Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

soph · 2002-12-05 20:37:25

exactly-and what about the universe itself? what are its "boundaries" (assuming its not round) made of? even if it is round, what is it contained in? whats at the core? so many questions. where did the material that was contained in the big bang come from? what if the universe is only like a galaxy, and we exist in the same "dimension" as many other universes (well, they wouldnt be universes, but mega-galaxies?)?

AltToWar · 2002-12-05 20:43:33

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."

- Napoleon

soph · 2002-12-05 21:15:03

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

-Karl Marx

I agree with nothing else he says though lol

AltToWar · 2002-12-05 21:22:20

I think you can safely replace 'Religion' in both these quotes with Cable TV to update them to modern times.

clark · 2002-12-06 10:51:41

That is funny Alt. LOL.

Asking what is beyond god, or what is beyond the universe is a question without an answer.

Here is another, what is perception beyond our own?

What sense is their beyond our own sense?

How would we even recognize it?

What is the fundamental difference between a universe spawned from probability happen-stance, or a universe designed by some other?

Does either view change our position or our reality in any measurable way?

If we accept one as true, and the other as not, what changes about us, or the universe?

Religion as the opiate fo the masses, perhaps.

Others Belief used as a tool for selfish personal gain, true.

Religion is not the culprit, merely the victim. Religion, is belief.

Imagine if you awoke one day to find that Zubrin had made everything up, that he encited a belief in others for his own personal gain.

Would you blame Zubrin or the belief that man can colonize mars?

Meanwhile, I'm going to buy some stock in his new company that formed in Colorado, and buy a few more of his books- and not to mention listen to those speeches he gets paid to make.

Palomar · 2002-12-06 11:30:58

Religion is not the culprit, merely the victim.

*That is funny, Clark. LOL.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/jbconv15.htm

Jean Meslier was a Catholic priest who lived in the 18th century. He died an "infidel."

! ---> BE WARNED: This reading is not for the faint of heart.
Anyone who reads it does so at their own discretion and upon their own responsibility.

Beyond this, I don't care to get into a discussion on religion.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-12-06 12:09:43

Too bad Meisler lacked the conviction to publish or acknoledge his deeply held beliefs while he lived.

His manuscripts were published after his death, not before.

His views should also be looked at in the context of the time in whcih he wrote; given that he was performing in a function as leader of a faith in which he felt no belief- he admitted to only choosing the priesthood to apease his father.

He practiced a faith in a country historically torn apart by the various religious beliefs, and exploited by the ruling elite (napoleon proclaimign himself emperor...)

The faint of heart should always fear to tread wear life long hypocrites lead.

Palomar · 2002-12-06 12:22:42

Too bad Meisler lacked the conviction to publish or acknoledge his deeply held beliefs while he lived.
His manuscripts were published after his death, not before.
His views should also be looked at in the context of the time in whcih he wrote; given that he was performing in a function as leader of a faith in which he felt no belief- he admitted to only choosing the priesthood to apease his father.
He practiced a faith in a country historically torn apart by the various religious beliefs, and exploited by the ruling elite (napoleon proclaimign himself emperor...)
The faint of heart should always fear to tread wear life long hypocrites lead.

*Yes, it reflects poorly on him that he waited until his death for his "Testament" to come to light.

However, to have done so would surely have resulted in being broken on the wheel (death by slow torture) or being burned alive.

Would -you- have the courage to make your viewpoints publically known, if facing certain similar punishment for doing so? It's so easy, isn't it, sitting here in the cushy U.S.A. with all our freedoms and liberties, being able to say, think, yell, write, etc., whatever we want and forget the very high and extremely painful prices others pay and have had to pay for voicing their opinions.

I don't call Meslier a hypocrite. He was an unfortunate man caught in very unfortunate circumstances.

And the circumstances of his life, and the fact that "My Testament" didn't come to public awareness until after his death, does ::NOT:: negate the long historical fact of religion having happily played the role of oppressor, inquisitor, and persecutor more times than most people care to admit.

The truth is still the truth.

And it doesn't take much guts to side with the oppressors.

