The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Bit of Philosophy for you
The Bible claims God is:
All powerful (omnipotent)
All knowing (omniscient)
All loving
everywhere at once (omnipresent)
However because of the existence of pain the bibles version of god can only be three of the four things.
either Gods not all powerful (eg. can't stop pain)
not all knowing (doesn't know how to stop all pain)
not all loving (he couldn't care less)
not everywhere at once (cannot get to everywhere pain is)
What do you reckon? I don't exactly believe in God but its an interesting discussion.
The Bible claims God is:
All powerful (omnipotent)
All knowing (omniscient)
All loving
everywhere at once (omnipresent)
However because of the existence of pain the bibles version of god can only be three of the four things.
either Gods not all powerful (eg. can't stop pain)
not all knowing (doesn't know how to stop all pain)
not all loving (he couldn't care less)
not everywhere at once (cannot get to everywhere pain is)
What do you reckon? I don't exactly believe in God but its an interesting discussion.
Page:
A lot of the things in the Bible tend to forget what they've already said.
I agree with the whole sentiment of Christianity ("love thy neighbour", "Do as you would be done by" etc), but there are two things that come to mind that I despise about it:
1) The reasons for this - do it or you'll go to hell. I mean it, it's hot down there. Real hot. So you better do as God says or you'll spend eternity doing manual labour for the devil. Oh, and donate generously on your way out.
2) People feel so strongly about this way that they are willing to fight over it, seemingly ignorant to the blantant hypocrisy of the situation.
I agree with the whole sentiment of Christianity ("love thy neighbour", "Do as you would be done by" etc), but there are two things that come to mind that I despise about it:
1) The reasons for this - do it or you'll go to hell. I mean it, it's hot down there. Real hot. So you better do as God says or you'll spend eternity doing manual labour for the devil. Oh, and donate generously on your way out.
2) People feel so strongly about this way that they are willing to fight over it, seemingly ignorant to the blantant hypocrisy of the situation.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> If there was no God, and evolution was real, then it would be survival
> of the fittest, and as such no-one should care about others. There
> would be no need for government or law and order. If evolution was the
> answer then we would, we should, be little more than the animals we
> supposedly evolved from.
Why? Animal behaviour naturally encourages animals to ensure that as many of their young as possible survive to maturity, be this by either producing as many offspring as possible or defending their young. This is what Richard Dawkins called the selfish gene, the genotype is tryig to ensure its replication. As animals develop, it is the fittest that survive, they get the food earliest and are able to defend it. Looking at higher animals when they care for their young, it is these animals that grow up to breed rather than the offspring of the weaker parents. Frequently the weaker animals do not get to breed at all.
When you look at a lot of animals they naturally form into packs and groups. By living as a large group they gain protection in numbers, both they and their young are more likely to survive, and by being in a large group the possibilities for breeding are greatly enhanced. In many predatory animals an alpha male or alpha female will exert superiority over the pack, and sometimes these are the only breedinfg pair in the unit; but as they are the fittest, they have the fittest offspring. The lower order animals in the pack put up with this because they gain protection from the pack, it makes hunting easier and there is a chance they may gain control of the pack in the future.
If an animal fights against the leader of the pack and wins, they gain control, if they lose they may be exiled and force to either try and survive alone or find another pack to join, or they might be killed.
This idea of a single leader of a group that is banding together to ensure safety and prosperity sounds like the basis of most of human history to me. Apart from the last 100 years, most of the world has been ruled by systems that were mainly about the people at the top furthering themselves while everyone else tried to survive and anyone who questioned the group or acted against it was punished with banishment or death. It's all just about animals staying together in order to ensure that their genes get passed on. Law and order just make sure we don't destroy ourselves.
Playing Devil's advocate is entertaining.
> If there was no God, and evolution was real, then it would be survival
> of the fittest, and as such no-one should care about others. There
> would be no need for government or law and order. If evolution was the
> answer then we would, we should, be little more than the animals we
> supposedly evolved from.
