Simtropolis Religion Thread

[Barbarossa 51]

.

[LexusInfernus 908]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIhu4oVaDtg

Ugh, there should be a law against putting words in Einsteins mouth. If the internet is to be believed, every other quote can be attributed to Einstein, even if its completely obvious that Einstein never said that. This would be one of those things. 

 

As for saying God is evil, or good or any other human emotional/moral construct, do realize you are attributing this to a supposed being that stands outside reality itself. You literally do not have the capacity to comprehend his motives, if he even has them in to humans recognizable sense. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Utter nonsense.  If there is a supreme being at all, man can never understand it.  It is like the ants in an ant-farm trying to understand why they are there and why the plate of glass is impermeable to them.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah, exactly my point. God is beyond our understanding. So calling it evil is pointless. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Evil is the intentional absence of good.  No deity need be involved.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Evil is the intentional absence of good.  No deity need be involved.

 

I don't mean to bump a thread that hasn't been posted in for two months, but I have a question:

 

Evil, good, and morals in general are human concepts, would everyone agree? As nature, and the universe, don't judge. I just want to know who else believes this besides myself.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."

-- Voltaire

 

Anyone is welcome to join my church of god the utterly indifferent.  We always meet in cylinders so the devil can't get you in a corner.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I don't mean to bump a thread that hasn't been posted in for two months, but I have a question:

 

Evil, good, and morals in general are human concepts, would everyone agree? As nature, and the universe, don't judge. I just want to know who else believes this besides myself.

 

Well, not entirely. You have evolved a conscience, at least, I assume youre not a sociopath. Which means that there are certain things you are biologically disinclined to do, and if you do them anyways, you'll feel real bad about it afterwards. And nature itself does judge in a way, through evolution. 'Evil' behavior is generally behavior that either gets yourself killed or reduces the survival chances of the species as a whole. From an evolutionary perspective, such behavior would essentially result in a species self destruction to a point where the species would actually die out and disappear from the face of the earth. Meanwhile, behavior that is generally considered 'good' is behavior that either ups the survival chances of yourself or at least your group. Meaning that from an evolutionary perspective, good behavior results in a more resilient species. Of course, there are a lot of exceptions and this is overly simplified, but I dont think its entirely accurate to say that good and evil are concepts we just made up. 

[jmsepe 2,038]

In the strictest sense from what I have comprehended from your statement is that behavior is generally treated to be good or bad on the parameter in whether it will continue to create resilient species and survive or not. Continuing this logic, if genocide will eliminate inferior people and make the human species better would that still be treated as good?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Genocide tends to cut down variety in the gene pool.  Wouldn't that be counterproductive with respect to natural selection?

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

I don't mean to bump a thread that hasn't been posted in for two months, but I have a question:

 

Evil, good, and morals in general are human concepts, would everyone agree? As nature, and the universe, don't judge. I just want to know who else believes this besides myself.

 

Well, not entirely. You have evolved a conscience, at least, I assume youre not a sociopath. Which means that there are certain things you are biologically disinclined to do, and if you do them anyways, you'll feel real bad about it afterwards. And nature itself does judge in a way, through evolution. 'Evil' behavior is generally behavior that either gets yourself killed or reduces the survival chances of the species as a whole. From an evolutionary perspective, such behavior would essentially result in a species self destruction to a point where the species would actually die out and disappear from the face of the earth. Meanwhile, behavior that is generally considered 'good' is behavior that either ups the survival chances of yourself or at least your group. Meaning that from an evolutionary perspective, good behavior results in a more resilient species. Of course, there are a lot of exceptions and this is overly simplified, but I dont think its entirely accurate to say that good and evil are concepts we just made up. 

 

But humans created those concepts. While I agree that there should be a set of rules we agree on as a species, that contributes to and sustains well-being for ourselves and those around us -  humans created good and evil in an attempt to control themselves, since they're so emotionally complex and every possible extreme human behavior that exists is around us somewhere. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

As far as we know we are the only beings who foresee our demise.  This causes people to try to rationalize an afterlife, which in itself requires some other than natural state.  In early man, demanding explanations from leaders resulted in the development of the ideas that some outside beings must be in charge, and there went the whole ball game.

 

All gods and religious beliefs are the creation of man.  The ethic systems that started with 'don't make some god angry with you' have evolved into the ethical systems we have now.  The idea of evil is simply the opposite of good.  With early man, the idea of black vs. white was pretty easy to postulate.  Now we have to have fallen or evil gods to account for this conclusion.  Judeo-Christians have Satan, Muslims have Iblis, other beliefs have other nasty surprises.  Imagination leads to all sorts of demons and ifrits to round out the army of evil.