--Cindy

P.S.: Meslier lived *before* the time of Napoleon, when the Roman Catholic church still owned much of France, people could still be tortured to death for daring to question church authority, and the Jesuits were still in power.

clark · 2002-12-06 12:33:47

I find fault with a man who decries those who take liberty with the ill gotten gains of the exploitation of a belief, yet lived exactly the type of life of the people he decries in his texts.

He was unfortunate that he was unable to express his convictions while he lived, yet no one forced him to live the life of a priest as an adult.

It's similar to my feelings towards certain televangilists who decry sin, yet live the life of decadant sin.

The man has the conviction to espouse his views in death due to circumstance, but not the conviction to at least live them in life?

He is nothing more than a coward.

PS- Religion is not the culprit, even Miseler admits that, it is those who seek to use Religion as a tool to secure their prosperity at the exspense of others.

Palomar · 2002-12-06 12:48:05

I find fault with a man who decries those who take liberty with the ill gotten gains of the exploitation of a belief, yet lived exactly the type of life of the people he decries in his texts.
He was unfortunate that he was unable to express his convictions while he lived, yet no one forced him to live the life of a priest as an adult.
It's similar to my feelings towards certain televangilists who decry sin, yet live the life of decadant sin.
The man has the conviction to espouse his views in death due to circumstance, but not the conviction to at least live them in life?
He is nothing more than a coward.

*And you are a simple critic who refuses to see the bigger picture of the time and circumstances in which Meslier lived.

I repeat my question [which you neglected to answer for whatever reason]: Would -you- have the courage to make your viewpoints publically known, if facing certain similar punishment for doing so [broken on the wheel/burned to death]?

You also are forgetting, or just plain don't know, that in Meslier's time and place, people didn't just "up and get" a new job, a new career, moving to California to "start a new life," etc.

The economic situation, class structure of France, and generally miserable and impoverished lives of poor people like Meslier essentially meant a "life sentence" of being permanently trapped in their roles. But apparently you don't understand this; you probably have little working knowledge of 18th century Europe, much less France itself; heck, you thought Napoleon was in power during Meslier's time!

And since you seem bent on smearing Meslier's name, I'll add that though Meslier was poor, he lived as humbly as possible and gave as much of his food and money to his poor parishoners as he was able; much UNLIKE most others in the priesthood, who lived in as much luxury and plenty as they could squeeze out of their parishoners.

There's a much larger picture you're not seeing. Hopefully I've helped to provide a better view.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-12-06 12:52:16

PS- Religion is not the culprit, even Miseler admits that, it is those who seek to use Religion as a tool to secure their prosperity at the exspense of others.

*I see you added a "PS" while I was typing out my last response.

Yes, religion can be used this way. But religion also panders to superstition and irrational beliefs. That is its other major fault.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-12-06 13:12:07

. . . negate the long historical fact of religion having happily played the role of oppressor, inquisitor, and persecutor more times than most people care to admit.
The truth is still the truth.

Agreed.

Now suppose a major religious leader frankly acknowledges this historical fact as true, apologizes and vows to do better in the future, can "religion" be forgiven or do you believe all religion must be abolished for its past sins?

If religion is to be abolished, how will that be accomplished?

clark · 2002-12-06 13:14:23

Since you have said that you don't want to discuss religion itself, I will refrain- however, Meisler is another story...

Perhaps I am a simple critic, I assume as much, because there is nothing obviously complex in my criticism. The man lived a life of fraud. He lived a life against his very own principles. He did so not to save his life, but to simply maintain his way of life. I agree, this is a simple criticism, I guess it is so simple, because there is nothing overly complex about the situation to begin with. What other complex criticism might I offer?

As to your question, I assumed it to be rhetorical, but I will now address it as seriously as I can. Would I have the conviction to let my viewpoint be know if such views would lead to my certain death? It depends on the situation really. However, more tan likely, and in all honesty, I would not. The simple reason being, espousing my views is usually not so important that I would trade my life. That being said, I am fairly certain, as anyone can be, that I would not practice a way of life, or further that way of life if I did not agree with it. Meslier's life was not endangered by not being a priest- his security and way of life were. He took the pragmatic approach, and played his part until his death, even though he disagreed with it.

