Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mr.Vicchio · Mar 24, 2005, 10:00 pm

Gorgo,

Belief in God, and love of Jesus does not preclude rationale thought. Such claims are exactly the sort of thought control you claim those that believe are subject too.

Are there churches and branches of religion that are "THIS IS HOW IT IS, YOU MAY NOT THINK OTHERWISE!" Of course. But then, that's true across life, not just religion. You sir, I declare are stifled and incapable of thinking outside of your narrow views. You cannot accept or RESPECT the views of others. Thus you attack, you demean, you make absurd comments. I respect that you are an athiest. That's both your right and your peragative. But that doesn't mean I have to accept your view point as valid. I disagree, but I do not pull out stupid comments and beliefs of athiest to attack you (as you did in a previous post with the stoning and slave crap)

I posed a belief, that you fear, or are incapable of the standards set in the Bible. If you understood the Bible, you would not make dumb comments about slavery and stoning children, you would realize I was talking about the morals of the New Testament. Instead of answering the question, you tossed a troll flame out there as if that proved anypoint aside your desire to attack rather then debate.

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 04:36 am

The word, servant, is translated into English from the Greek word, slave. These are words spoken by the fictional Jesus.

Luke 12:47
47 “That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

Christians do not stone children or own slaves, are we talking about the same book?

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 04:43 am

Again, you people attacking me by accusing me of attacking others is very shrewd. I remember attacking no one, and if you find any instance where I've attacked anyone, I will apologize to that person. If you do not produce that information, I ask that you apologize to me for suggesting falsely that I did.

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

But you ignore that for the childish attacks

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 04:43 am

More on the "morality" of the Christian Bible:

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/bible_murder.html

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 04:49 am

Further explanation:

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/banswers.php

Mr.Vicchio · Mar 25, 2005, 04:53 am

More what?

I hit your links. I laughed. If that is what you want to use as justification for your beliefs... hey that's your gig. If you want to look at the world that way, that's fine, I respect it, I disagree but respect it.

But you mis-understand the verse from Luke, badly. Since those are your sites on the Bible, and what you believe I won't waste your time trying to convince you otherwise. I pray you realize your error before it's too late.

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 04:59 am

I accept your apology.

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 05:06 am

Gentlemen...cease & desist. You've had this argument many a time. Baiting each other is not helping. Kindly take it over into PMs to each other, if you really must.

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 05:31 am

I'm sorry. I'm sure you had a point here, but I'm lost.

Quote:

Quote by: jeffl

It includes rational thought as a very small subset; 'very small' because there is either your reptile people noise or your head in the sand silence. What do you have against rational thought?

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 07:15 am

Okay, Matt, I'm going to try the 'ignore' feature here. I have to say that I've been criticized for asking for a clarification from someone who asked if I was incapable of living up to his ridiculously high standards, standards, which of course he learned in the Bible. Of course, the Bible is itself a standard for idiocy and debauchery, as anyone who has read the Bible can attest. My statement was, "Like whipping slaves and stoning children?" I have backed up that statement. Is there still a problem with my comment?

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 08:20 am

*sighs*

Can we please get back on topic? Anyone got anything to say about Bill Maher, or other public figures who comment on religion? Here's Blair's take on it in politics:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4369481.stm

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 08:55 am

If you wish to stay on topic, the thread is not about Tony Blair, the thread is about Maher, and his statement that religion is a "neurological disorder." Please comment on one or the other or both.

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 09:39 am

As you wish.

I personally view religion as evidence of the human mind's inability to accept that there will be a universe without it in existence. Humans are not equipped, psychologically, to think about the concepts of 'nothing' or 'infinity', as no-one can think about them without imagining just how small they are in the scheme of things. Thus, when early man saw other humans dying, his/her first thought was not 'they're gone', but rather 'where have they gone?'.

Organised religion has taken this further, using phenomena barely understood (even today) to use this as evidence of a supernatural world, or specifically a world influenced by God/Buddha/whoever to it's own mysterious purpose.

So, I'd say I'd agree to a certain extent - I think religion was originally the product of humans scared of the dark and the unknown.

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 10:27 am

I'm not sure why religion would follow from scared of the dark, nor do I see why the earliest of humans would think about life after death. They would see death all around them and would have no one telling them that there was something so wrong with this life, that they'd have to create a fantasy world which gave this life some worth.

My guess is that when people formed languages, they started forming experts, and they started forming ideas that life was not good enough as it was, they needed to create things like gods and dogma in order to give their lives worth. It seems to be the same today.