Why? Animal behaviour naturally encourages animals to ensure that as many of their young as possible survive to maturity, be this by either producing as many offspring as possible or defending their young. This is what Richard Dawkins called the selfish gene, the genotype is tryig to ensure its replication. As animals develop, it is the fittest that survive, they get the food earliest and are able to defend it. Looking at higher animals when they care for their young, it is these animals that grow up to breed rather than the offspring of the weaker parents. Frequently the weaker animals do not get to breed at all.
When you look at a lot of animals they naturally form into packs and groups. By living as a large group they gain protection in numbers, both they and their young are more likely to survive, and by being in a large group the possibilities for breeding are greatly enhanced. In many predatory animals an alpha male or alpha female will exert superiority over the pack, and sometimes these are the only breedinfg pair in the unit; but as they are the fittest, they have the fittest offspring. The lower order animals in the pack put up with this because they gain protection from the pack, it makes hunting easier and there is a chance they may gain control of the pack in the future.
If an animal fights against the leader of the pack and wins, they gain control, if they lose they may be exiled and force to either try and survive alone or find another pack to join, or they might be killed.
This idea of a single leader of a group that is banding together to ensure safety and prosperity sounds like the basis of most of human history to me. Apart from the last 100 years, most of the world has been ruled by systems that were mainly about the people at the top furthering themselves while everyone else tried to survive and anyone who questioned the group or acted against it was punished with banishment or death. It's all just about animals staying together in order to ensure that their genes get passed on. Law and order just make sure we don't destroy ourselves.
Playing Devil's advocate is entertaining.
pb wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
>
> I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
>
> The irony is that this is belief. You believe that religion is an
> excuse for war, I believe that in some ways you are right.
>
> People believe so strongly that their religion is the only true one
> and that their land/way is holy. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and
> will be forced to agree/move on/die. This is religion causing wars,
> but they aren't being used as an 'excuse', people really believe they
> are doing the right thing.
>
> However, this is a small minority of people and there are many
> religious people, even fundamentalists, who would not kill/die for
> their religion, so it is not just an excuse for war.
Take this for example:
Post 9-11:
America declares war on terrorism, starting with Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Al Quaeda decide that they can use their religion as an excuse to get Afghanistanni people in the war, calling it a Jihad ("Religious war").
The war was never about religion, but Al Quaeda used religion as an excuse to get people fighting for them.
> Edgy wrote:
>
> I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
>
> The irony is that this is belief. You believe that religion is an
> excuse for war, I believe that in some ways you are right.
>
> People believe so strongly that their religion is the only true one
> and that their land/way is holy. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and
> will be forced to agree/move on/die. This is religion causing wars,
> but they aren't being used as an 'excuse', people really believe they
> are doing the right thing.
>
> However, this is a small minority of people and there are many
> religious people, even fundamentalists, who would not kill/die for
> their religion, so it is not just an excuse for war.
Take this for example:
Post 9-11:
America declares war on terrorism, starting with Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Al Quaeda decide that they can use their religion as an excuse to get Afghanistanni people in the war, calling it a Jihad ("Religious war").
The war was never about religion, but Al Quaeda used religion as an excuse to get people fighting for them.
pb wrote:
> Or am I wrong?
I think it's just a matter of definitions; a belief is something that can be changed. I believe in what could broadly be called a left wing ideaology. But I used to believe in what can broadly be called right wing.
Faith is something different, and much stronger than belief. Whilst a beliefs are based on facts, faith by it's nature has to be based on uncertainty.
> Or am I wrong?
I think it's just a matter of definitions; a belief is something that can be changed. I believe in what could broadly be called a left wing ideaology. But I used to believe in what can broadly be called right wing.
Faith is something different, and much stronger than belief. Whilst a beliefs are based on facts, faith by it's nature has to be based on uncertainty.
Edgy wrote:
>
> I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
Depends; ones personal faith is a...well, a personal thing and as such is not the basis for war.
But organised religion is not much more than a tool for amassing power and control over others. When an organisation that relies on the faith of others to function needs to keep the faithful believing, nothing does it better than a war against unbelievers.
