Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By jakesyl

Thread: Religion Vs. Time

  1. #1 Religion Vs. Time 
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    Hi all,

    I think one of the main problems about religion is the way it affects people’s thinking. George W. Bush is a prime example at this moment in time. His new “Faith-based” Initiative Law only spells trouble. When making a decision that matters, a person such as he must think with clarity and scientifically. The pros and cons can not be weighted fairly with religion taking a side. History’s full of it. And I have terrible feeling that Bush could fall for the same fate – and I say fall. In this day and age however, the stakes are higher; the planet is at stake in fact. Bush plays a part here also. Watching his State of the Union address for 2005 right now, I’m sure he is not allowed to clam that nuclear energy is clean and SAFE. All cars powered by hydrogen? Not yet. The damage may well have already been done to the Earth, not the subject however.

    The war in Iraq (Bush again) has an underlying fuel of religion – as all war does. An Al-qui-da should, in principle, kill a Christian for being just being Christian. How is the good for the human race? Now-a-days it seems religion is an “evolutionary tail” that should have dropped off a long time ago. Think about it.

    3200 BC. for example – Around the time of ‘Troy’, people did not know that the Sun was colossal sphere of hydrogen and helium; they explained these natural phenomenons with a much more likely theory – that Apollo drove a chariot of fire across the sky each day. ‘A much more likely theory’ is not me being sarcastic; science was just being created in ancient Greece. These God’s were the perfect way of explaining the Universe; divine and humanoid – how much more do you need to relate too? Apollo was carried through time, as were many God’s, into Roman culture. Apollo is one of the few that retained his name during this civilization swap. Still the truth behind the planets and their orbits were not known thus the story, although modified to suit the Romans, stayed the same. As time passed, and more and more scientific discoveries were made it became clear that Apollo and his chariot of fire did not exist, yet religion stood firm.

    The church ‘allowed’ these scientific explanations for natural phenomenon. Other theories such as the ones made by Galileo caused the church to take radical action; they put him under house arrest for just suggesting the Earth is not the centre of the Solar System but the Sun is. Galileo died still trapped in 1642, in 1974 Pope John Paul II decided that they were wrong and pardoned him – 332 years later.

    As science began to explain all these natural phenomenon that were classed as ‘acts of God’ before, the church had no chose but to stop regarding every astrophysical theory as heresy. Now at the time I can imagine some people thinking this was damn out of order and religion must of lost believers. Religious beliefs throughout history are full of these little shifts in thinking to try and stand up to against progressing science.

    Thus I fell that religion is fighting against time. Although I'm not considering the physiological level that religion plays on the human mind, in theory religion should slowly die (as it already began to do so) due to science gradually explaining everything that religion has to offer.

    8873tom.


    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    I don't think Bush's wars have anything to do with religion. It's about money and power, and if religion can be used to achieve those aims, then OK, anything goes. Jesus would not approve of most of the neo-con's activities.

    You paint religion with a broad brush, even within christianity, there is a wide variety of ideas, and early christinity was even more diverse. I think what you are getting at is people that are followers, and thus can be exploited, which is bad. The problem with Christianity is the church, which from the very beginning was contrary to the wisdom of Jesus, who wasn't the founder. In Islam, they respect Jesus as a prophet.

    Science does offer some convincing explanations for natural things, but it cannot replace religion, and shouldn't. Religion in general will not die, in fact it's future is bright, but it must adapt to changing times, and emerging truths. The religion of the future will be a kind technological paganism, and it's sacrement will be what humans have always used to experience the devine- entheogenic drugs derived from plants.


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    I wonder- why do we always say "nowadays"?

    Every generation has at least millions that think theirs is the most corrupt.
    And concerning Bush, why single him out?
    I can't think of any U.S. president, say, in the last 100 years that was not in some sense a 'believer'.

    Or is it that you don't like Bush and feel he's an imbecile?
    Too, I don't think he 'saves' Kurds and Shiites for morals, but for- wait for it- OIL.


    Still the truth behind the planets and their orbits were not known thus the story, although modified to suit the Romans, stayed the same. As time passed, and more and more scientific discoveries were made it became clear that Apollo and his chariot of fire did not exist, yet religion stood firm.
    Something I've learned in experience: one cannot fight unreason with reason.
    You cannot change unreason with reason because it requires reason where none is. Only time will.

