 GMT
According to him, of course. Could have been a sun stroke acting upon a guilty conscious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 6, 2019 19:40:32 GMT
If that's what you believe then your not a Christian. Christianity is based upon the Bible.
What kind of proof are you looking for?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 6, 2019 19:46:16 GMT
If that's what you believe then your not a Christian. Christianity is based upon the Bible. What kind of proof are you looking for? What sort do you have?
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 6, 2019 20:54:01 GMT
Same as you have. It's faith.
I claim to believe there is someone that watches over me. He's done a good job too.
Talking to what the Bible refers to carnal man is difficult. They have no understanding of what your talking about. They know only what the senses tell them. When actually you are a spiritual man. They cause the spiritual man to remain Dormant.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 6, 2019 21:01:24 GMT
I don't know if there is a god or not. IF there is a god and I believe in him, I might get rewarded...a lot.
If there IS a god and I don't believe in him he might punish/destroy me and I might lose a lot.
If there IS NOT a god and I do believe in him, I've lost little. Conclusion: it's better TO believe... see? better safe than sorry. better to HAVE faith than to be cynical.
The observation here is that, unless one is a deist or pantheist, then the danger is in believing in the wrong god. It seems to me that the wrath of a god not chosen is just as bad for the individual when either through atheism, apostasy, or infidelism. Given the number of deities which have been followed in the past then choosing, say Islam, or Christianity over the rest (most of which have similar claims of omnipotence and as First Mover etc) once one removes the predisposition to follow one's culture, can be seen as just another Argument from Popularity. Or to put it another way: if you don't know there is a god, then it is even less likely you can tell between them. The beauty of Rizdeck's hypothesis is that in primitive man's day he had no knowledge ( perhaps with the exception of a neighbouring tribe's slightly different manifestation of primitive religion) so did not have this dilemma. It was only with civilisation when societies became more discrete ( ie identifiable as a society) that differences in beliefs appeared, and MUCH later ( ie Christ birth and Mohamed's rise) that these differences became more identifiable ( hence religious wars, I haven't forgot Jews in this, perhaps the most enduring of the big three, and of course those religions evolving n the East.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 6, 2019 23:39:51 GMT
Same as you have. It's faith. I claim to believe there is someone that watches over me. He's done a good job too. Yes He looks after me too. Yesterday the traffic lights turned green, twice!, just as I approached, so no waiting. Then I found my favourite tie down the back of the sofa, when I thought it had gone for good. Then I spotted a buxom barmaid and just knew God intended her for my partner. And, all day, I did not die of plague or suffer a heart attack, even though others do. This all took faith, for otherwise I might think the mover and shaper of worlds and galaxies might have better things to do and I was just being self-centred in attributing special attention. Truly He moves in mysterious ways. Allelujah!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 7, 2019 0:55:28 GMT
I am not familiar with either of them. Do they claim to be the only true religion? If they do: Are they free of contradictions? The Prince Philip Movement is a cargo cult from Vanuatu that worships Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh & Queen Elizabeth's husband, as an actual god. I believe that Scientology claims to be the true religion & free of contradictions. The Prince Phillip movement is not a cargo cult. EDIT: Oh apologies, wikipedia lists is a one, I would not technically call it one, but I slouch corrected.
|
|
