Science and the meaning of life

JetRanger
And Fig knows what it is, the original version. The Bible as Scripture was compiled after the Babylonian captivity, when it climbed a bunch of pagan ideas. By the way, different Christian churches believe, not all canonical Scripture, but only part of them. This is the official info available on the wiki though. But all the books revered by the Zoroastrians (something they are called), that they who believe in the first wife Lilith, and so the Orthodox Church decided not to include in the Canon.
---Funny out. What to include or not in the Canon, too, the people decide, not God.

ImKabachok
just the opposite - it is written that God spoke over the snake.

Gauguin
Where was your God when you cautioned?

Self-Relliant wrote:
In Christianity, the meaning of human life consists in assimilation to God
Ie - to be a slave, because religioznyh sources often used the concept of the servant of God. That in fact is the justification for slavery. In other words, the religion contradicts itself. On the one hand the person the right to answer for their actions, on the other hand, is nothing more than a pawn in the hands of a crafty Creator.
Self-Relliant wrote:
With the help of science, we used the methods of rational thinking and received technical progress
Progress is an integral part of the change of matter. From matter under the influence of the laws of nature created the stars and planets, which are billions of years evolyutsioniruet life. And people - not the top of this progress.
Self-Relliant wrote:
however, the question about the meaning of life scientists bypass alone
The meaning of life is a subjective concept. For every thinking individual can be your meaning of life. Question (?) whether it is acceptable to others and most.
Self-Relliant wrote:
Scientists the question of the origin of the universe, why it is considered more important than the scientific search for the meaning of life.
What is strange is that the meaning of life scientist-cosmology - the search for answers to the origin of the Universe. It is their meaning of life(see paragraph above).
Self-Relliant wrote:
Perhaps among you there are people with a scientific materialist view of the world. So, I want to receive from you any logical theory of the explanation of the meaning of life, preferably based on scientific methods and not inconsistent with the methods of official science.
The meaning of life is a subjective concept. Who can answer except you? Of course, it is possible for the basis of the meaning of life to adopt any generally accepted definition. For example, do good and throw it in the water...

Len4ik00N
But who? Satan? No, Satan in the old Testament does not exist, as Paradise and hell in the form of the kingdoms of heaven and an underground. Yes, and life after death nobody promised. Only came from the earth, the earth will be back.
--Heaven, hell, a good God, an evil Satan is a concept of Gentiles, and not monotheism. In Christianity they are, because we do not believe in the original religion of the Jews, and in the mix of our paganism and monotheism. Therefore, we honor a bunch of saints, worship the icons, believe in hell, I want to heaven I'm afraid of demons.
--And in the old Testament the whole World God created, and therefore he created and one of a kind a talking serpent with a penchant for intrigue? For all animals the book talked only with the direct help of God, from which I conclude that he deliberately tempt people through the serpent.
---Then you have two options.
First: his original plan was to cast people out of Heaven into the World to populate the Earth.
Second: God is really tempted to test how people follow his Torah, not to eat from the tree. But then what comes out? It turns out the Creator is not so great to create a loyal and obedient people? Of course, he gave man a Will to decide and choose, but human decisions are based on his upbringing. Ie either he's a bad teacher, whether he originally created empty (from the point of view of education) of a person prone to disobedience.

yariko.v wrote:
Ie - to be a slave, because religioznyh sources often used the concept of the servant of God. That in fact is the justification for slavery.
What a concept servant of God is an excuse for slavery? In this concept, the word slave is primarily used for clarity, to emphasize how insignificant the situation of man in relation to God, and to the position of people relative to each other, this expression does not apply. For this is the commandments and teachings of type love your neighbor, all are equal before God etc. the fact that throughout history many people (including a super-mega-religious) is pleased to have benefited from the existence of the slave system, and actively supported it until the improvements teachings from the Bible (usually by pulling out of context certain words and phrases that could change their meaning quite the opposite), quite clearly explains why there are so many contradictions, as between the teachings of different religions, and in particular, and also why for many people religion is just a formality, or a lever of influence on society. Unfortunately, there are many examples, like the existing religions, which, to put it mildly, complicates the choice.