That applies to religion and to politics; just look at Dubya's approach to distracting his countrymen from the economic problems and corruption that plague his country. It's not so dissimilar from Pope Urban's exhortation to the faithful that led to the crusades.
>
> I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
Depends; ones personal faith is a...well, a personal thing and as such is not the basis for war.
But organised religion is not much more than a tool for amassing power and control over others. When an organisation that relies on the faith of others to function needs to keep the faithful believing, nothing does it better than a war against unbelievers.
That applies to religion and to politics; just look at Dubya's approach to distracting his countrymen from the economic problems and corruption that plague his country. It's not so dissimilar from Pope Urban's exhortation to the faithful that led to the crusades.
The vast irony is that of all the three aformentioned major religions in the world, their main dictums are essentially the same, except for a few minor differences.
And for these minor differences, they will wage war.
And for these minor differences, they will wage war.
Edgy wrote:
> I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
The irony is that this is belief. You believe that religion is an excuse for war, I believe that in some ways you are right.
People believe so strongly that their religion is the only true one and that their land/way is holy. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and will be forced to agree/move on/die. This is religion causing wars, but they aren't being used as an 'excuse', people really believe they are doing the right thing.
However, this is a small minority of people and there are many religious people, even fundamentalists, who would not kill/die for their religion, so it is not just an excuse for war.
> I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
The irony is that this is belief. You believe that religion is an excuse for war, I believe that in some ways you are right.
People believe so strongly that their religion is the only true one and that their land/way is holy. Anyone who disagrees is wrong and will be forced to agree/move on/die. This is religion causing wars, but they aren't being used as an 'excuse', people really believe they are doing the right thing.
However, this is a small minority of people and there are many religious people, even fundamentalists, who would not kill/die for their religion, so it is not just an excuse for war.
Light wrote:
> If there were conclusive proof for Gods existence, he would cease to
> exist. It is an entity that exists only by faith. To have faith in
> something, one must have no proof that it is so. Having faith in
> something that one has proof for is like having faith in the existence
> of armchairs...
Faith - The use of belief and evidence to conclude in something happening/existing.
Blind Faith - The use of belief and no evidence to conclude the same.
Religious Faith - a belief in a deity and their effect on the world/future.
Belief and Faith are seperate things. Faith does not require someone just believing in something with no evidence, however suspect the evidence is. If God existed then you would not lose your religious Faith as this is simply the belief that God will save you. Belief will be unchanged, because you can still believe something when you know it is a fact. Having faith that God exists by being presented with him would surely lead to swapping faith for fact, rather than allowing God to cease to exist.
Or am I wrong?
> If there were conclusive proof for Gods existence, he would cease to
> exist. It is an entity that exists only by faith. To have faith in
> something, one must have no proof that it is so. Having faith in
> something that one has proof for is like having faith in the existence
> of armchairs...
Faith - The use of belief and evidence to conclude in something happening/existing.
Blind Faith - The use of belief and no evidence to conclude the same.
Religious Faith - a belief in a deity and their effect on the world/future.
Belief and Faith are seperate things. Faith does not require someone just believing in something with no evidence, however suspect the evidence is. If God existed then you would not lose your religious Faith as this is simply the belief that God will save you. Belief will be unchanged, because you can still believe something when you know it is a fact. Having faith that God exists by being presented with him would surely lead to swapping faith for fact, rather than allowing God to cease to exist.
Or am I wrong?
This is not a joke, nor is it aimed at anyone, and it you take offence at it, you're quite naive for it is an opinion I have based on what I have seen, heard and noticed over the last 30 or so months.
I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
I see religion now as nothing more than an excuse for war.
Unbeliever wrote:
>
> Ahh yes, the "axis of evil"!!
>
> That was a joke by the way, so don't castigate me for it.
Hohoho QED.
Your scared of saying that.
If they were to say you have sinned and are evil and will go to straight to hell, then thats fine.
Funny old world.
>
> Ahh yes, the "axis of evil"!!
>
> That was a joke by the way, so don't castigate me for it.
Hohoho QED.
Your scared of saying that.
If they were to say you have sinned and are evil and will go to straight to hell, then thats fine.
Funny old world.
Page: