(Disclaimer: I am a horrible speller, and do not want to have to look up the many words i should know how to spell. So please bare with my ignorance of correct spellings of things hehe)

As a species we have always looked to find why things are the way they are. Some choose religion, some choose science. And both of those things can "Disprove eachother". The only real difference between the two, is science is ever evolving, while religion is constant. Look how many times things in science was "proven" as a law just to be disproved later on.

I myself tend to stick close to science, not because i base my beliefs on it, but because i find it facinating. (Discovery Science channel takes up basically 80% of my television time). Personally i don't like to agrue ever in favor of science, since a new theory could come out next month that disprove an older one. But i do believe they are on the right path.

But religion i can not just go blindly headstong into. Look at the history of religion:

Back when cultures on thier world was pretty divided from one another, you had many different religions, that people have come to believe and follow as a means to answer the questions they had about life, why things happened to them, and in a way to instill hope into themselves. Was this a bad thing? I will never say no. Because religion does breath hope into people. Gives them a sense of purpose. And if that makes them feel good at the end of the day, who am i to say it's wrong.

BUT... another thing i will say about religion was it was a way to control the masses. You can almost say, religion was the first forms of government. Telling you what was against the law and what was not. But back then you could not just say "you can not do that because i said so", but you could say "you can not do that, because GOD or The Gods say not to". And historically, the figure heads of the religions held all the power over those different cultures that believed in such.

Take a moment to look at the birth of the different religions that spawned from the Bible. It came into existance around the time where people of another religion was dominating the world. And if you look at many of the things that it instilled into people, it almost dirrectly oppossed the other dominate religion.

Take Roman / Greek culture pre-bible. Touch on one topic that the bible wanted to tackle. Homosexuality. It was a common practice in the religions of old. Was not frowned upon, and was part of everyday life. And then comes a group of people that are to eventually overthrow this culture. So using religion as a tool, to control the masses, you can undermine the dominate power, by picking appart thier ever day lives, as abominations to the bible.

Mind you that is just one example of such, but thier are many. Take ancient Egyptions. Religion was commonly changed or altered to take control of power, the times of Akhenaten and Nefertiti was full of this, when they cast aside worshiping one god, to make Aten the god of divine power over the masses. This was just a power move to take the power out of the hands of the Priests of Amun and into his own.

To talk of one religion, you must look at all religions of past and present. Since there is no way to prove or disprove the validity of one over another. But the basic fact will always remain, that religion is, was, and always will be a way to control the human masses. The start of one religion was way to pull power from one group of people, into the hands of another group.

Now i am not saying those people do not "believe" in any of thier religions when they were founded. (besides maybe the Church of England, which was created soely due to the catholic church's disapproval of how a king handled his marriages, but even that was created out of power struggle of a king that did not feel his power as such should have to be questioned by the church).

I can honestly say sure, even with the birth of a new religion, maybe people were trying to look for answers as to why something in thier life was not how they wanted it, so sought out new hope, new beliefs to answer these for them, and alot of times, you would see that the very things that the religion of the oppressing culture believed in, was magically the exact thing that the new religion would condem.

But the fact still remains, that every religion, was created by man. And was used in some way as power over fellow men.

Where with science, they are looking for answers to things that they can try thier hardest to prove, because sometimes belief just isn't enough. And people want answers they can feel, they can see, that they can touch. It is in our very nature to question our surroundings. And to want answers. And from that nature has spawns religions (which are nothing more than answers to questions we have no way of answering for ourselves), and science, a way of saying, "no i will not just sit here and say "this is the way of things, because it just is"

Personally i'm Agnostic. Believe in a higher power, but dont choose to follow a religon created by man, to tell me what to believe. Hope comes from within, i don't need a book to tell me to have it. But at the same time, i do not believe that Gods or a GOD put mankind on this earth in the way most believe it to be. I do believe in evolution. Just too much science out there that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, *in my mind* that it is to be true.

I guess i just believe in something higher, because my own mind cant grasp the idea of the cosmos, all that is and ever was, started for no reason, or came from no where, or simple just always was for all infinite.

And i'm ok with that. Because that's the great thing about believes, is you don't HAVE to make people believe how you feel inside. And i look down on those religions that try to force feed it down your throat and tell you what you believe is wrong, just because some other man 1000 years ago told the masses that is what they should believe. To each thier own.

