-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Is there a peaceful religion?
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Facts? What are "facts" but our observation of physical reality? I'm a PhD candidate studying genetics. I strongly believe in the empirical method as the best (and only) way to accurately deal with our world.
The thing is, religion discusses things that are, by their very nature, beyond the reality of this world. Beyond physical reality. You can't look at a rotting corpse and draw any conclusion other than the biological functions that drove that person's existence are at an end. That's it.
Your extension of that observation of no life to the statement that "there is no afterlife" is a wild and unsupportable claim, at least not supportable with "facts."
What it is, is a kind of faith, albeit in a direction opposite from religious believers. But it is still faith.
S
SlitheryDee
You are confused if you really think you know that, but I'll humor you.
How did you come by this knowledge?
concernedsophist
Member
Knowledge does not entail certainty. You are confused if you think this is the case. Don't make the same mistake Descartes did.
S
SlitheryDee
I don't put any more stock in Mohammed's claims that I do yours, so...yeah.
If you say that there absolutely is no afterlife then you are speculating outside of what you KNOW to be true and what can be proven.
If you say that there absolutely is an afterlife then you are speculating outside of what you KNOW to be true and what can be proven.
Repeat after me:
All this afterlife/God stuff might be true, or it might not. I will treat it as what it is, something that I probably will never know for sure. I WILL NOT choose a side simply for convenience, and I won't worry about it overmuch.
I would much rather worry about the dire events depicted in the tome "I Robot" and discuss the prophet/demigod status of Isaac Azimov
Not really, hehe. As a Catholic, I can say that the best argument for the transcendental nature of God and the existence of this God is that the story fits. I guess what I mean by that is
No doubt. Impossible, a lot of that stuff.
But it depends on what you're talking about. I'm not a Fundamentalist - I don't think the Earth and cosmos were created in 6 days - that would go against all the basic observations we've been able to make about our world. But I do believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ.
Why believe in one and not the other?
If God exists and is who we, as the faithful, posit him to be, it's absolutely no barrier or difficulty for him to accomplish anything, even creating the entire world in 6 24-hour periods of time, or having a virgin give birth to the Son.
The difference is that there's very clear evidence against one (Creationism), but there isn't really evidence either way on the other, other than the word of Mary and the fact that it, along with Christ's entire life and death, fulfills exactly the Old Testament prophecies, or rather perfects all the Old Testament writings.
I don't have a PhD, which you'd know if you read what I wrote.
What reality do you live in where credentials should be removed from people based on their religious beliefs? I think Pol Pot did that when he was rounding up teachers and professors in Cambodia. Of course, he ended up having most of them killed.
Maybe we aren't understanding each other. My point earlier was that science deals with rational interpretation of natural phenomena. Because of this, the scope of scientific observation is reserved exclusively to the realm of our physical reality.
My ability to determine the function of a gene during development for my thesis has nothing to do with religious belief.
What reality do you live in where credentials should be removed from people based on their religious beliefs? I think Pol Pot did that when he was rounding up teachers and professors in Cambodia. Of course, he ended up having most of them killed.
Maybe we aren't understanding each other. My point earlier was that science deals with rational interpretation of natural phenomena. Because of this, the scope of scientific observation is reserved exclusively to the realm of our physical reality.
My ability to determine the function of a gene during development for my thesis has nothing to do with religious belief.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
Yup as long as they practice what they preach. Which the few I know do. No voting, no military service, and the only offensive thing they do is knock on your door.
timosyy
Golden Member
This thread is 6 pages long so I doubt anyone will read this but...
Speaking from sort of an outside perspective, Jews seem pretty peaceful (just in the way they live their life in general). Christianity, too, should be a peaceful religion, but gets tangled up in politics far too often, and we all know where that leads (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.- dark marks on Christian history. Wth is the point of trying to force people into Christianity? It goes against all their basic beliefs). If you actually just read the Bible/New Testament (Comparative Religions class), it sort of makes me wish I could see those values actually played out in real life. Unfortunately, like Gandhi, Christians tend to be "so unlike your Christ". Still, this is most visible in countries where Christianity has risen to affluence (ie. America).
When I read the New Testament I'm often struck at how different the world would be if Christians in large part actually lived out those tenants. I see it doing an awesome work in 3rd world countries, and it really does work best as the religion of the oppressed (as it was around its inception, before it turned political & the official religion of Rome). If these people, living in despair, can cling on to a message of hope for however short the remainder of their life, why would you (statsmand) deny them that small comfort? I see Christians doing more for theses people (missionaries etc.- they do far more than simply preach, they attempt to seriously better the quality of living for those they stay with, building schools, hospitals, etc.) than anyone else. Think the nuns in Calcutta, or the missionaries going to the poorest places in Southeast Asia & war-torn Africa. Regardless if whether or not their belief is right or wrong (if there is a God or not), I simply cannot condemn such acts of compassion. If it drives them to reach out toward people truly living in misery- people largely rejected by the rest of the world, then why not?