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 10:54 am

Of course they thought about life after death. Most of what we know about early peoples (or peoples that pre-date the written word) is found through archaeological excavation of burial sites. I wish I had the full data on this, but a close friend (a PhD Archaeology student at Edinburgh Uni) has some fascinating examples and tales of some of the work she did in Jordan, for example. I'll have a word and see if I can find anything on the web and post it here later.

Admittedly, the crucial point is at what stage in human development this occured - whether it was pre-language or not, I couldn't tell you. But it is fairly obvious, from the earliest records (and the fact that people were buried with grave goods) we have available, that thoughts of the supernatural world and life after death have always been a central theme for most cultures.

However, I'd ask you to think of how an 'Early Human' or hominid saw the world, either with language or without - your choice! Things happened that you cannot explain - rain, thunder, lightning, forest fires, things growing, things dying, the sun coming up, the sun going down. Nowadays we can explain them - but it's taken us a long time to expand our knowledge. How would said human view them? They are mysterious, chaotic things.

As for the 'fear of the dark'...humans have always, always been afraid of the unknown. Contemplating an unknown that involves the cessation of your very being is something very few people can really grasp, if any. Adding a purpose to their lives was a bonus - especially if their creation legend had something about their people being the 'chosen' people. As you say, it's probably a concept that didn't develop until language came about - but I'd bet the minute they could talk about it, they did.

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 11:04 am

Interesting stuff, but you understand what I'm saying is that I don't see why pre-language, anyone thought to come up with the idea of an after-life. I imagine they thought too much about life to make up fantasies, and none of this explains why fear of the dark would equal making up fantasies. One could simply say, to the unknown, "I don't understand." Why would one need more than that? Something else enters into the question then. Again, from my observation, it came at the point that someone told someone else that they knew that they were the chosen people, and that god cared more about them than those they feared.

In other words, it came when someone could convince someone else, that they didn't have much self-worth. In order to have self-worth, they had to be better than someone else. In order for life to have meaning, it had to be rendered completely meaningless by creating the fantasy of an after-life, which to them, gave life worth.

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 11:24 am

Ooo...heavy-duty. Pre-language, were we even technically human? Difficult concepts.

Hmm. I would say that when a group of people banded together, there would always have been things to contemplate - the very nature of the tribe or pack means that there has always been time to sit and think at some stage. For most humans, when people get together, stories are told. In earlier cultures, these stories would have been of earlier generations - famous hunters, warriors, chieftans, which developed into quasi-mythical figues, and, in some cases, actual Gods.

However, for most humans (and apes), it has never been enough to say 'I don't understand'. People have an almost pathalogical need to know things, to explore, to tell tales, whatever. I wouldn't necessarily argue that it's all about self-worth, but more a need to know that there is an explanation for things beyond your control. I mean, I can look at a car, or a computer, a machine of infinite complexity, and think 'it's all working through science'. I don't understand it, but I know why it works...roughly.

Am I making sense?

Gorgo · Mar 25, 2005, 11:56 am

Interesting, and I'm not saying I have any idea what people did or didn't do, okay? I don't. I just have no reason to speculate beyond what I see here and now.

You talk about a "need to know" the things they did not know. There is reason to think that they speculated and told stories, yes. There might even be reason to think that they thought that someone might be making it rain, and that people might live after they die. When they went beyond that to say that there is someone making it rain and there is an afterlife, then that is something different. That comes from a need for certainty. There is no biological "need" for certainty. Certainly there is a need for information, but there is no biological need to change from speculation to dogma. That comes from someone's need to feel superior in some way. Either the priest that convinces others that only he has the answers to someone who thinks their tribe is better than others. It is about the attempt to gain self-worth or maintain some idea of self-worth that that sort of thing is done. In my worthless opinion, of course, based on observation of myself and others.

**Matt W** · Mar 25, 2005, 12:05 pm

Interesting stuff indeed. I'll think on it over the weekend and try & come back with some sources. Right now, however, I am running out of work!

jeffl · Mar 25, 2005, 01:24 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Gorgo

My guess is that when people formed languages, they started forming experts, and they started forming ideas that life was not good enough as it was, they needed to create things like gods and dogma in order to give their lives worth. It seems to be the same today.

I can almost agree with this. I agree with the bit about technological specialization; you can really see it in the Hida, with the notion of putting on different 'skins.' Scientific American had a special issue about ancient cultures, and one example was a large culture in the indus river valley that had a complex structure and no apparent means to physically enforce it.