((Edit: sorry if some of that kinda jumped from one thing to another, it's hard to express youreslf at 3:30 in the morning when you are stoned, trying to input your own point of view, and trying to make several points to bring about 1 grand idea of things. easier to do with verbal communication, atleast for me))

_________________

I disagree. Take any religion and compare it to what it was 100 years ago, or 500, or 2000. `While the basis is often the same, many details evolved, and usually for the best.



The rest of your post is interesting, even if I don't agree with half of it

_________________



Main: War75/Sam63/Blm71/Rng45
Sub: Nin37/Thf37/Whm37/Mnk30
Three nation: Done Zilart: Done CoP: Done

I basically meant that they don't turn around and say things like "The world was now created in 60days" really bad example, but the "facts" of religions remain constant, while in science, the things we look at as "facts" in a way, are subject to change any given day with a new theory.

(edited because even i couldn't live with the example of what religion might say to change a fact lol)

_________________

Ero you remind me a lot of my friend from back home, and you bring up a lot of interesting points. But I would like to comment on this topic being "Science vs. Religion." Because I really see them as two different things.

Religion is believing. Believing is having faith. And to have faith in something is to trust even if you can't physically see it. God? You can't see god. I mean if there is one we can't see him. And that's faith. I have faith that someone created me and this universe and I vow to follow his teachings and word as best as I can, because good comes from it. Now if God really wanted us to know he's here he would show himself right? Well sure... but then we'd see him, and we'd know he's here. It wouldn't any longer be faith. It would be something we can physically see, or science. Science is based on what we SEE and OBSERVE, and faith is something we cannot. Personally I think to live by science is to live by ignorance. Now by that statement I'm speaking only for myself. I give no less respect to someone who is scientifically inclined than to a religion zealot. But simply for me I can't allow myself to think purely scientifically. I can't Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis thinking that I'm human.. we're humans.... and somehow we think that we can have all the answers. in a universe this big and complex to think that I, such a stupid insignificant creature, can know everything there is to know? Or at least attempt to? That seems silly to me. Sorry if that last part seems arbitraty but I just felt like adding it.

My main point is trying to differentiate Science and Faith.

Also on utilitarianism I think we're running into a very fundamental flaw of it. Speaking of the surgical example whisp kept coming up with different ways to calculate whether or not the decision was "right." Be it other people finding out, the family members, the actual person that would die, etc. etc. And the flaw is this..... there are so many factors that would go into calculating whether or not each situation or each action is good or bad that it eventually goes in circles or involves soooo many different factors that it really seems ridiculous. The Surgeons decision to do it could be based on his insurance policy which could be based on his lawyers mood at the time which could be influenced by his wife being angry at their kids and taking it out on him so if the lawyer allowed him to make a decision his wife woud be angry and thus less-happy etc etc etc etc etc blah blah blah. Maybe a bad example but do you see where I'm getting at? To calclulate the maximum good would be such an exhausting and infinitely difficult thing to do on a day-to-day basis the whole idea just kinda flops in my eyes.

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense tonight, it's pretty late ^^;

~Amber

"To calclulate the maximum good would be such an exhausting and infinitely difficult thing to do on a day-to-day basis the whole idea just kinda flops in my eyes."

i agree it would be exhausting, however i don't agree about it being infinite. there are factors but there are a limited number of factors even if its in the hundreds, thousands, millions, etc. trying to calculate it might not be efficient, but an estimate can be made. i know we can't make an accurate science out of guessing people's emotions and thoughts, but they do exist, and if we knew them we could know what's best for our species. it's our own miscalculations of people's emotions and thoughts that drives us towards bad decisions.

so what do you suggest as an alternate method of determining what makes an action a good action?

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

"Amber":

How can you say someone lives in ignorance just because they don't choose to believe in a religions stories or beliefs that humans have passed down through the generations. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge or beinging unaware or uniformed on a topic of discussion. I know many religions quite fluently, and also find them to be quite fasinating to read, and learn about, but doesn't mean i'm going to believe in them.

And how can you believe so deeply in a religion that says mankind is basically to precious to GOD that he would even turn his backs on the angels a previous creation of his, yet say something like:



I mean really lmao. Since when is man kind so insignifcant in the eyes of GOD. lol.

As far as Utilitarianism and the surgen. You keep looking at is as it would be the right thing to do in the surgen's eyes to kill 1 because it would make 5 happy, and thus happy would outwiegh not happy. But as a culture, Utilitarianists say killing would be bad. So you can not then turn around and say it would be good for 5, because as a culture, it is known to be bad. That is the funamental point you are missing completely to "prove" your point basically. The ideal of it is based on the over all view of good or bad of the masses, not of the people that are within personal influence of you. I think you need to do more research and have a refresher course on that way of life, since you have already admitted that you don't really have the best working knowledge of it. And in that, wouldn't that make you ignorant? I'm not trying to call you ignorant, but by defination, you are lacking knowledge, unaware/uninformed on the topic.