    Scientists had been screaming for years that the myths were were just that, myths. But still the people did not listen as faith robs one of anything to listen, analyse, and interpret with.
    It took time to accept evolution, yet even now you can point to the virus or the breeding of canines as proof and still millions won't listen.

    Now-a-days it seems religion is an “evolutionary tail” that should have dropped off a long time ago. Think about it.
    I used to think the same- unitl Johnny died.

    Considering that millions put their lives on hold for the Vatican, and wept for this man that never once did a thing for them or crossed their mind save on Sunday when he was alive- this and the silly stupidity of their Catholic ceremonies with their 100 plus Cardinals like a red gash through the crowds- you cannot say religion is at the 'evolutionary tail' of existence, considering this.

    Least I can't.

    These weren't peasents - these were 'modern' people with cell phones, mortgages, and graduate degrees. Because self-rigtheous stupidity is eternal.

    Spidergoat:
    You paint religion with a broad brush, even within christianity, there is a wide variety of ideas, and early christinity was even more diverse.
    But I wonder if you would admit that fundemental thesis to any religion- either the instituional kind and intolerent or the loosely spiritual and more "tolerant"- is that its practioner believes he is right and others not so.
    That he is the enlightened, and them not.

    Saying that all followings share this in common is not painting with a broad brush.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    Of course power and money is the only thing interesting Bush, his using religion to gain what he so desires is what’s disturbing. God must have had some say in killing AT LEAST 21447 Iraqi civilians for oil, which is, lets face it, not "thin on the ground".

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

    Don't get me wrong; religion plays a very important part in any human society, in any point of our history - we wouldn’t be where we are now without it. Take a small group of our ancestors for example. This small group can achieve much greater feats, and thus survive and grow, with a common belief that pulls them together - that doesn’t mean Captain God is watching them, just like He didn’t watch the dinosaurs that were around before something awful happened to the temperature.

    Science does offer some convincing explanations for natural things
    Do you think that Genesis is a more convincing "theory" than the Big Bang model?

    The religion of the future will be a kind technological paganism
    Like it.

    Every generation has at least millions that think theirs is the most corrupt.
    And concerning Bush, why single him out?
    I don't think mine is the most corrupt; I think I'm very lucky to be living in the time that I am - and the fact that I grew up living in a country that brown-noses the US. I single Bush out because, a) at present, he's the most important man on the planet, and, b) because he and his friend's are lying to the planet - AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT!

    Something I've learned in experience: one cannot fight unreason with reason.
    You cannot change unreason with reason because it requires reason where none is. Only time will.
    That’s a chapter heading that one!

    you cannot say religion is at the 'evolutionary tail' of existence, considering this.
    Why not? That’s just people's lack of clarity.

    8873tom.
    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    But I wonder if you would admit that fundemental thesis to any religion- either the instituional kind and intolerent or the loosely spiritual and more "tolerant"- is that its practioner believes he is right and others not so.
    That he is the enlightened, and them not.

    Saying that all followings share this in common is not painting with a broad brush.
    From the persepective of Buddhism (or Taoism), which is my interest, this is not the case. True, the effect of most religions is devisive, but many others are only interested in the practitioner's well-being. Buddhists don't think they are right, since the truth of it cannot be put into words, it is the existential truth of what is, as opposed to a symbolic truth that says- "the truth is thus...". If religion is fighting against time, then only the timeless religions will thrive. Besides, if religion had no effect on a person so that they were different than everyone else, then there would be no point to it, it would be ineffectual.

    Do you think that Genesis is a more convincing "theory" than the Big Bang model?
    Obviously, the big bang model doesn't explain how that initial situation came to be. The scientific explanations are more suited to describing the relationships between existing things. It is important to recognize the limitations of science, isn't it? It was never intended to serve a psychological purpose in itself, but it's revealed truths can fuel philosophical debate.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    Hmmm, how would you describe the limitations of science?

    The scientific explanations are more suited to describing the relationships between existing things.
    Not at all; take biogenesis for example. New discoveries are being made at an awesome rate towards finding the origin of life. Although we may never know why it all came about, we are well on our way to finding out how and under what circumstances it did. Don't get me wrong, the end is nowhere near in sight yet, but considering the small amount of time the human race has been on this planet and the vast amount we already know - it makes you wonder.
    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    Yes, perhaps that statement is an oversimplification.