I understand that people don't "up and get" in his times, that such an undertaking is daunting. However, I do not accept that excuse as a legitimate reason to practice a way of life he did not believe in. He was in effect, part of the problem, and did absolutely nothing to change the obvious wrongs he saw. He chose the safest route, and the least dangerous to his welfare.

I probably have less working knowledge of 18th century France than you, and my simple mistake of thinking Napoleon was before Mesiler, having ruled France from 1769 - 1821 was a legitimate mistake- after all, they both existed in the same century, even if Meisler death preceded Napoleon by 30 years. Perhaps I should refresh my memory on important dates in France. The point though still stands that France had a rather notorious past with religion and the ruling elite.

I am not bent on smearing Meisler name, he has no name to smear. He was a coward who lived a life of fraud, and perpetuated a system of belief he despised because he couldn't disappoint his father. He was never his own man in life, so why should he be given any respect in death?

Palomar · 2002-12-06 13:42:37

*Clark: You're entitled to your opinion of Meslier as a "coward." However, I believe you continue to miss the larger picture of the economics, class structures, and iron-clad LACK of opportunity of the time and place in which he lived. It's akin to calling the women who lived under Taliban rule in Afghanistan "cowards", which I think is silly because Meslier and those women weren't living in the USA. And if, as you said, "Meslier has no name [to smear]," why are you talking about him? Why do people still refer to his writings centuries later? Enough said.

Bill writes: Agreed.

Now suppose a major religious leader frankly acknowledges this historical fact as true, apologizes and vows to do better in the future, can "religion" be forgiven or do you believe all religion must be abolished for its past sins?

*Such a religious leader should be given the benefit of the doubt for his apology and recognition of past abuses. However, there'll still be wolves in the fold who will continue the abuses in the name of religion.

Religion can probably never be abolished. Apparently many people have a ::need:: in their lives for religion. I don't personally understand this need myself. I'm inclined to think the human race would be better off without religion, but that's just my opinion. I won't demand that religion be abolished, simply because I don't recognize or honor the demands of certain religious people that I must abolish my non-religious beliefs and sentiments.

Bill: If religion is to be abolished, how will that be accomplished?

*The only way religion could be abolished is for the human race to reject superstition and irrational beliefs...which will likely never happen.

Here's a quote I'll share from my mailing list, which I think applies to the conversation, and is actually a bit "religion friendly":

From: "ecrasez_l_infame" <ecrasez_l_infame@-----.com>
Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 pm
Subject: The Importance of the Encyclopedia Project

Mr. Stephen J. Gendzier, editor and translator of a book I have
regarding the Encyclopedia project and Diderot's role in it, has
summed up beautifully the primary importance of the Encyclopedia, and
what this project has meant to the Western world. As he has summed up
its attributes and results more eloquently than I can, I'll quote him briefly:

"The Encyclopedists helped to destroy the cliches, prejudices, and
ignorance of the past. They made fanaticism, superstition, and
intolerance unfashionable, calling these excesses by their proper
names. ****They broke the stranglehold of the Church on man's soul,
making it preferable for all religions to evolve a more humane
approach to human beings.**** Their liberal political ideas were
directly incorporated into the _Declaration of the Rights of Man and
the Citizen_, establishing a powerful tradition in western
civilization. The pursuit of happiness, the question of our time,
was a principle and a consequence of their thinking. Above all, the
inalienable rights of all individuals to follow their own ways of
life..."

--Cindy

P.S.: Mr. Gendzier's statements were written in the 1960s.

clark · 2002-12-06 14:49:07

Thank you for acknowledging my entitlement of opinion regarding the character of Meslier, even if in the same breath you look to discount said opinion by characterizing it as lacking an understanding of the times in which Meslier lived. I also find your analogy questionable, considering that Meslier was in no way coerced to continue performing a function he so detested; the women oppressed under Taliban rule had no options- Meslier did. If you refer to the text that you pointed out, you might notice his call to action, a call he apparently was unable to accept as his own. As to why I am talking about Meslier, I was merely pointing out some obvious character deficiencies in the man- which you seem to fault me for pointing out.

I am not faulting the poor wretched soul for his words, there is some truth in what he says. I merely point out that he was aware of this truth, yet did nothing about it, in any way. In deed, he demonstrates the worst possible in a thinking individual, awareness of a problem, yet acceptance and contribution to it. He was part of the machine of oppression.

