Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (40751)	6/18/1999 5:59:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

A religion is a structured way of viewing and relating to God. It is separate from God. In much the same way as equations or textbooks or lectures about gravity are not gravity. They can't exist without gravity, but they are not and never will be gravity.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (40751)	6/18/1999 7:27:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

When you say that God and religion are not the same thing you posit the existence of a god as separate from religion. Yet, as soon as [you] tell me that a god of some sort exists you have set down a series of religious beliefs based on the existence of that God. I am a latecomer to this discussion, and so may have missed an important link in the chain. That said, the above statement puzzles me. I would raise the following objections: 1) It would be perfectly possible to conclude that there is "some sort of" God out there, without adopting/professing any specific religious beliefs about Its nature, beyond the simple belief that It exists. 2) Conversely, a religion can exist without a God. This is notoriously true of classical Buddhism (although not, of course, of the popular polytheistic varieties). ...when we speak of God we imply some sort of "intelligence" per force, and as soon as we admit that we must also speak of events that violate the laws of nature. I take this kind of view of God as axiomatic. Why? Even if, merely by speaking of God, "we imply some sort of 'intelligence' per force" -- a debatable point in itself -- why would the existence of a Higher Intelligence of some sort violate the laws of nature? Have we proved that to be the case? Or would it not be better to say that the laws of nature, such as we presently know them to be, do not require us to support the hypothesis of a Higher Intelligence? (Some years ago, incidentally, I read a book by a well-credentialed physicist who tried to prove the existence of a Supra-Conscious Omega Point, by means of multitudinous brain-busting mathematical formulae.) As for your identification of "religion" and "magic," that is straight out of Frazier, of course. But as fascinating as "The Golden Bough" continues to be, Frazier's thesis is not taken that seriously any more, because it is just too simplistic. For one thing, believing that some sort of God exists does not mean that one prays to it. Secondly, prayer is not the same thing as worship. Worship can mean that you simply fall down on your knees in awe before It. It does not imply that you have to ask It for anything. Worship can also be a ritual designed to evoke and stimulate the "oceanic feeling," the sense of "being one with the cosmos," which many mystics have attempted to describe. The Whirling Dervish ritual, for example. (And yes, I personally can see somebody worshipping the hydrogen ion, as a symbol of It. Certainly, it would not be the oddest thing people have worshipped! <g>) Finally, not all "believers" have believed that God's behavior could be "influenced," as you put it, through prayer or any other means. Take the Deists, for example. Their God, after having created the universe, lost interest in it, and withdrew from it entirely. He could not be "supplicated," because he wasn't even around to hear the supplications. It seems to me, Chuzzlewit, that your arguments are aimed at animists, polytheists, and orthodox believers in the traditional monotheistic religions. But they strike me as being less relevant to unconventional beliefs. Joan (An Admitted Agnostic)

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (40751)	6/18/1999 8:44:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

>>>>>Yet, as soon as tell me that a god of some sort exists you have set down a series of religious beliefs based on the existence of that God.<<<<< Sorry, I don't understand your point. I don't believe I could state mine any clearer, but I'll try stating it another way. Religion is a belief. Although many would disagree, the only being that we know for a fact believes in God is man. Man has only been around for a couple of million years, max, and man as we know man has only been around for maybe 20,000 years. The universe is around 4 billion years old.