 

However, be sure you understand the difference between a demon and a daemon.

 

If you speak to Christian theologists they will tell you that the current definition of hell is the permanent absence of God.

[iLoveMusic 66]

-post-

 

You and I finally agree on something 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

-post-

 

You and I finally agree on something 

 

Probably for very different reasons and experiences.  I am old and jaded, and I doubt you've as much depth.

[iLoveMusic 66]

 

 

-post-

 

You and I finally agree on something 

 

Probably for very different reasons and experiences.  I am old and jaded, and I doubt you've as much depth.

 

You saying that I'm boring? 

[LexusInfernus 908]

In the strictest sense from what I have comprehended from your statement is that behavior is generally treated to be good or bad on the parameter in whether it will continue to create resilient species and survive or not. Continuing this logic, if genocide will eliminate inferior people and make the human species better would that still be treated as good?

Genocide pretty much by definition does not eliminate 'inferior people' (and I object to the notion that there are inferior people). It just kills a lot of people, all of them chosen for the arbitrary reason of not belonging to the right religious or ethnic group at that time.

 

Also missing the point. My point was that behavior that results in the death of others on a large scale is from a evolutionary perspective 'bad'. It limits the genepool and can result in the destruction of our species. A species that kills itself off is an evolutionary failure. So, evolution punishes species that commit that kind of behavior on a large scale. While the opposite kind of behavior gets rewarded by continuing to exist. 

 

 

 

But humans created those concepts. While I agree that there should be a set of rules we agree on as a species, that contributes to and sustains well-being for ourselves and those around us -  humans created good and evil in an attempt to control themselves, since they're so emotionally complex and every possible extreme human behavior that exists is around us somewhere. 

I think we based those concepts on pre existing concepts and we expanded upon them. So to some degree we invented them, but it has a basis in biology. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

 

 

-post-

 

You and I finally agree on something 

 

Probably for very different reasons and experiences.  I am old and jaded, and I doubt you've as much depth.

 

You saying that I'm boring? 

 

No, just a lot younger.  I've been around since 1937.  I've seen a lot of water and other things float under the bridge.

[Meg 368]

Can someone explain the term "war on Christianity"? I know what I think it means but I would like to hear it from someone who can define what it means and can provide examples of it. I would like to understand how people are using the term.

[Bdub01 201]

Can someone explain the term "war on Christianity"? I know what I think it means but I would like to hear it from someone who can define what it means and can provide examples of it. I would like to understand how people are using the term.

Many Christians feel there is a "war" on them by the left. They say it's part of the "end times" and is meant to be, yet get all upset when something the perceive an attack upon their beliefs. Ironically not so much an actual attack like the Charleston shooting but political and Hollywood attacks. So an example would be the Supreme Court saying gay marriage is in. Christians take that as an attack upon them and the bible. There are a number of other perceived attacks as well but you get the idea. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Other factors in the war on Christianity are Judeo-Christian apologists who try to diminish the role the Jews played in crucifying Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, and how the Talmud is a genuine holy book. I also believe Pope John Paul II said that Jews are spiritually saved like the Christians who turn onto Jesus and God. To some orthodox Christians this is deeply alarming.

Another big thing is the decadence of the modern world, the rise of materialism and the eroding away of religion and spirituality. It's the whole Babylon thing you know- America, Europe, UK and other first world nations are Babylon personified. Or that's what some Christians believe.

Christians associate the end times with the eventual second coming of Jesus even though Jesus came back twice, first in the form of Muhammed and then with Baha'u'llah.

On youtube look for the channel Brother Nathaneal- he explains the Christian concept of the end times in great depth, but of course be prepared for strong doses of antisemitism.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Unfortunately for Christians, science is giving the Christian faith a hard time right now.  The Bible is mostly an allegory when it comes to the Pentateuch.  It is made up from a set of myths designed to explain the, at that time, unexplainable.  Unfortunately you have cosmologists studying the big bang (Steven Hawking) who will deny that any God is necessary and that nature is sufficient for "the singularity" to have existed, but I tend to go with Dr. Einstein: "God doesn't play at dice, but He is very subtle."

All religions are in the business of trying to explain things beyond the ken of mankind.  There is no real foundation for any of them other than a bunch of hearsay from people who were respected in their times.  Even the Buddhists get all mystical when it comes to the final state (nirvana), and the Christian ideas of "the rapture" comes from the very broken Book of the Apocalypse, which was clearly written by someone (St. John the Divine) who was not in his right mind.