    An example of the limitations of science is weather prediction, which, although getting better, will never be perfect. The reason is the unpredictable chaos that can occur in systems with even simple rules. There would have to be an infinite number of sensors and an infinite amount of computing power to predict weather accurately. Another limitation, which is similar, is that the various fields of science are supposedly separate, although in reality, everything is connected. If our understanding of physics was correct, we should be able to extrapolate from that, say, who will win the next election, but that's not the case. Physics is supposed to be separate from biology, anthropology, economics, etc... Science also has another limitation, which is that exceptions to the rule are generally thrown out of experimental data. A freak reading, if anomolous, isn't considered important. It goes by statistics, so if you can read someone's mind once, but not many times, then that data is considered not significant, and thrown out, even though maybe that one time, you really could read someone's mind.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore 8873tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK, south-east.
    Posts
    104
    Ahhh Chaos. Order masquerading as randomness.

    May I point you towards Edward Lorenz if you’re going to start talking about the 'Butterfly Effect'?

    I can't talk too much on the subject plainly because I know little about it. But we live in a universe of non-linearity - something we may never come close to knowing about. I believe the second law of thermodynamics can be mentioned here; entropy. This comes back to biogenesis and the origin of life.

    Can anybody enlighten us on the subject of non-linearity? It would be much appreciated…
    What was God doing before He created the Universe?
    Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created Hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    28
    Religion will be destroyed by the passing of time, if the whole concept isn't a metaphor, along with every other human construct, burned away like straw.
    This doesn't mean that there aren't any relationships (to others, God, karmic forces, etc.), created within religious experience which could live on.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Abraxas,


    But I wonder if you would admit that fundemental thesis to any religion- either the instituional kind and intolerent or the loosely spiritual and more "tolerant"- is that its practioner believes he is right and others not so.
    That he is the enlightened, and them not.

    Saying that all followings share this in common is not painting with a broad brush.
    Everyone thinking anything thinks so: "I am right and you are not".
    Otherwise, we'd be paralysed with relativism.

    "I am right and you are not" is just a rewording of "My life is worth more to me than yours", which is basic self-preservation instinct.
    You really can't object to this.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore spidergoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    165
    Sometimes I'm right, sometimes not.
     

  13. #12  
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat
    Sometimes I'm right, sometimes not.
    Oh really? I'm always right.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    16
    It's just that our universe is so immensely complex, how things affect eachother in our universe, beiings... so complex, maybe we are a creation and science is just a way of understanding how everything is constructed.

    An amazing fact which I read about earlier today:
    Did you know that there is a higher amount of permutations going on in our brains than that there are atoms in known universe?

    While the human race is amazingly advanced (that's what they said hundreds of years ago too) I do think that there is alot beyond us, things that we will never be able to find out.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat
    Sometimes I'm right, sometimes not.
    Yup yup. And you're still right about not being right.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Spidergoat:
    Besides, if religion had no effect on a person so that they were different than everyone else, then there would be no point to it, it would be ineffectual.
    Then you agree with me.
    Checkmate. *grin*

    88:
    Why not? That’s just people's lack of clarity.
    I say not because no matter the evolutionary evidence right under their nose, the narcissist mentality of the Baptist and the Muslim and the Buddhist and the Hindu reviles the idea of being descended from apes.
    Nay, of being a primate.

    IMPOSSIBLE!

    There are plenty of books that a 2nd grader could read explaining organic evolution in plain terms, so we can't say its a lack of clarity.
    The theory itself has become as common as head cold.

    Even at my most eloquent I've failed to convince my mother. You see in her face every now and then that her little morsel of reason left, after a lifetime of no use, is telling her that my points make sense and for a precious microsecond you’re fooled into thinking she will consider it.

    But then, like Lazarus, her emotional side rises up again to piss on those last bits of reason, putting her to a narcissitic sleep again- because there is no way that science means her. Her soul must live on.
    She will die Christian.

    I think I’ll take back what I said earlier, even time cannot kill this.

    The war in Iraq (Bush again) has an underlying fuel of religion – as all war does.
    The first two world wars were hardly religious.