ImKabachok
don't know which old Testament You read, but even those who have not read it, know that Satan is there. In order not to be unfounded, here's one of the most famous examples: the first Chapter of the book of job verse 6:"And there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord; between them and Satan came also. On the basis of the narrative of this book Goethe wrote Faust may have heard about this.
ImKabachok wrote:In all animals the book talked only with the direct help of God, from which I conclude that he deliberately tempt people through snake
Sounds logical, unless you consider the fact that in the Bible Satan is also called ancient serpent and he often directly or indirectly attributed to this dialogue in Eden. Moreover, this balance better fits in the Biblical concept of good and evil, than the miracle of the serpent-anarchist or God-conspirator.
ImKabachok wrote:
---Then you have two options.
First: his original plan was to cast people out of Heaven into the World to populate the Earth.
Second: God is really tempted to test how people follow his Torah, not to eat from the tree. But then what comes out? It turns out the Creator is not so great to create a loyal and obedient people? Of course, he gave man a Will to decide and choose, but human decisions are based on his upbringing. Ie either he's a bad teacher, whether he originally created empty (from the point of view of education) of a person prone to disobedience.
According to the Bible, the original plan of God to populate the Earth, making all its Paradise, and not to leave a piece of Paradise and to expel his people.
The existence of freedom of will implies the ability to make including the wrong things, so it would be correct to say that God did not create human beings with a penchant for disobedience, and with the ability to perform. As compensation for this side effect of free will Adam and eve were well aware of the possible consequences of each option choice, therefore, is not to say that they were treated unfairly or poorly educated, of course, except for the standard of education training.

Len4ik00N
the problem is that God was not enough wonders or people who always need to show one more miracle, because they have too short a memory?
The problem is that the world is constantly new people come, which God in any case had to be separately notified about its existence. Miracles could be a good way to do it if to make them much as you need to convince everyone. It is not short memory of people about the new generations, who, not having seen the evidence first hand, have every reason to doubt the veracity of the stories of their ancestors.
As compensation for this side effect of free will Adam and eve were well aware of the possible consequences of each options
Really? They then very, very sorry that disobeyed God. Decided if they are in disobedience and repented and then, if initially fully know what it is they face?

One thing - the Devil, it is absolutely a conscious rebel, and quite another - they deceived the people would hardly come to mind to taste the forbidden fruit, Snakes if they are not persuaded.

No joke, the Creator himself has made it clear that to touch the fruit of that particular tree, to put it mildly, not worth it. It would seem, is clear enough. Nevertheless, some strange snakes, no straining, inspires people something in the spirit of Yes, He was joking. And those, like small children, immediately bought it. At least that is the impression the legend of the Fall - that Adam and eve rather victims of their own naivety (bordering on stupidity) than a full-fledged apostates.

JetRanger wrote:
The problem is that the world is constantly new people come, which God in any case had to be separately notified about its existence.
and how then is it that the ancient Israelites who saw all the 10 plagues, miraculously freed from slavery in Egypt, miraculously got everything right in the middle of the desert, ceased to obey God and began to little old him with his whining so that he had a bit to extend their journey? And it's not the only such case. Plus, according to the Bible, God created everything, so evidence of its existence is so everywhere that one of them is you. I have to warn you that the example I gave is just for illustrative purposes and without the purpose of anyone to provoke or to breed srach and demagogy, in relation to the theories of the origin of the universe, people, etc. If you really burns on the subject, you are welcome in the corresponding forum thread
Spoiler(http://forums.playground.ru/talk/society/teoriya_darvina_8212_lozh-936042/)If described in the Bible sounds too fantastic, not realistic, etc., then here it is a vivid example of life: all (or almost all) know that you can get into an accident, if you violate traffic rules. The Internet is full of real videos showing the consequences of an accident, and among friends there will certainly be a witness or participant of this event, perhaps even find a friend who already anybody of anything cannot tell, but it doesn't stop many at all. And there are people who don't need extra motivation to deliberately behave on the road. Therefore, it is clearly not in awareness or conviction, and in the people.
Regarding Adam and eve you said that
JetRanger wrote:
the Creator himself has made it clear that to touch the fruit of that particular tree, to put it mildly, not worth it.
.
If the child, which parents not to eat sweets due to diabetes, simultaneously explaining the consequences in case of disobedience, decide to listen to some left man offering chocolate, then can it be considered a victim of its own naivety, and not disobedience? Or to blame the parents in insolvency, bad parenting or lack of control? Regarding the latter, partly Yes, because children are not sufficiently developed, independent, and most importantly - they have a somewhat blunted sense of danger. But what if such a case happens when the child is not 5-10 years, but 30 or even 50?
Adam and eve was much older, at least they clearly were fully formed adults, but because of illness did not exist, then dementia, Alzheimer's, etc. can be discarded. But for all this, they decided to believe the serpent, who was seen for the first time, instead of God, who knew all his life. As the saying goes: people believe what they want to believe. And innocence has nothing to do with.