The other business of religion is to hold down the sheeple.  Currently attempting this are outfits like ISIS who would like to have everyone ignorant and illiterate.  Only the literati should rule in their opinion, and they suppress anyone trying to improve themselves except those selected by them.  With this kind of religious society, life is short, dark and ugly.  This is why the hegemony in Iran is on very uncertain ground.  The Ayatollahs are just jumped up clerics, and the people could overset them.  Rulers operate with the consent of the ruled.

From the first century to the Renaissance, the Christian church has a great deal to answer for with respect to modern thought.  But that is all water under the bridge, and it was probably much worse then we know; remembering that the winners write history.  One of the worst crimes of the Inquisition, for example, was the destruction of the Moorish Empire in the late 15th century.  North American plunder funded that fiasco, but in those days empires were fashionable and in collision.

If there is to be an end to mankind it will be caused by mankind messing with nature, polluting his environment to the point where his species can no longer survive.  We are a dirty lot, and in the end will get the same treatment as the yeasts that make bread.  The Universe won't even notice.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Need your opinion/help: what is shaolin?

 

Lately I became interestet in those shaolin monks as in younger days I studied the works of Zungzhe and taoism.

I must confess now I will talk about things I have little knowledge about - but that's even the reason why I like to talk about it: perhaps there are some people here to give my thinking some direction, some new aspects.

I wasn't shure if I should post this here on 'simtropolis' – but as this is a very international forum with readers not limited to the western world – I'll hope you forgive me for my selfishness in this case.

The first when I read and watched about shaolin monks history I was wondering about: how to recognize from a you tube video or a documentary that someone is a monk. You could shave every well trained asian martial artist or actor and dress him up like with a monks robe. How could I separate a true shaolin monk from a fake shaolin monk seen in a film?

Second: The shaolin monastry has been destroyed several times in history, f. e. in 1928 completely, and then in 1966 by the cultural revolution. By then the practice of shaolin – as other religions – were forbidden. Then the shaolin monks apear again – I didn't find much information about that, how and under what circumstances they apeared again, but I read it was the communist regime itself to rebuilt the original monastry. My question: what interests would a communist regime have to build up a monastry?

Do they teach anything else apart from fighting these days? Is shaolin a religion these days?

From those questions I came to this: how historic is this after all? Those fighting techniques you call kung fu or wushu and that are trained today – how old are they really? Somewhere I read the first secure document about a shaolin fighting technique is by a monk called Cheng Zongyou from the 17. century.

But I couldn't find more Information about his books (?) or writings. Were they published somewhere in a western language? (Sorry I can't speak or read chinese). Could someone point me out some historically authoritative documents?

 

Well I must confess I watched some shaolin fighting videos on you tube and all those myth about their unbeatable strength.

 

But watching these videos I had an evil thought – that this young ladies, if they would train martial arts, they probably would beat every shaolin monk (???). At least they train this hard as well.

 

So is shaolin – today – only a myth sold to the western world?

 

I'd like to look a little more behind this myth and catch some historical truth. Understand better. If it's possible? And any hint would be welcome.

  Edited September 5, 2015 by fantozzi  

[Skimbo 304]

If you speak to Christian theologists they will tell you that the current definition of hell is the permanent absence of God.

For me, this would be "heaven", to use christian words. No god means no religion which means no religious people which means no religious idiots which means peace which again means a way better life.

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you speak to Christian theologists they will tell you that the current definition of hell is the permanent absence of God.

For me, this would be "heaven", to use christian words. No god means no religion which means no religious people which means no religious idiots which means peace which again means a way better life.

 

 

This is about the "afterlife", if any.  Man has created his gods in this own image.  If there is a super-intelligence running the show, the biblical gods are clearly not in it because they are not rational.  You can't be a loving, all-forgiving god and still condemn people to everlasting torment over some minor infraction of the rules.

[Skimbo 304]

 

 

 

  If there is a super-intelligence running the show, the biblical gods are clearly not in it because they are not rational.  You can't be a loving, all-forgiving god and still condemn people to everlasting torment over some minor infraction of the rules

I like your point about rationality. But the laws of nature ain't rational either. Same for physics. So basically we've got a irrational (?) system. The best proof might be the extension of our universe, which isn't rational as it basically leads to it's end on the long term.

 

I doubt the influence of any greater super-intelligence and prefeir to join thoose who say it all happened by chanche. Because there's usuable evidence for the big bang and maybe also it's cause. On the other hand there's no proof at all for something like a god.