    I single Bush out because, a) at present, he's the most important man on the planet, and, b) because he and his friend's are lying to the planet - AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT!
    I get your point but eight countries are hardly 'the planet'.
    They just happen to be the most wealthy and therefore the most
    interested in their eminence and therefore most obligated to current affairs.
    Bush's focus is and has always been with those 8- he only goes to Africa to take pictures and look pwetty..

    And with a falling dollar, ill reputation, China one of the most important players in the global economy year by year, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Bush is not that important.

    President Hu Jintao and Crown Prince Abdullah are. Don't quote me on it, lad, I’m just saying.


    Moreover, no offense, but you're an alarmist.
    All the SUV's and nuclear plants put together cannot produce the ozone damage that volcanoes have wielded on planet earth historically.
    I remember being scared to death by fidgety little environmentalists back in grade school, couldn’t even look at a bottle of Aquanet hairspray without wincing godamn them!- but look at me now.

    *sniffing the air*

    Still here.

    That’s a chapter heading that one!
    Say what?


    Water:
    Everyone thinking anything thinks so: "I am right and you are not".
    Otherwise, we'd be paralysed with relativism.

    "I am right and you are not" is just a rewording of "My life is worth more to me than yours", which is basic self-preservation instinct.
    You really can't object to this..
    Ok, but how many of these I’mrighters build a church around their I’mrights?

    Two men debating the physics of soap are a world of difference from those debating Jesus or Britian’s current election.

    Its the latter I'm talkign about.
    And its the latter I most certainly object to.

    Mr. Cole Grey:
    Religion will be destroyed by the passing of time, if the whole concept isn't a metaphor, along with every other human construct, burned away like straw.
    This doesn't mean that there aren't any relationships (to others, God, karmic forces, etc.), created within religious experience which could live on.
    Cue the music-
    Religion wil be destroyed by the passing of time.
    Religion wil be destroyed by the passing of time.
    Religion wil be destroyed by the passing of time.
    Religion wil be destroyed by the passing of time.


    Sounds so sweet.
    But you do realize its been over 30 million years ago that men buried their dead?
    The reasons for it remain to this day.
    So I take back what I said in my initial post- time has nothing on death.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas
    Even at my most eloquent I've failed to convince my mother. You see in her face every now and then that her little morsel of reason left, after a lifetime of no use, is telling her that my points make sense and for a precious microsecond you’re fooled into thinking she will consider it.

    But then, like Lazarus, her emotional side rises up again to piss on those last bits of reason, putting her to a narcissitic sleep again- because there is no way that science means her. Her soul must live on.
    She will die Christian.
    Project yourself ahead into the future, your arguments have their intended effect, is your mother more or less happy? I have a pretty good notion she will pass away feeling more empty and lonely than she would if you left her alone - isn't getting old enough to deal with? Everyone doesn't have to figure it all out, why do you have to be such a nagging fundamentalist about it? Sad. Sounds like you have a control issue, or maybe you just haven't thought about it that way, or maybe you have a good reason for taking away her faith - if you have one, a good one, I would like to hear it.

    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas
    Sounds so sweet.
    But you do realize its been over 30 million years ago that men buried their dead?
    The reasons for it remain to this day.
    So I take back what I said in my initial post- time has nothing on death.
    Time is the most powerful blind force in the universe. Humankind can't even scratch it. What is burying the dead to the dead?
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Cola:
    Sounds like you have a control issue, or maybe you just haven't thought about it that way, or maybe you have a good reason for taking away her faith - if you have one, a good one, I would like to hear it.
    Sounds more like you, sir, know jack squat about why I even spoke to her about science.
    This is beginning to remind me of a certain yesterthread......Soutstar's..yes, yes, a certain "Can we think?" one.

    My mother can be a tolerable creature when she's naturally curious.
    That's why I told her, Cole Grey.
    I'm no Socrates.
    What is burying the dead to the dead?
    Why, nothing.

    But to the living obsessed with living- strangers in the millions wept for Terri Chiavo- death is eternal fear.

    Therefore-
    Time is the most powerful blind force in the universe
    Nowhere near as potent as fear, and its undercurrent, uncertainty.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman kestasjk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    74
    Don't get me started on Schiavo.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    "Don't get me started on Schiavo."