Len4ik00N
Well, you can probably so is interpreted - complete disobedience on the part of Grandparents, and then repentance, whereby they become like the Devil with no chance of forgiveness.
However, the details of the narrative, IMHO, give a significant place suspiciously Snake-like, without his intervention people would think it is not thought of disobedience.

In any case, just say that the biblical story for me - fiction, as well as all the other ancient Holy book. Is this realistic fiction or realistic - to me that makes no difference. To discuss the details I took then, it was interesting to hear an example of how this is all playing supporters of the veracity of these legends.

and how then is it that the ancient Israelites who saw all the 10 plagues, miraculously freed from slavery in Egypt, miraculously got everything right in the middle of the desert, ceased to obey God and began to little old him with his whining so that he had a bit to extend their journey? And it's not the only such case.
And these Israelites all went just fairly. People saw with their own eyes the powerful intervention of reasonable force, this is important. How to live with this knowledge and how to relate to this higher power is a personal matter. They chose whining - so much the worse for them. They're them. Any other people in their place would have reacted differently. Ingratitude separate the crowd one time in history - a bad excuse for God not to reveal himself to his own creations in a while.

JetRanger wrote:
Ingratitude separate the crowd one time in history - a bad excuse for God not to reveal himself to his own creations in a while.
where did you read that it was an isolated case? Although I'm more interested in another question: why God did manifest himself to his own creations, and so if there are people who believe in him? For fun or what?

JetRanger wrote:
Well not so foolish to forget really obvious.
So. You instinctively be afraid of the dark for example, although the reason 100% sure that no one in it.
JetRanger wrote:
However, the miracles he has worked, and is unlikely to entertain the idle public.
Just making sure in faith. He even repeatedly asking people about it.
JetRanger wrote:
faith is not pure and sincere, and simply unreasonable
That is pure and sincere. With the wonders of faith - not faith. Any wimp would believe in God if he can conjure up ice cream, it's not a test.
JetRanger wrote:
The fact of the injustice
Christianity is a religion of mercy, not justice.

Gauguin wrote:
With the wonders of faith - not faith
and faith without evidence is a diagnosis, what disappointing.
Gauguin wrote:
Christianity is a religion of mercy, not justice.
And what about the expression: Each will be rewarded according to his deeds, eye for an eye, etc.?

Len4ik00N
where did you read that it was an isolated case?
I was talking specifically about the Exodus, since you mentioned it before. How much ingratitude was all - I don't know, but at least a hundred, five hundred, the essence remains the same.
why God did manifest himself to his own creations, and so if there are people who believe in him? For fun or what?
And how to become a loving Creator require of the creature of blind faith, if reciprocity the two parties should at least know that they both exist? If God wants me any way he was treated, then I start to have to know that I do have someone to whom to relate. Don't hide parents from children, friends from friends and mentors from students. Where to hide the Creator from his creations, if it these creations are not indifferent?

Gauguin
So. You instinctively be afraid of the dark for example, although the reason 100% sure that no one in it.
I don't know, I don't know... Okay, we can assume that the mind of Adam and eve, sinned against. Besides, I think I said something similar a long time ago, that they have the abilities immediately lost at that crucial point and became as we mere mortals.
Just making sure in faith. He even repeatedly asking people about it.
At the same time, some then say Truly you are the son of God!, apparently impressed by the incident. Presumably, not all originally believed.
With the wonders of faith - not faith.
This is not blind faith. And it is very good when faith is not blind. And best of all - absolutely accurate knowledge, without any admixture of faith (but this ideal, in fact we technically can't know anything 100%).
Any wimp would believe in God if he can conjure up ice cream, it's not a test.
Why such a test - the test of faith do you need? For some it is far-fetched.
And then, in all important Affairs of his life, we are guided by logic, reason, and not faith. And rationality the more we have, the more important the job they do. Why is suddenly the Most Important of the Important Issues of Life And Death should be radically contrary, and faith suddenly turns into a virtue?
Christianity is a religion of mercy, not justice.
Good mercy, when we are born into the world tainted by original sin, and the nature of our default fallen, and the suffering of innocents everywhere... I say, prison is inherited. What kind of mercy.