From adolescence, Meslier knew he did not believe what he was told to believe- and when he died at 55, he died as a priest. His words were taken from him after his death as a priest.

I am not sure why people still refer to his writings, all I can offer is that some people refer to the writings of Hitler as well. What exactly does that tell you?

Palomar · 2002-12-06 15:05:29

Thank you for acknowledging my entitlement of opinion regarding the character of Meslier, even if in the same breath you look to discount said opinion by characterizing it as lacking an understanding of the times in which Meslier lived.

*I see no contradiction, or compromise of intellectual integrity, in my stating you're entitled to your opinion -and- in pointing out your obvious lack information.

I'm not interested in splitting hairs with you, Clark. I'm also not interested in pursuing this particular aspect of this thread much further.

No matter how much you try to shoot down the messenger (Meslier), the message itself stands.

You've stated your views, I've stated mine.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-12-06 15:06:57

I agree.

You are entitled to your wrong opinion as much as I.

And his message is nothing more than stating that religion is used by others to further their own personal desires, it was not an actual condemenation of religion (at least the text you linked to).

Palomar · 2002-12-06 16:23:15

your too soft on the guys here.

*Hi Nida. Actually, I find that most of the guys here are cool and easy to interact with. This is definitely one of -the- best cyberforums [especially when compared to some of the mega-hostile and nasty forums out there].

As for my being "soft" on the guys here...well, I don't feel most guys here push me into being hard on them. I find most conversation here challenging, intellectually stimulating, and oftentimes just plain fun. And if I feel someone needs a bop on the cybernose, they'll get it.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-07 02:29:47

Hi Cindy!

Why the dire warning about reading Jean Meslier's last testament?

As far as I could tell, the whole thing was just common sense from beginning to end.

:0

And Nida ... !

Lay off us poor innocent menfolk willya?!! We've never done anything wrong.

Wanna hear a good joke?:

Q. Why did the housewife cross the road?
A. The ROAD?!! ... What was she doing out of the
KITCHEN?!!!!!

Calm down, calm down ... I was only revving you up for fun!

Phobos · 2002-12-07 14:58:04

Wanna hear a good joke?:
Q. Why did the housewife cross the road?
A. The ROAD?!! ... What was she doing out of the
KITCHEN?!!!!!

Shaun can you write me into your will before the day is out?

Palomar · 2002-12-07 16:04:33

Hi Cindy!
Why the dire warning about reading Jean Meslier's last testament?
As far as I could tell, the whole thing was just common sense from beginning to end.
:0

*Only because I know it most likely will offend the religious sentiments of some folks who read it. And as this is a public forum, I want to try to avoid people going ballistic about not being warned in advance of what they're about to read. It's a courtesy to them and a safety measure for me.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-12-07 16:08:14

Wanna hear a good joke?:
Q. Why did the housewife cross the road?
A. The ROAD?!! ... What was she doing out of the
KITCHEN?!!!!!
Shaun can you write me into your will before the day is out?

*Hmmmm. Why does the image of Shaun getting a pot of spaghetti dumped over his head by his wife come to mind, should she know he says stuff like this? Hey Shaun, are you into the Noodle Fringe Look for hair?

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-07 22:11:39

Hi! This is Shaun's wife speaking.

Shaun is currently unable to post on this thread due to second degree burns of the scalp and face.

Boy, was that spaghetti HOT !!!

[He's not expected out of intensive care before Christmas!]

soph · 2002-12-07 22:14:33

hahahahah, classic

Auqakah · 2002-12-08 11:05:43

Ahem. I read through this just now. And... well. Few points.

1.

I see the topic has been left behind. Doesn't matter, because its been dumped for a very interesting subject. On the topic of the universe being created/coming into existance of its own accord, I have a point to make.

If the universe did, at some point, not exist... then what preceded it? If the answer to that is nothing... which it isn't, incidentally... then that makes no sense.

So. There were, in all likelihood, several universes preceding this one. But they weren't stable enough to survive long (or perhaps they were), and collapsed, spawning the next one. Eventually, or quickly, whichever, we get to the creation of this universe. This one, assuming its the first to have managed to do so, manages what the others didnt - it survives long enough to become complex, but not too complex that it collapses in on itself again.