    Trust me, I mauled Schiavo before she expired.
    Then the Pope.
    Speaking of- lawyers and organizatons made a kiling on selling living wills becuase of Schiavo:

    http://www.legalspring.com/articles/...living-wi.aspx

    So much so, office supply chains began selling wills right next to the bubble gum.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Sounds more like you, sir, know jack squat about why I even spoke to her about science.
    This is beginning to remind me of a certain yesterthread......Soutstar's..yes, yes, a certain "Can we think?" one.
    Ah, sweet memories. What fun that was. Those people were all so interesting, I get the warm fuzzies. That Gendanken girl had her teeth filed to such razor points, but could still manage a charming smile, unfathomable.

    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas
    My mother can be a tolerable creature when she's naturally curious.
    That's why I told her, Cole Grey.
    I'm no Socrates.
    Well, if she asked then I take it back. (I do however reserve the right to believe you pushed a little, since you used the words "convince my mother".) It is interesting how some people believe religion is unscientific, and some that it is non-scientific, and some that religion is somehow completely scientific.


    Quote Originally Posted by cole grey
    What is burying the dead to the dead?
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas
    Why, nothing.

    But to the living obsessed with living- strangers in the millions wept for Terri Chiavo- death is eternal fear.

    Therefore-
    Quote Originally Posted by cole grey
    Time is the most powerful blind force in the universe
    Nowhere near as potent as fear, and its undercurrent, uncertainty.
    My point was that the dead don't fear anything. Time takes each person, and for some reason, has the need make them dead. If you say that we will conquer death, or at least get to the point where we can have it come when we are ready for it and in only the best possible ways, then we will also conquer that fear, but time will still go on changing things around, and not changing them (which also has a powerful effect on the mind of humans).
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Greetings, Troubadour.

    'bout time you debuted.

    Well, if she asked then I take it back. (I do however reserve the right to believe you pushed a little, since you used the words "convince my mother".) .
    As I reserve the right to believe you'd push a 'little' when illustrating the wonders of Buddhism.

    As I reserve the right to believe you'd push a 'little' when illustrating to me the ~nonpareil~ of being the Cole Grey.
    Kidding on the last one, you suck and know it. *grin*

    Meaning, don't we all 'push a little' when speaking about anything we like speaking about.?
    Because we like speaking about it?
    I, like some nerd, ….tremble.

    It is interesting how some people believe religion is unscientific, and some that it is non-scientific,
    Non-, un?

    What's the difference?

    My point was that the dead don't fear anything. Time takes each person, and for some reason, has the need make them dead. If you say that we will conquer death, or at least get to the point where we can have it come when we are ready for it and in only the best possible ways, then we will also conquer that fear, but time will still go on changing things around, and not changing them (which also has a powerful effect on the mind of humans).
    My apologies.

    Thought you to meant we're all 'dead' considering our collective insignificance to the universe. And…..I can’t believe I’ll be quoting this woman but here she is in my astronomy book, as I can’t find this other piece that would capture perfectly what I’m trying to say here.

    But here goes-
    “We, this people, on a small and lonely planet traveling through causal space past aloof stars, across the way of indifferent suns to a destination where all signs tell us it is possible and imperative that we learn a brave and startling truth”- Maya Angelou, A Brave and Startling Truth

    That we don’t fucking matter.
    (Wish to hell I had what I was looking for, make me promise it to you.)

    Speaking of old debts, you once wanted a word that captured bad music made specifically to mock what it is- a backup for real art.

    Corny, but, a substitune?
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    28
    Ok, did you say corny, or uber-corny, either way that is actually a great word. It might be too corny for its requested application, which was to find a word for the whole genre of unartistic music (even if it is decently made), but when I say to someone, "that's a good substitune for what I'm trying to write", i.e. a placeholder, they will laugh, and I can also use it to mock someone's straight-up awful music.
    Score=
    8.5 - accuracy
    10 - cleverness
    5- form (you dropped some points for being so corny)
    Still, the best so far, by far.

    Quote Originally Posted by abra
    I, like some nerd, ….tremble.
    Like a nerd? You ARE a nerd, that's what makes you "cOoL".