That is the fundamental flaw of these bible toters, honestly. You are here calling those that don't choose to believe in religion ingnorantt, yet that is an asumption on your behalf. If anything I would think that the people who are posting here are quite well informed, yet have made the decision to not follow or follow a specific belief. None of which i would call ignorant, just because they choose to believe in science over religion.

And if you wanted to make your arguement that they don't have to believe in what you believe in, as long as they believe in something. Then who's to say what is the right one to believe in. And if you do need to believe in a religion, to believe in it, would mean that you would have to discredit anothers' beliefs. Since all religions basically say that thiers is the only truth. (might teach tolorence for people of other religions, but doesn't stop them for saying they are wrong for believing it)

Fact of the matter is, religion is ideals passed down through the ages by man. Here's a fun game for you. Get in a crowded room next time you are at a heavily populated party (i'm since you are in college you can't be too unfamilar with these), and have one person tell someone something, they tell the person next to them, and then the person next to them, and so on and so forth, let it circluate til it hits everyone in the room. By time it gets back to the person that started it, i can assure you that it was not the same thing said by the first person. Human beings each have a unique way of taking in information via selective listening. Some things stand out to one person more than to others. And each person's mind puts it's own little spin on it, as to how it was preceived. So i find it hard to believe in a thing such as religion, that was created by man, and passed down through the ages, could even be what it orignally started out as, even if it kept things as constant as the bible.

And even the Bible has many different versions, and interpretations, that lead to many religions sprouting up from just one book, that was written by? you guess it, man.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to believe in a higher power, i myself have even admitted to being agnostic. But i can not turn a blind eye to historical facts showing how religion has been used to control societies over the last 3000+ years, and think to myself "yeah this is what i feel because i read a book that told me what to feel". I think if you want to believe in a higher being, man go for it. But you don't need religion to tell you how to do it and how to live your life. By now as a species we know what is right and what is wrong by society standards. You don't need religion to tell you that as an advanced civilization you shouldn't rape or kill. But you also don't need a religion telling you that humans where created as Adam and Eve, when you have science proving beyond a shadow of a doubt we have evolved from lesser creatures, just like all animals that are on this earth now can be traced back to different species of the past.

Edit: and Science Vs Religion being seperate, they will always be seperate to the point of one is trying to find answers, while one is blinding following something on "faith" which is nothing more than hearing it and saying to yourself "yeah i believe that", in a way. But one can believe in a higher power could have had a hand in creating all that is the cosmos, and not believe that that higher being specifically created us. We could just be biproducts of what the cosmos did when the higher being created it. And from a Science point of view i kinda have to go back to one of my favorite quotes of all times from a movie "If we are the only life all the unverse, that would be one big great waste of space".

_________________

also einstein believed the universe was infinite in time and space, a belief which he took to the grave. einstein may be fallable, so it really doesn't do much good for either of us to invoke him. either way, the cosmology dealing with whether the universe is infinite in space and time is purely theoretical and you will find scores of scientists on both sides of the fence.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

"But as a culture, Utilitarianists say killing would be bad. So you can not then turn around and say it would be good for 5, because as a culture, it is known to be bad."

hmmmmm what? That's the whole thing Ero... Utilitarianism is a way to decide whether or not something is good or bad. To simply say that knowing the difference between the two from birth would be to discredit utilitarianism altogether and ultimately seperate you from this argument. Or to say "The masses think it's wrong!" doesn't have any value in this argument. It doesn't matter what the masses think. Because we're not talking about the masses. Where did the "masses" get this notion of right and wrong? Why would they think killing is bad? What is their reasoning? If they're all truely utilitarianists they they would absolutely think it would be the right thing to do to kill 1 to save 6. I don't see where you're getting that.

"I mean really lmao. Since when is man kind so insignifcant in the eyes of GOD. lol. "

Since always

"You are here calling those that don't choose to believe in religion ingnorantt"

I think you're putting words in my mouth. I can see where I used the word ignorant, but I thought i made it pretty clear how I was using that word in the follow sentances. But if you want I can clear up my ignorant comment. I tried to make it clear that I was calling myself ignorant and not anyone else. I don't think anyone else to be ignorant... I don't think myself to be better than anyone else. Anyone else can believe what they want. Do I think they're wrong? Well ultimately yes. But am I going to damn other people for being wrong? no. Am I going to force my beliefs upon other people? no. All I can do is believe for myself and hopefully I'll ruboff on someone.