I don't think it was so much life not being good, but that it ends. People could see in the structure of the specialization a perpetuity that gave them a greater sense of meaning. I think that expression of Being helps describe the nature of Truth, 'the face of the Son in the light of the Father.'

As far as the issue of slavery goes; i think it's central to the issue of spirituality. The notion of kingship is analogous to the shining sun, and so to abandon the notion of slavery (as a consequence of subjegation, i.e. kingship structure) is to abandon the possibility of a contiguous semantic structure through Being. If you can't forgive the Bible its contemporary perspective then reasonable discussion is not possible.

Further, the Oricle at Delphi was rather put off when the people of athens did the democracy thing. Certainly you would agree that, with an ignorant public, 'democracy' can be a useful and easily manipulated tool. Now more than ever people must be politically aware.

Mar 24, 2005, 10:00 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Gorgo, Belief in God, and love of Jesus does not preclude rationale thought. Such claims are exactly the sort of thought control you claim those that believe are subject too. Are there churches and branches of religion that are "THIS IS HOW IT IS, YOU MAY NOT THINK OTHERWISE!" Of course. But then, that's true across life, not just religion. You sir, I declare are stifled and incapable of thinking outside of your narrow views. You cannot accept or RESPECT the views of others. Thus you attack, you demean, you make absurd comments. I respect that you are an athiest. That's both your right and your peragative. But that doesn't mean I have to accept your view point as valid. I disagree, but I do not pull out stupid comments and beliefs of athiest to attack you (as you did in a previous post with the stoning and slave crap) I posed a belief, that you fear, or are incapable of the standards set in the Bible. If you understood the Bible, you would not make dumb comments about slavery and stoning children, you would realize I was talking about the morals of the New Testament. Instead of answering the question, you tossed a troll flame out there as if that proved anypoint aside your desire to attack rather then debate. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Mar 25, 2005, 04:53 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	More what? I hit your links. I laughed. If that is what you want to use as justification for your beliefs... hey that's your gig. If you want to look at the world that way, that's fine, I respect it, I disagree but respect it. But you mis-understand the verse from Luke, badly. Since those are your sites on the Bible, and what you believe I won't waste your time trying to convince you otherwise. I pray you realize your error before it's too late. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Mar 25, 2005, 05:06 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,438	Gentlemen...cease & desist. You've had this argument many a time. Baiting each other is not helping. Kindly take it over into PMs to each other, if you really must. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Mar 25, 2005, 08:20 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,438	sighs Can we please get back on topic? Anyone got anything to say about Bill Maher, or other public figures who comment on religion? Here's Blair's take on it in politics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4369481.stm I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Mar 25, 2005, 09:39 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,438	As you wish. I personally view religion as evidence of the human mind's inability to accept that there will be a universe without it in existence. Humans are not equipped, psychologically, to think about the concepts of 'nothing' or 'infinity', as no-one can think about them without imagining just how small they are in the scheme of things. Thus, when early man saw other humans dying, his/her first thought was not 'they're gone', but rather 'where have they gone?'. Organised religion has taken this further, using phenomena barely understood (even today) to use this as evidence of a supernatural world, or specifically a world influenced by God/Buddha/whoever to it's own mysterious purpose. So, I'd say I'd agree to a certain extent - I think religion was originally the product of humans scared of the dark and the unknown. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Mar 25, 2005, 04:43 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	More on the "morality" of the Christian Bible: http://www.valleyskeptic.com/bible_murder.html

Mar 25, 2005, 04:49 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Further explanation: http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/banswers.php

Mar 25, 2005, 04:59 am	#47 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	I accept your apology.

Mar 25, 2005, 07:15 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Okay, Matt, I'm going to try the 'ignore' feature here. I have to say that I've been criticized for asking for a clarification from someone who asked if I was incapable of living up to his ridiculously high standards, standards, which of course he learned in the Bible. Of course, the Bible is itself a standard for idiocy and debauchery, as anyone who has read the Bible can attest. My statement was, "Like whipping slaves and stoning children?" I have backed up that statement. Is there still a problem with my comment?

Mar 25, 2005, 08:55 am	#52 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	If you wish to stay on topic, the thread is not about Tony Blair, the thread is about Maher, and his statement that religion is a "neurological disorder." Please comment on one or the other or both.