    Also -
    "un-scientific" - anti-scientific, against the principles of science, i.e. saying that something, God for example, if proven impossible to exist, does exist. A more specific example is the idea of new-earth creationism
    (pretty unscientific, according to our current scientific systems of understanding, which could be wrong, but I tend to go with evolutionary creationism instead which is...
    "non-scientific" - ideas not dependent upon the proofs of testable evidence, but not in opposition to the testable evidence. The idea that God created the universe, but the description of the time involved has been misunderstood, well, the kabbalists have a much better way of explaining it -
    seven cycles passed since the beginning of the universe, six of which are counted in "god-years", each god year being 365,100 man-years, since a thousand years is like a day (psalm 90) to God. Each cycle is seven thousand years, so we have (including the 5,780 or so years since Adam) a total of 15,340,500,000 years since the beginning of the universe.
    This description of creation isn't "unscientific" (15 billion years sounds a lot more sensible, there could be many factors affecting the accuracy of our calculations that we don't even know about yet), but the idea that God was involved is not provable through the scientific method, therefore it is "non-scientific".
    (if 1,220 years, or so, go by and we still exist, there might be some scientific evidence against this, but there will just have to be evidence that we are in the next stage, i.e. in heaven or on the new earth, for this numbering system to avoid becoming "un-scientific")

    and also - Maya angelou said something cool at a funeral (I don't remember whose), regarding death, something like - "the heaviest door in the universe has slammed shut". It sounded cooler when she said it in her raspy voice.


    p.s. "Buddhism"?
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    AbbbbbbbbRRRRRRRRaxxxxxxasssssssss.


    I say not because no matter the evolutionary evidence [like, yeah, evolutionary "evidence"] right under their nose, the narcissist mentality of the Baptist and the Muslim and the Buddhist and the Hindu reviles the idea of being descended from apes.
    Nay, of being a primate.

    IMPOSSIBLE!

    There are plenty of books that a 2nd grader could read explaining organic evolution in plain terms, so we can't say its a lack of clarity.
    The theory itself has become as common as head cold.

    Even at my most eloquent I've failed to convince my mother. You see in her face every now and then that her little morsel of reason left, after a lifetime of no use, is telling her that my points make sense and for a precious microsecond you're fooled into thinking she will consider it.

    But then, like Lazarus, her emotional side rises up again to piss on those last bits of reason, putting her to a narcissitic sleep again- because there is no way that science means her. Her soul must live on.
    She will die Christian.

    I think I'll take back what I said earlier, even time cannot kill this.

    Why should she believe you?

    If you are suggesting she should prefer the theory you propose over the one she already has now -- you must give her good reasons why she should do so.

    Justify scientific pursuits.

    Then we'll talk.



    Ok, but how many of these I'mrighters build a church around their I'mrights?
    Pretty much everyone, all kinds of churches.


    Two men debating the physics of soap are a world of difference from those debating Jesus or Britian's current election.
    How are the "two men debating the physics of soap /.../ a world of difference from those debating Jesus or Britian's current election"?

    And FYI, "debating Jesus" is not the same as following Jesus.


    Its the latter I'm talkign about.
    And its the latter I most certainly object to.
    It's you against them. They have world power, they have money, you don't. This irks.


    * * *


    Meaning, don't we all 'push a little' when speaking about anything we like speaking about.?
    Because we like speaking about it?
    I, like some nerd, ….tremble.
    "I'm right!"
    What we are actually asserting is our selves -- and we like to be asserted.



    * * *


    8873tom,


    Thus I fell that religion is fighting against time. Although I'm not considering the physiological level that religion plays on the human mind, in theory religion should slowly die (as it already began to do so) due to science gradually explaining everything that religion has to offer.
    Straaaw.

    The "religion" of the old times was not what we consider "religion" today. Back then, they didn't separate knowledge into disciplines as we do now. They had one big vault of knowledge that covered all fields of life. The ydidn't separate between what we nowadays consider "religion" and "science", they didn't separate between "biology" and "chemistry". With time, this vault began to grow so big that it became unmanageable, and disciplines began to form.

    It is thus wrong to simply say "The peoples of old didn't understand why and how the Sun and the Earth move, therefore, they made up simple religious explanations". Their understanding was different back then -- but the major difference is that they didn't separate between science and ethics the way we do. The two were much more combined, intertwined than we have them nowadays.