When it comes to the creation of afterlive stuff I'm hanging on to the argument that men might be a species to notice and think about it's limited time of life but seems to be too stupid to handle it. Maybe that's because the human mind isn't made to accept death.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, the big bang needs the "singularity" in order to happen.  Everyone avoids the ideas of cause/effect when discussing the "beginnings of space/time" because they can no more think of that than they can think of death as an end with no furtherance.  Notwithstanding the current set of cosmological theorizing, I am a steady stater.  Something like the big bang is at most a burp in the continuum.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Seeing as the topic came up in my life recently, I might as well share it here.

I cannot befriend religious fundamentalists. If they self-identify as Christian, I will correct them left and right. If they don't, I don't even bother with them. My only positive interactions with deeply conservative religious conservatives are limited to business transactions and the like.

I will make up an example:

I walk up to the cash register and pay for my things. When I finish the transaction, I bid the cashier good bye with "Have a nice day!"
He responds, "May God bless your day."
I respond back, "Thanks, you too, goodbye." Then I leave as quickly as possible.

I have had worse experiences, sometimes with persons like the cashier in my example when they are not working. More often, the conflict comes from proximity (neighbors, mutual friends, classmates), where I am forced to ignore or correct them.

 

I can befriend people who do not believe in Christianity without a problem as long as they avoid fundamentalism. Most of my friends are atheist or agnostic and some are "spiritual" and henotheistic. Some of my friends practice various eastern religions. I do not have a problem with any of that. I only have a problem with strong or unexamined prejudices.

 

My biggest problem with Christianity is that we are supposed to abstain from the really fun things and that the "wage for sin is death." The good thing about that is that I don't have to pay that price because it was paid 2 millennia ago and I just have to accept that payment and try to avoid excess.

  Edited October 18, 2015 by OcramSeattle  

[AkemiAzula 280]

I see religions like any style or culture or team or nation or tribe. Islam and Judaism. Coke and Pepsi. To a scientific rational like me all religions are observed objectively and treated as any cultural grouping as combinations of behavioral rules.

Any religion is fundamentalist to the extent of practicality. Take coffee. You like coffee? But do you drink a hundred cups of coffee a day and abstain from eating or breathing?

I think some churches are pretty and some religions have pretty rituals or dress. But to a rational like me the actual beliefs, the raisin detre of these religious houses... Are preposterous or at any rate just moral tales and the opiate of belief in an afterlife and some divine justice and reason for existence.

In practice peace tolerance and compromise are successful but what Pope wouldn't love it if every man decided to become Catholic?

Then again, what if everyone followed Manchester United? What if everyone was British? What if everyone was a clone or s robot? The problem is freedom of thought.

As long as this exists so will temptation and opportunity to (a) sin, (b) switch faiths or (c) abandon faith. The fact we can choose what we believe if not what we say and do means...

But I read in the Daily Mail yesterday some interestingly Orwellian news. Scientists have invented a magnetic way to control ones opinion or strength of opinion. In theory all brains could be kept to a faith using this magnetic method.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Thought control by mechanical means is anathema to me, and should be to everyone.  People who even attempt such things are outside the pale.

 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Thought control by mechanical means is anathema to me, and should be to everyone.  People who even attempt such things are outside the pale.

I agree that mind control is amoral. However, cutting-edge technology makes it easy by directly altering neuron chemistry or electricity. It has been possible (but difficult and less effective) since the dawn of civilization using specific stimuli combined with basic natural drugs.

 

Anyway, here is a new question. What is a deity?

Come up with your answer then read mine.

Any sufficiently powerful and insufficiently understood phenomena can be attributed to deities. These are the "Gods of the Gaps." We don't worship nature sprites, Pele, Thor, or Tloloc nowadays because we have Biology, Vulcanology, and Meteorology. There are 2 things we as a species will never fully understand: complete creation and utter destruction. We have theories on the Big Bang (creation), Entropy (change and decay), and Dark Energy (expansion, and the only thing that can kill the universe before entropy) but we will NEVER fully understand them. The closest phenomena we can observe and analyze are stars and black holes. Stars emit life-giving light. Black holes traps matter in a way that destroys matter, destroys information, or destroys structure. Classical mechanics says that matter and structure are preserved but information is destroyed. Quantum mechanics says that matter and information can never be destroyed but black holes are weird so they must scramble everything up thoroughly. Abrahamic monotheism makes as much sense as Hinduism though we only have creation and decay (we don't have permanent destruction) and they have more (the main 3 being Brahma as creator, Vishnu as protector and preserver (equilibrium), and Shiva as destroyer and judge (entropy)).  

  Edited October 20, 2015 by OcramSeattle