Whisp:
My idea of "good" and "bad" comes from the fact that I think everyone is born with the notion of good and bad. Throughout all time people have followed basically the same standards. Being a selfish man is looked down upon, killing people for no reason is bad etc etc. I just happen to think that we are instilled with an idea of good from birth, and I think our god is the one that instilled us with it. Because I belive him to be a good god. Where else would it come from? How else would we have this idea of "good? all the time? Utilitarianism is a thought but I personally am not a fan. That's just my justification.

~Amber

Amber-
I also think we are born with the capability of differentiating good from bad, but only through experience (alongside mental development) do we find out which is which. Rather than a god instilling this in us, I believe it is controlled by our brain which retrieves sensory information about chemical and physical imbalances and creates thoughts, emotions, and hormonal feedback which give us the sensation of good and bad.

On the larger scale of what is good vs. bad behavior, that is also something that I believe we learn through experience. We go through an awkward phase of learning and conforming to what we can and can't get away with in society, always pushing towards whatever is the optimum outcome for ourselves (though some suck at this learning process). In the end the optimum outcome for oneself is often what is the best for society. In other cases, a person's optimum outcome is taking advantage of someone else. Some people would feel so guilty about taking advantage of someone else that the feeling of guilt would outweigh any advantage they would have gained. This is good vs. bad on an individual level. If 100 people decipher what is good on the individual scale, they'd come up with 100 answers. To come up with some sort of rule for humanity as a whole, we'd have to take into account what is in the best interest of the happiness of all individuals involved. That's my take.

What are some actions you perform that make you think you are a good person?

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Well I just read your post and I'd just like to go ahead and thank Whisp for being so reasonable in this conversation..... it's really rare to find someone who can keep their head in online conversations like these. I just wanted to post that lol, but I'll be back in a bit to respond, got some errands to run.

thanks :)
also thanks to most of the people in this thread who intellegently provide discussion material (ts, amber, kaylia, ero, xiona, yarr, etc.) i love this stuff lol

the pursuit of truth, whether it exists or not, is what i admire and enjoy no matter how people go about it. as long as they keep pursuing

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

I wish all the posts weren't a novel so I could fall behind and not spend a couple of hours catching up ; ;

_________________
[In Yarr we trust.]

[quote = "Whisp"]also einstein believed the universe was infinite in time and space, a belief which he took to the grave. einstein may be fallable, so it really doesn't do much good for either of us to invoke him. either way, the cosmology dealing with whether the universe is infinite in space and time is purely theoretical and you will find scores of scientists on both sides of the fence.[/quote]

That's where Einstein relativity fail actually, and I'm almost certain every physician agree relativity is flawed since ~5-10 years (maybe more).




[quote = "Whisp"]so what do you suggest as an alternate method of determining what makes an action a good action?[/quote]

Beliefs and morals.

Even if people have different belief, many are shared by almost everyone (ie: chart of right). That thing wasn't based on utilitarianism, and still offer a pretty good way to determine if an action if good or bad.


A few questions about utilitarianism:

1) If someone commits a murder, doesn't feel any guilt but have really low chance to repeat the act, what do you do with him? Sending him in prison cost a lot, waste the rest of his life and he isn't a treat anymore.

2)Is it good to always be happy? Or it might end up making the person dumber. (you usually think much more about life and everything when you're depressed or sad than when you're happy and satisfied)



[quote ="Whisp"]i agree it would be exhausting, however i don't agree about it being infinite. there are factors but there are a limited number of factors even if its in the hundreds, thousands, millions, etc. trying to calculate it might not be efficient, but an estimate can be made.[/quote]

Unless the future isn't infinite, there is an unlimited number of factors.


Arguing on forum is fun. That's basically what I do since 5 years almost everyday

_________________



Main: War75/Sam63/Blm71/Rng45
Sub: Nin37/Thf37/Whm37/Mnk30
Three nation: Done Zilart: Done CoP: Done

Just having a list of what's good and bad doesn't explain why they're good and bad actions.


I'd say murder is something beyond immediate rehabilitation. We'd need to make an example of that person by keeping them in prison, hopefully deterring other people from committing the same act. What do you think?


That's a good point. You need some bad to have some good right? Well maximize the good any way possible even if it means having some bad.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

_________________