Again, you see most violence when religion becomes tangled in politics.
Speaking from sort of an outside perspective, Jews seem pretty peaceful (just in the way they live their life in general). Christianity, too, should be a peaceful religion, but gets tangled up in politics far too often, and we all know where that leads (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.- dark marks on Christian history. Wth is the point of trying to force people into Christianity? It goes against all their basic beliefs). If you actually just read the Bible/New Testament (Comparative Religions class), it sort of makes me wish I could see those values actually played out in real life. Unfortunately, like Gandhi, Christians tend to be "so unlike your Christ". Still, this is most visible in countries where Christianity has risen to affluence (ie. America).
When I read the New Testament I'm often struck at how different the world would be if Christians in large part actually lived out those tenants. I see it doing an awesome work in 3rd world countries, and it really does work best as the religion of the oppressed (as it was around its inception, before it turned political & the official religion of Rome). If these people, living in despair, can cling on to a message of hope for however short the remainder of their life, why would you (statsmand) deny them that small comfort? I see Christians doing more for theses people (missionaries etc.- they do far more than simply preach, they attempt to seriously better the quality of living for those they stay with, building schools, hospitals, etc.) than anyone else. Think the nuns in Calcutta, or the missionaries going to the poorest places in Southeast Asia & war-torn Africa. Regardless if whether or not their belief is right or wrong (if there is a God or not), I simply cannot condemn such acts of compassion. If it drives them to reach out toward people truly living in misery- people largely rejected by the rest of the world, then why not?
Again, you see most violence when religion becomes tangled in politics.
shortylickens
No Lifer
Thank you for proving our point.
Its intolerant assholes like you that are one step away from killing for your god.
You're just too dumb and ignorant to realize it.
Do you think all those muslims were born killers? They had to learn it. And christians too.
The only thing natural and instincive for human beings is to survive. Everything else is learned.
And they way you are learning, you are headed for hate, anger and destruction.
BZZZ wrong.
Crescent was the symbol of the Ottomons
Arabs were a mix of Christians and Jews (still are) and primarily animists. Animists were like pagans..just different names.
And a wikipedia search confirms that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_symbol
JackBurton
Lifer
I don't know about fighting in wars, but he was a great boxer.
sthaznpride17
Senior member
The flying spaghetti monster religion is the most peaceful. 😉
yhelothar
Lifer
The question one should ask, is not if a religion is peaceful, but how effective it is in creating peace in the real world.
A lot of members here argue about the peace and love christianity promotes.
It's true that christianity promotes peace. But that means very little if it's method of making people peaceful is ineffective.
When Karl Marx created communism, he wanted a way of bringing everyone together to live together in unity, peace, and love. Did he foresee that it would do the opposite, and create famine, poverty, violence, and destruction of freedom? He misaccounted many factors in reality that kept his plan from being successful. Thus, wouldn't you say that communism is ineffective for bringing unity, peace, and love, regardless of it's original purpose?
Religion is similar in that regard. It calls for people to be peaceful, loving to each other. But in reality, it often makes people do the opposite, due to the nature of people that religion unaccounts for. Therefore, what use is its original message for love and peace if the means of obtaining that message is ineffective in the real world?
A lot of members here argue about the peace and love christianity promotes.
It's true that christianity promotes peace. But that means very little if it's method of making people peaceful is ineffective.
When Karl Marx created communism, he wanted a way of bringing everyone together to live together in unity, peace, and love. Did he foresee that it would do the opposite, and create famine, poverty, violence, and destruction of freedom? He misaccounted many factors in reality that kept his plan from being successful. Thus, wouldn't you say that communism is ineffective for bringing unity, peace, and love, regardless of it's original purpose?
Religion is similar in that regard. It calls for people to be peaceful, loving to each other. But in reality, it often makes people do the opposite, due to the nature of people that religion unaccounts for. Therefore, what use is its original message for love and peace if the means of obtaining that message is ineffective in the real world?
CKent
Diamond Member
But what is 'his word'? There are so many contradictions and vague passages in religious texts that they are entirely open to interpretation. Proof of this is all the different denominations of each religion. Since it's subjective, no one claim is greater than another, and thus all who claim a religion are logically followers of that religion.
shortylickens
No Lifer
So far, no atheist member of Anandtech forums has rounded up a million jews and gassed them.
Peace doesnt mean everybody loves you and agrees with you and kisses your butt everyday.
It means they arent murdering you in mass numbers.
We should be grateful that the most happening here is a bunch of spiteful and inflammatory comments.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