JetRanger wrote:
If God wants me any way he was treated, then I start to have to know that I do have someone to whom to relate.
and for that, I understand, you wish he told you that or something like that? Reminiscent of the position of people who claim that the Earth is not the kernel, because no one saw him.

Veenine wrote:
Nonsense from the first line :) Many materialists just the same childfree. For example, I.
So you're not a true materialist (not 100%), but mixed with something else ) And nothing strange in this. I only have 100% of materilizm - what it is in its extremes. For example, faith, elevated to the extreme, it is just religious fanaticism...

Veenine wrote:
Morality in science is nonsense, morality is not for the materialist, it is impossible to determine and touch.
Chitani from Dawkins "the God delusion", it is clearly painted, why religion is not the source of morality and why atheists are not free from morality.
Past since I did not say that the source of morality is a religion (lol). I also believe that religion is not to blame. A source in the us. At least you catch the essence: materialism denies the morality for the reason that it cannot be proved by the scientific method (and generally any). Exactly what I said.

Veenine wrote:
There are no such facts that you reviewed the Ren-TV and believe in what you like.
I was also interested to see a video about obscurantism REN-TV. If everything said there is true, the owners of the channel not show himself from the best side, pulling phrase invited guests out of context, distorting the meaning.

Veenine wrote:
Religious dogma based solely on ancient texts which cannot be considered more reliable than the rest of the mythology, and the scientific picture of the world on facts. That is why science works and religion — the common verbiage.
Religion also works very well ;] How many believers in the world?...

ImKabachok wrote:
1) Children and procreation. The saddest, to me, the meaning of life. Because many for this absolutely slaughtered in my own life, on their development and interests. What would it be?
Heresy turns 8) Millions of couples with kids around the world bet with you regarding score on their interests and development...

JetRanger wrote:
Though if so to argue, what prevents God to convey his mega-message directly (as possible), without Messiahs and prophets?
There is nothing stopping. But then the question of faith will disappear, and come all the *knowledge* that It Is ) what's wrong? Then how do I know, the Idea of It, the idea... ways that are inscrutable and all that (well, Yes, but this explanation)...

JetRanger wrote:
I am amazed how it all fit Christians in the head.
Me too ) But since I am a believer and acknowledge the Christian God, so I conclude, the Bible can not be true, and therefore we do not understand it. So, obviously, the meaning of the text is not, we think, when we read word for word. How complicated it is )

JetRanger wrote:
Conclusion - if God is revealed to humanity, draw free will would not suffer. Everyone would be better off.
It is believed that once God spoke directly to people (not all, by the way, those all went to the Slavs), and even paganism itself was not... This, by the way. Since we are talking about the Phenomenon. Why was that, and then became different? Why he ceased to communicate directly, and then only faith is left? Don't know, but probably the reasons were trivial ) More interesting question is *when* it was (already beginning to conflict with the official history of mankind, well, okay, what we have here is the norm =))

JetRanger wrote:
And then, in all important Affairs of his life, we are guided by logic, reason, and not faith.
And intuition is what area is that?


ImKabachok wrote:
why the Orthodox Church decided not to include in the Canon.
Reincarnation...

JetRanger
Difficult to talk about what's described in the Bible, if you do not adhere to any particular framework. For example, to start with, before you can discuss the points related to Adam and eve, it would be useful to understand how scientifically true, real position, that all men went from these two? It seems to me, science would have given a definite answer, the essence of which is contained in one simple word: nonsense ) So... narrow-eyed, Negroes and whites, Indians and all the rest all went from these two? AHEM...
But no, if you thought I was going to finish my thought on this, it's not that )) If the theory of human evolution is true, then the same narrow-eyed, black, white, Indians and others - from a type of Primate? Humanlike primates, too, were once monkeys, right? I wonder what monkeys hatched Chinese, eskimo, Anglo-Saxon, Negro, Aztec and Indian. ) The list of monkeys in the Studio!