Mar 25, 2005, 10:27 am	#54 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	I'm not sure why religion would follow from scared of the dark, nor do I see why the earliest of humans would think about life after death. They would see death all around them and would have no one telling them that there was something so wrong with this life, that they'd have to create a fantasy world which gave this life some worth. My guess is that when people formed languages, they started forming experts, and they started forming ideas that life was not good enough as it was, they needed to create things like gods and dogma in order to give their lives worth. It seems to be the same today.

Mar 25, 2005, 10:54 am	#55 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,438	Of course they thought about life after death. Most of what we know about early peoples (or peoples that pre-date the written word) is found through archaeological excavation of burial sites. I wish I had the full data on this, but a close friend (a PhD Archaeology student at Edinburgh Uni) has some fascinating examples and tales of some of the work she did in Jordan, for example. I'll have a word and see if I can find anything on the web and post it here later. Admittedly, the crucial point is at what stage in human development this occured - whether it was pre-language or not, I couldn't tell you. But it is fairly obvious, from the earliest records (and the fact that people were buried with grave goods) we have available, that thoughts of the supernatural world and life after death have always been a central theme for most cultures. However, I'd ask you to think of how an 'Early Human' or hominid saw the world, either with language or without - your choice! Things happened that you cannot explain - rain, thunder, lightning, forest fires, things growing, things dying, the sun coming up, the sun going down. Nowadays we can explain them - but it's taken us a long time to expand our knowledge. How would said human view them? They are mysterious, chaotic things. As for the 'fear of the dark'...humans have always, always been afraid of the unknown. Contemplating an unknown that involves the cessation of your very being is something very few people can really grasp, if any. Adding a purpose to their lives was a bonus - especially if their creation legend had something about their people being the 'chosen' people. As you say, it's probably a concept that didn't develop until language came about - but I'd bet the minute they could talk about it, they did. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Mar 25, 2005, 11:04 am	#56 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Interesting stuff, but you understand what I'm saying is that I don't see why pre-language, anyone thought to come up with the idea of an after-life. I imagine they thought too much about life to make up fantasies, and none of this explains why fear of the dark would equal making up fantasies. One could simply say, to the unknown, "I don't understand." Why would one need more than that? Something else enters into the question then. Again, from my observation, it came at the point that someone told someone else that they knew that they were the chosen people, and that god cared more about them than those they feared. In other words, it came when someone could convince someone else, that they didn't have much self-worth. In order to have self-worth, they had to be better than someone else. In order for life to have meaning, it had to be rendered completely meaningless by creating the fantasy of an after-life, which to them, gave life worth.

Mar 25, 2005, 11:24 am	#57 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,438	Ooo...heavy-duty. Pre-language, were we even technically human? Difficult concepts. Hmm. I would say that when a group of people banded together, there would always have been things to contemplate - the very nature of the tribe or pack means that there has always been time to sit and think at some stage. For most humans, when people get together, stories are told. In earlier cultures, these stories would have been of earlier generations - famous hunters, warriors, chieftans, which developed into quasi-mythical figues, and, in some cases, actual Gods. However, for most humans (and apes), it has never been enough to say 'I don't understand'. People have an almost pathalogical need to know things, to explore, to tell tales, whatever. I wouldn't necessarily argue that it's all about self-worth, but more a need to know that there is an explanation for things beyond your control. I mean, I can look at a car, or a computer, a machine of infinite complexity, and think 'it's all working through science'. I don't understand it, but I know why it works...roughly. Am I making sense? I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Mar 25, 2005, 11:56 am	#58 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Interesting, and I'm not saying I have any idea what people did or didn't do, okay? I don't. I just have no reason to speculate beyond what I see here and now. You talk about a "need to know" the things they did not know. There is reason to think that they speculated and told stories, yes. There might even be reason to think that they thought that someone might be making it rain, and that people might live after they die. When they went beyond that to say that there is someone making it rain and there is an afterlife, then that is something different. That comes from a need for certainty. There is no biological "need" for certainty. Certainly there is a need for information, but there is no biological need to change from speculation to dogma. That comes from someone's need to feel superior in some way. Either the priest that convinces others that only he has the answers to someone who thinks their tribe is better than others. It is about the attempt to gain self-worth or maintain some idea of self-worth that that sort of thing is done. In my worthless opinion, of course, based on observation of myself and others.

Mar 25, 2005, 12:05 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,438	Interesting stuff indeed. I'll think on it over the weekend and try & come back with some sources. Right now, however, I am running out of work! I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.