    How could "science explain everything religion has to offer"? Will science tell you what your purpose of life is? To procreate, to evolutionize? If you find yourself tired in the morning, what do you tell yourself to get yourself out of bed and to work? Do you say, "Ah, it's just instincts driving me?" How consistent is your life-view and your actual life-practice with science? What is your justification for doing anything? If you contract HIV, will you tell yourself to be calm, there is no need to be upset or worried, as statistically, so and so many people are infected, so your having it is nothing abnormal?
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    (Knowing full well that all here don't care, I'm going to post the excerpt I promised to you anyway that was driving me insane… because I could not find it.
    Why? Because I don't like being insane.

    Its from American philosopher Wlliam Jamess studies into the religious experiences, a large part of which were personal narrations from collegues, friends, and psychotherapy patients. This is one of them.

    So, voila- found it



    "When I reflect on the fact that I have made my appearance by accident upon a globe itself whirled through space as the sport of the catastrophes of the heavens, when I see myself surrounded by beings as ephemeral and incomprehensible as I am myself, and all excitedly pursuing pure chimeras, I experience a strange feeling of being in a dream. It seems to me as if I have loved and suffered and that erelong I shall die, in a dream"
    - Madame Ackermann, from Jame's "The Varieties of Religious Experience".

    And I remember the thought that this brought in me- that absolutely nothing is still.
    We are never, ever still.
    We spend our lives falling to...nowhere, remember Alice? She fell in a hole for so long she eventually spent her time thinking and it was that simple distance between hole and bottom of hole that made little Alice a troubled philosopher.

    And here we are on earth- a ball- that circles a violent ball, among billions other balls in a space made of nothing but balls and floating particles.
    Balls and particles that stand on nothing as noting stands at all.
    Everything just....falls.

    Therefore, like Alice, we've spent so long falling its filled the world with ......philosophers.

    You, "sitting" there at home right now skimming through this, me 'sitting' here at home typing this- what are we but two fools who actually believe that sitting still is even possible?
    JESUS 67,0000 miles an hour. 30 km a second. A second- that's how fast we fools are falling through the universe around the Sun.

    And none of us matter. At all. We're..nothing.

    Right, so..........anyway.
    Cole grey:
    Ok, did you say corny, or uber-corny, either way that is actually a great word. It might be too corny for its requested application, which was to find a word for the whole genre of unartistic music (even if it is decently made), but when I say to someone, "that's a good substitune for what I'm trying to write", i.e. a placeholder, they will laugh, and I can also use it to mock someone's straight-up awful music.
    Score=
    8.5 - accuracy
    10 - cleverness
    5- form (you dropped some points for being so corny)
    Still, the best so far, by far.
    Excellent.
    Told you it was hella corny.

    This description of creation isn't "unscientific" (15 billion years sounds a lot more sensible, there could be many factors affecting the accuracy of our calculations that we don't even know about yet), but the idea that God was involved is not provable through the scientific method, therefore it is "non-scientific".
    (if 1,220 years, or so, go by and we still exist, there might be some scientific evidence against this, but there will just have to be evidence that we are in the next stage, i.e. in heaven or on the new earth, for this numbering system to avoid becoming "un-scientific")
    Weird.

    So let's see here.
    Joshua asked God to stop the sun for him. You point this out to a Baptist who's also been to school and knows the sun does not orbit the earth and he tells you he believes in Joshua's god anyway.
    He is “unscientific.”

    Now a Kabbalist, invoking God as creator of the universe. calculates via cycles the age of the earth as 15 billion some odd years.
    His methods are not scientific, and he too believes in entities improvable by science, but he is called “non-scientific.”

    Simply because the only thing that saves him is the fact that he says 15 billion years and not 4 thousand, like most Christians.


    You're...weird. Well, you’re amazed at those that think this way as well so they’re weird.
    They're both, to me, scientific homicide. Both are unscientific in every last respect.

    Water:
    like, yeah, evolutionary "evidence"
    Like, quit with the quotes around "evidence", k?

    Know what’s so funny about you scoffers? You know, the ones who like turning their nose up at honest attempts at reductionism and put cute little quotes around evidence.

    Know what's so funny? The look on your snub little faces after food poisoning, pneumonia, measles, the common head cold or Tb which history tells us used to kill millions- that look after you've all recovered.

    So much easier with medicine, dear, which are the final products of those reductionisms you so loathe.

    Why should she believe you?
    She does not have to believe me.
    But G-doi, she, uhm, asked?