A. Soldier of Light
I wonder what monkeys hatched Chinese, eskimo, Anglo-Saxon, Negro, Aztec and Indian. ) The list of monkeys in the Studio!
All modern humans descended from a single ancestral population of early Homo sapiens. The division into races is a relatively late feature of our species. From what I know, initially, all sapiens had dark skin, because we lived in Africa. Then some of the lighter as you move North in Europe and mixing with Neanderthals, and those that remained on the Continent - were the ancestors of modern Africans.

As for the origin of Homo sapiens, in related species of the genus Homo is easy to get confused - they are often too similar to each other, so sometimes it's hard to judge where a species or race, and even more difficult to determine who's who as a relative was.

In such a tangle can only be in General terms, to trace a series of anatomical changes that resulted in sapiens (and some others reasonable). If you try to illustrate this a series of particular known types, you get something like a chain Australopithecus-->Homo habilis-->Homo erectus-->Homo sapiens.

But this, of course, a wild simplification. In real life there is only one bunch of erectus species was, almost throughout Eurasia, and later forms became extinct quite recently (about 150,000 years ago), is not excluded that from-for suddenly validating sapiens.

PS: interestingly, erectus means rectified, although it is now known that two legs went all of our anthropoid ancestors, even before Australopithecus. The stereotype of the monkey climbed down from the tree and straightened it's time to go down in history, so as to straighten at the time it was simply nothing. And modern gorillas and chimpanzees, preferring to walk on all four, are innovators in their characteristic gait on the knuckles of the fingers.

P. P. S.: by the Way, ever seen the running of the Gibbon? A hilarious spectacle. ))

\\\
At the same time answer old comments, since he then missed (notifications of replies don't come if you don't use the button answer).
And intuition is what area is that?
The brain analyzes the lion's share of incoming information subconsciously. We eye notice all sorts of subtle details, we hear barely primitivies to the common background sounds, etc can slip past our immediate, informed, clustered attention (whose focus for anybody not a secret - very narrow), but the brain nevertheless, takes note of this and gives us the finished result - an intuitive feeling or a hunch.

since I came back...

Len4ik00N
JetRanger wrote:
If God wants me any way he was treated, then I start to have to know that I do have someone to whom to relate.

and for that, I understand, you wish he told you that or something like that? Reminiscent of the position of people who claim that the Earth is not the kernel, because no one saw him.
The earth's core makes no difference, we know about it or not. God, as Creator, must do. If he does not care what we think, it is not exactly the God of the Abrahamic religions. This is the kind of faceless, indifferent, abstract higher power, which with the same success could not exist.

In short, God either does not exist or he wants me to think he's gone, or he simply doesn't care about us. And I have no reason to think otherwise (even if I wanted to), if he himself will not reveal anyway.

JetRanger wrote:
God, as Creator, must do.
Not necessarily, God could do his work without the knowledge creation, where it all happened. Otherwise it is just that you speak for Him as if you know/understand His plan and obzar thinking (a projection of human thought onto God, Oh, how funny it looks) =]

JetRanger wrote:
Then some of the lighter as you move North in Europe
And is that a statement or an assumption? 8) Gone, you see, in a future Europe and then to Asia and America (even so, in both!)...

JetRanger wrote:
it is difficult to judge where a species or race, and even more difficult to determine who's who as a relative was.
Well nefig and then to say that man evolved from monkeys(podobnych ancestors) -)

JetRanger wrote:
Australopithecus-->Homo habilis-->Homo erectus-->Homo sapiens.
Why so few? Continue the chain in the reverse order: who was Australopithecus, and so on.

JetRanger wrote:
The brain analyzes the lion's share of incoming information subconsciously. We eye notice all sorts of subtle details, we hear barely primitivies to the common background sounds, etc can slip past our immediate, informed, clustered attention (whose focus for anybody not a secret - very narrow), but the brain nevertheless, takes note of this and gives us the finished result - an intuitive feeling or a hunch.
The answer read, but the conclusion is not a fact that is true.