Now then... What is this easiest way to develop software if you have a massive, unending budget?

Why, create software which will create second generation software which will create third generation software... and so on, until you reach the point you were aiming for. Sound familiar?

I happen to believe that God created the universe, and everything in it. But I believe that when God did so, He (or She, I'm not fussy, but I'm used to He) set down rules. After all, He wanted things to be consistent. And so He started with the beginning, and created a beginning which would - because of the laws/rules He had created - eventually spawn the universe, the Creation, He was striving for. Naturally, this is a very loose description. But thats about the gist of it.

2.

I object to the Bible being referred to as mythical, but I'll let you all off on that one.

3.

The oldest religious text in existance is the Sumerian Book. Can't remember its name, though. But, anyway. There are startling similarities between the Book and the Bible; except, the stories in the Book are somewhat reversed. Whereas the Bible preaches goodwill and so on and so forth, the Book preaches death, destruction, and general chaos. Interestingly, it puts special importance on music. Anyway, there was this chap in the Book called Bel-Marduk - may have heard of him. He was the 'best' of all the 'prophets' in the Book - a man-god, apparently. But we was a rather evil fellow, and was somewhat responsible for the fall of Sumeria. Chopping heads off left right and center, and whatnot. Nasty fellow, really. But getting back to the point. The Sumerian Book was (the original version, which is now long-lost - although some copies are around, they aren't known to be 100% accurate - was the source for the Egyptian Black Arts, incidentally) inked 3,000 years prior to the Judeo-Christian Bible. But, get this; the Book had been lost for over a thousand years during the time-frame that most of the Bible was written in. The Sumerian text spoke of the flood; it even mentioned Noah. And there was even a Revelations at the end... although it was a mirror version.

But the Book had been lost, so there is no question of copying. Explain that.

As for flood myths cropping up all over the place - thats just evidence of a massive flooding event in humanities past. Something as traumatic as the world being flooded would leave a huge imprint, psychologically, for years to come. So its no surprise that flood myths appear everywhere, really, is it?

4.

I love the post about the passage in the Bible in which God says, "Count the stars, if you can... for that shall be the number of all your descendants," as that has always seemed as something of an invitation... God saying, "Go. Explore. Colonize. Live among the stars."

Also, He charged Adam with the task of naming everything in Creation. Sounds like an invitation to science, to me.

5.

One last thing. Ah yes. I'd forgotten, briefly. ??? But now I've remembered. Yippee. Right.

Neither my faith, nor religion* (*excepting those few religions which advocate violence, and persecution, and general unpleasantness), is to blame for the persecution of anyone, at any time. No... it is the people who claim to follow said faith or religion who are to blame. They are the ones doing the killing, the murdering, the persecution. Not a book. Books and beliefs don't kill, unless wielded as weapons by the power-crazed. - And no, that is not the same argument as "Guns don't kill, its the people who wield them that do that." Its totally different, because a gun is made to kill people. Religion is not.

As for abolishing religion... 5 billion or so people might not like that idea all that much.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-12-05 20:37:25

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#27 2002-12-05 20:43:33

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#28 2002-12-05 21:15:03

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#29 2002-12-05 21:22:20

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#30 2002-12-06 10:51:41

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#31 2002-12-06 11:30:58

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#32 2002-12-06 12:09:43

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#33 2002-12-06 12:22:42

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#34 2002-12-06 12:33:47

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#35 2002-12-06 12:48:05

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#36 2002-12-06 12:52:16

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#37 2002-12-06 13:12:07

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#38 2002-12-06 13:14:23

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#39 2002-12-06 13:42:37

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#40 2002-12-06 14:49:07

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#41 2002-12-06 15:05:29

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#42 2002-12-06 15:06:57

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#43 2002-12-06 16:23:15

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#44 2002-12-07 02:29:47

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#45 2002-12-07 14:58:04

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#46 2002-12-07 16:04:33

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#47 2002-12-07 16:08:14

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#48 2002-12-07 22:11:39

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#49 2002-12-07 22:14:33

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

#50 2002-12-08 11:05:43

Re: Is there any point in wondering? - Isn't the question answered, after all?

Board footer