    And where two sides are concerned, not even two, lets say hundreds- if reason is to claim to be what it is then it only legitimately can if it sides with the party most able to feed it sole functions: analyze, interpret, experiment and verify.

    This way, it can begin to understand enough to believe in what it first must understand.
    She's a chocolate covered ball of pure Christinaity.
    So, she'll never 'believe' me. It'd be blasphemy.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    but the major difference is that they didn't separate between science and ethics the way we do. The two were much more combined, intertwined than we have them nowadays.
    Funny how the age of the atom bomb is also the age of the welfare state.
    Now, when mankind can blow the whole Middle east and the Balkas together off the face of this planet....

    Nay, all of Antartica if it wanted (thougth I doubt)-

    that this too is the age of the soup kitched, PETA, WIC check, and Medicare.

    Its a good thing that science has put down its bibles and rosaires, Water.
    This doesn't lead science to and SS cloned Tesla killing the world off with his projects.
    Religion is NOT ethics.
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Weird.

    You're...weird. Well, you’re amazed at those that think this way as well so they’re weird.
    They're both, to me, scientific homicide. Both are unscientific in every last respect.
    You caught me, I am weird, as in "not normal". Thank God.

    My point was that there are things that should be described as '"un-scientific", those which are specifically against modern scientific theories, and there are also things which science has no position on. The kabbalist can put forth a theory, which is untestable, but also appeared far earlier than our current scientific understanding of the approximate age of the universe (anywhere from 15-20 billion years would be a good guess, apparently). You can call it whatever you want.

    I had a discussion with a finely cemented empiricist this weekend, which was fun because in the end he had to fall back on, "I know in my bones, that this is true, there is nothing else but science and humanity's hopeful pattern creation." (I'm paraphrasing) Of course I said, "plenty of people know in their bones, that that is not the case." Of course, he said, "those people aren't that smart." Of course I pointed out that there were a few real swift people who would disagree with him.

    He ended up at, "alright whatever".
    Of course I ended up there too...

    EDIT - of course, i started there too, how un-progressive.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Religion is NOT ethics.
    ?

    There are some religions, esp. pagan that do not have a system of ethics encoded in their religion. But Christianity has.
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Abraxas,



    And none of us matter. At all. We're..nothing.
    It gives away your I-demand-to-be-a-god attitude when you judge things sub specie totalis/aeternitatis.

    You may not matter to Mars or a comet, or to a plant somewhere in South America, but you do matter to *some* people. So saying that you don't matter is a gross and thoughtless thing to say.


    Know what’s so funny about you scoffers? You know, the ones who like turning their nose up at honest attempts at reductionism and put cute little quotes around evidence.
    It's not me who puts those quotes around evidence. It is science itself, upon seeing how relative the scientifc method is.


    Know what's so funny? The look on your snub little faces after food poisoning, pneumonia, measles, the common head cold or Tb which history tells us used to kill millions- that look after you've all recovered.

    So much easier with medicine, dear, which are the final products of those reductionisms you so loathe.
    ?
    What has this got to do with anything?

    My loathing is directed towards making science a god. Doing as if science was all-powerful. And what is more, that science is to be the origin of ethics.


    And where two sides are concerned, not even two, lets say hundreds- if reason is to claim to be what it is then it only legitimately can if it sides with the party most able to feed it sole functions: analyze, interpret, experiment and verify.

    This way, it can begin to understand enough to believe in what it first must understand.
    She's a chocolate covered ball of pure Christinaity.
    So, she'll never 'believe' me. It'd be blasphemy.
    Well, then both you and her think of Christianity to be a superstition. And neither of you is Christian.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by water View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Religion is NOT ethics.
    ?

    There are some religions, esp. pagan that do not have a system of ethics encoded in their religion. But Christianity has.
    Religion is not ethics but a collectives interpertation of morality
    Neverfly likes this.
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
     

  31. #30  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Thread necrophilia.

    Jake, don't revive 8 year old threads. Start a new one.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Religion is not ethics but a collectives interpertation of morality
    Many years late to reply- but I like what you said anyway.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    On every forum I've been on people don't like own threads, but has it occured to anyone that we can offer much more insight and knowledge from the 8 years that have passed then we could then?
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
     

  34. #33  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Has it occurred to you that the people your replying to are no longer here?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Closed.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •