| Organized religion |
Moved from: http://forum.bandamp.com/Lyrics_Review/53128.html
Like many others, I believe in the virtues of science. That's where my faith lies. Today, science can say that no, a man most likely cannot put every single species onto a ship and sail away listening to Styx. Back in the day, when science was more limited than it is today, who's to say they could be as definite about it?
My example was mock humor, but the principle is something that I attribute to the birth of every major organized religion. Hinduism is a notable exception--the religion is founded in philosophy as opposed to the theological following that it has become today--the basis of the religion is on philosophies of teaching and existence. In true Hinduism, the concept of a God is (very, very, very, very simply put) anything that provides knowledge. English as of yet cannot express this concept properly, and so the word god is used as an inference to the next best thing.
Do I follow mainstream Hinduism? No. I was born into it, but since it was never forced on me, I didn't take it. However, once I was old enough to know what exactly was going on, yes, I believe in the ideals and philosophies of the power of knowledge, existence and the ability to comprehend that our minds are limited by only what we know.
Show me scientific proof that an omnipresent, omnipotent and omni benevolent being can exist, and, apart from showing you a paradox, I'll be a believer.
Like many others, I believe in the virtues of science. That's where my faith lies. Today, science can say that no, a man most likely cannot put every single species onto a ship and sail away listening to Styx. Back in the day, when science was more limited than it is today, who's to say they could be as definite about it?
My example was mock humor, but the principle is something that I attribute to the birth of every major organized religion. Hinduism is a notable exception--the religion is founded in philosophy as opposed to the theological following that it has become today--the basis of the religion is on philosophies of teaching and existence. In true Hinduism, the concept of a God is (very, very, very, very simply put) anything that provides knowledge. English as of yet cannot express this concept properly, and so the word god is used as an inference to the next best thing.
Do I follow mainstream Hinduism? No. I was born into it, but since it was never forced on me, I didn't take it. However, once I was old enough to know what exactly was going on, yes, I believe in the ideals and philosophies of the power of knowledge, existence and the ability to comprehend that our minds are limited by only what we know.
Show me scientific proof that an omnipresent, omnipotent and omni benevolent being can exist, and, apart from showing you a paradox, I'll be a believer.
There is no point in religion.
Logic is believing in something for a reason.
Religion is believing in something because you feel like it. This is also called bullshit.
People who believe in a religion are subscribing in delusion.
That said, religion was obviously just a method of distributing morales, much like government. But government and group nature replaces that need, rendering the real point of religion to "answering the 'big' questions of life". Where did we come from? What is time and space? Are we just a mistake. And science is finally getting into that realm with experimental particle and theoretical physics (what is the nature of time? oh that's right, we already figured it out, twenty years ago with quantum loop theory & superstring theory).
"Time had to start somewhere." Turns out it doesn't. In fact, it can even run backwards. Throw away your old notions, and embrace scientific understanding.
"We are too complicated to be a random occurrence through the process of evolution." Evolution has been observed and documented to a ridiculous degree. Fossil records, microbiology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology--all unanimously in support. Complex systems (like, say, the entire freaking universe) contain can yield unbelievable complexity. No duh.
"The earth is 6000 years old." Don't even get me started on this one. Carbon dating has flaws, yes, but those flaws were done away with decades ago using different radioactive isotopic dating techniques.
k thx bye
Logic is believing in something for a reason.
Religion is believing in something because you feel like it. This is also called bullshit.
People who believe in a religion are subscribing in delusion.
That said, religion was obviously just a method of distributing morales, much like government. But government and group nature replaces that need, rendering the real point of religion to "answering the 'big' questions of life". Where did we come from? What is time and space? Are we just a mistake. And science is finally getting into that realm with experimental particle and theoretical physics (what is the nature of time? oh that's right, we already figured it out, twenty years ago with quantum loop theory & superstring theory).
"Time had to start somewhere." Turns out it doesn't. In fact, it can even run backwards. Throw away your old notions, and embrace scientific understanding.
"We are too complicated to be a random occurrence through the process of evolution." Evolution has been observed and documented to a ridiculous degree. Fossil records, microbiology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology--all unanimously in support. Complex systems (like, say, the entire freaking universe) contain can yield unbelievable complexity. No duh.
"The earth is 6000 years old." Don't even get me started on this one. Carbon dating has flaws, yes, but those flaws were done away with decades ago using different radioactive isotopic dating techniques.
k thx bye
ZachBlume wrote…
There is no point in religion.
Logic is believing in something for a reason.
Religion is believing in something because you feel like it. This is also called bullshit.
People who believe in a religion are subscribing in delusion.
That said, religion was obviously just a method of distributing morales, much like government. But government and group nature replaces that need, rendering the real point of religion to "answering the 'big' questions of life". Where did we come from? What is time and space? Are we just a mistake. And science is finally getting into that realm with experimental particle and theoretical physics (what is the nature of time? oh that's right, we already figured it out, twenty years ago with quantum loop theory & superstring theory).
"Time had to start somewhere." Turns out it doesn't. In fact, it can even run backwards. Throw away your old notions, and embrace scientific understanding.
"We are too complicated to be a random occurrence through the process of evolution." Evolution has been observed and documented to a ridiculous degree. Fossil records, microbiology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology--all unanimously in support. Complex systems (like, say, the entire freaking universe) contain can yield unbelievable complexity. No duh.
"The earth is 6000 years old." Don't even get me started on this one. Carbon dating has flaws, yes, but those flaws were done away with decades ago using different radioactive isotopic dating techniques.
k thx bye :D
What the shit are you talking about, boy?
I mean, come on? How old are you? Seems you've been reading many bullshit somewhere...
I almost laugh when I red that line of "The Earth is 6000 years old" Jajaja. I assume you say that about Christianims? Dude, who told you that religion says that!
I'm just laughing of all what you said.
Einstein said: " As more as I discover the Universe, as more as I believe in God".
> Iszil
Iszil:
I agree completely.
ZachBlume:
Your ignorance and narrow-mindedness is exactly what I was talking about in my post. A reasonable and unbiased argument is immediately lost with calling a point-of-view "bullshit".
You didn't seem to read my post and must have gotten excited to use what little you know at the thrust of the word "religion".
About your point that Buddhism has more philosophy than Hinduism: If we are talking in just sheer volume of writings, teachings and knowledge in the *six* schools of Hindu philosophy, it outshines Buddhism, or most any religion, by a long way.
I don't subscribe to religion. Mainstream religion has too much baggage attached for me to walk around with. I still respect its importance. Traditional religion, which is more knowledge than faith, is something that I have read a lot into and respect the knowledge of.
Your argument stems around the fact that faith in religion is faith in an omnipresent, omniscient and omni-benevolent being. Obvious paradoxes aside, there is far more to religion. The basis of modern philosophy, epistemology, morality and logic stem from teachings in the various religions.
What is logic? Apart from the obvious dilemma in presenting a clear-cut definition (there is no accepted view on logic, but obviously you didn't know that), my personal belief is that logic is the analysis of the inferences to the best reasoned judgement.
Let's analyze your scientific counter-examples to religious questions.
- Time -- "figured it out"? You have no idea what you are talking about. Both accepted views on time (Leibiniz/Kant and realism) are mediocre at best and leave a lot of room for improvement.
- Where did we come from -- again, we have no idea how life started on this planet. There are several theories, no front-runner and major room for improvement. Meteorological seeding and coincedental growth are just two of many poor theories on this front.
- Evolution -- this one usually blows Creationism out of the water, and I am not going to argue on this front. But as my original argument stated, I do have a problem with mainstream religion in the way that it bastardizes knowledge.
- "Complex systems (like, say, the entire freaking universe) contain can yield unbelievable complexity. No duh." I don't see the point of this, but I'll throw out another "proof": Godel said that every informal system is essentially incomplete.
- "The earth is 6000 years old." -- I don't understand why you threw this in.
There's a whole lot more to argue--your entire argument was ignorant atheist fanboy-ism. Unfortunately, I am a little short on time.
I'll leave with the sentence in your post that made me laugh out loud.
"Religion is believing in something because you feel like it. This is also called bullshit."
So now doing something "because you feel like it" is "bullshit", eh?
Understand that you sound like an 11 year-old who found Wikipedia and wrote down all the cool-sounding words and phrases without really understanding most of them.
I agree completely.
ZachBlume:
Your ignorance and narrow-mindedness is exactly what I was talking about in my post. A reasonable and unbiased argument is immediately lost with calling a point-of-view "bullshit".
You didn't seem to read my post and must have gotten excited to use what little you know at the thrust of the word "religion".
About your point that Buddhism has more philosophy than Hinduism: If we are talking in just sheer volume of writings, teachings and knowledge in the *six* schools of Hindu philosophy, it outshines Buddhism, or most any religion, by a long way.
I don't subscribe to religion. Mainstream religion has too much baggage attached for me to walk around with. I still respect its importance. Traditional religion, which is more knowledge than faith, is something that I have read a lot into and respect the knowledge of.
Your argument stems around the fact that faith in religion is faith in an omnipresent, omniscient and omni-benevolent being. Obvious paradoxes aside, there is far more to religion. The basis of modern philosophy, epistemology, morality and logic stem from teachings in the various religions.
What is logic? Apart from the obvious dilemma in presenting a clear-cut definition (there is no accepted view on logic, but obviously you didn't know that), my personal belief is that logic is the analysis of the inferences to the best reasoned judgement.
Let's analyze your scientific counter-examples to religious questions.
- Time -- "figured it out"? You have no idea what you are talking about. Both accepted views on time (Leibiniz/Kant and realism) are mediocre at best and leave a lot of room for improvement.
- Where did we come from -- again, we have no idea how life started on this planet. There are several theories, no front-runner and major room for improvement. Meteorological seeding and coincedental growth are just two of many poor theories on this front.
- Evolution -- this one usually blows Creationism out of the water, and I am not going to argue on this front. But as my original argument stated, I do have a problem with mainstream religion in the way that it bastardizes knowledge.
- "Complex systems (like, say, the entire freaking universe) contain can yield unbelievable complexity. No duh." I don't see the point of this, but I'll throw out another "proof": Godel said that every informal system is essentially incomplete.
- "The earth is 6000 years old." -- I don't understand why you threw this in.
There's a whole lot more to argue--your entire argument was ignorant atheist fanboy-ism. Unfortunately, I am a little short on time.
I'll leave with the sentence in your post that made me laugh out loud.
"Religion is believing in something because you feel like it. This is also called bullshit."
So now doing something "because you feel like it" is "bullshit", eh?
Understand that you sound like an 11 year-old who found Wikipedia and wrote down all the cool-sounding words and phrases without really understanding most of them.
MindsAtPlay wrote…
One of the things that has always bothered me about science and religion, is that, in most cases, one is not tolerated within the other.
I agree--for the most part. Older religions (again, approached from the classical and not mainstream perspective) don't really go with or against science. Take Hinduism again: there isn't really a whole lot of 'creationism' going on or being forced--it's just basic philosophy. Buddhism, while not so abstracted from traditional theology, is similar in this regard.
MindsAtPlay wrote…
I say it is measured in knowledge of the amazing complexity of this universe. Simply said, We, ourselves, let alone the universe are much too fantastic and complex to be an accident, but I think that if it was "created", then it was created with rules in mind. Science.
I most definitely do not agree with this theory. There are many flaws with this argument (my viewpoints aren't perfect either). I'll pick the omnipotence paradox. A creator capable of creating the universe should be omnipotent. He should hence be able to create a stone so big no one can lift it. But if he cannot lift it, he is not omnipotent.
isn't spiritualism/faith just a category of the things that science hasn't explained yet? People believed in gravity before it was explained by Newton, they just didn't realize it. I agree with MAP that both science and religion can co-exist, they only cancel each other out if one is an exclusionary thinker. Yes, it is true that many of the organized religions we have today, have not traditionally accepted scientific thinking that was contrary to doctrine. But that is the fault of the people not the faith itself. Faith, mystery, spiritualism, science, the world we live in, can all combine effortlessly if we only allow ourselves to think outside the proverbial box.
spoon wrote…
isn't spiritualism/faith just a category of the things that science hasn't explained yet? People believed in gravity before it was explained by Newton, they just didn't realize it. I agree with MAP that both science and religion can co-exist, they only cancel each other out if one is an exclusionary thinker. Yes, it is true that many of the organized religions we have today, have not traditionally accepted scientific thinking that was contrary to doctrine. But that is the fault of the people not the faith itself. Faith, mystery, spiritualism, science, the world we live in, can all combine effortlessly if we only allow ourselves to think outside the proverbial box.
No, that's not looking at the whole picture. Christianity teaches morals through it's Commandments. I think we all agree that "thou shalt not steal" doesn't require any Quantum physics to understand. As for the spiritualism--there is a lot of skepticism in this, but you could call Aristotle's views on the soul spirituality but I see them as interesting observations about actuality and essence in classical philosophy.
MindsAtPlay wrote…
LOL! I apologize for not being clearer on this point. I simply used the term "God" "Jah" "Ala" as a reference point, which unfortunately would denote an organized intelligence. Im not clear within myself on wether I believe that there is an Ego behind divinity or not. I would, however, point to very interesting research being done with the Bacterial Flagellum. The Bacterial Flagellum is an organism that is considered to be "irreducibly complex", simply stated, if any of its parts were removed then it would no longer be able to carry out its function. Now, according to Evolution, a trait must serve a beneficial purpose in order for it to be passed on to the next generation. How is it that if you remove one of the 18 parts of the Bacterial Flagellum it stops funtioning and will literally float to the bottom of "the well", so to speak, and die from lack of its ability to perform its funtion. According to Evolution, each of the 18 parts would have to evolve to its present state, giving the Flagellum its functionality, through a series of trial and error. How can that be if each of the 18 parts are useless without the other 17? Im not saying I wholly buy into Intelligent Design, but science itself is raising some very interesting questions that have forced me to reanalyze what I have always accepted as the only truth, that being Science. Especially when we look at things such as Quantum Physics and find that the truth is so much more bizarre than we could have ever dreamed up ourselves. Versions of String Theory call for atleast 16 dimensions other than the traditional few that we are aware of on a day to day basis. That alone has forced me to do brain work that was beyond my considerations in the past. I know this much, Life and the existence of the Universe is so much more complex than we could ever imagine at this stage. The answers are not to be found within one doctrine or another, in my opinion. I think hundreds of years from now we will look back and laugh at many of the silly notions we entertained in both science and religion. I firmly believe in Science but I think as far as that goes, we are still novices and have much much more to learn. I think that in the name of truth we should never close ourselves off from any one option. If we do so then we delve into the same mindset as the dogma's we ridicule and find ourselves simply zealots of another religion. I would implore those of the science minded to remain open-minded as well, science is showing us even now that Life can be more magic than we ever suspected.
I'm not familiar with Bacterial Flagellum and Wikipedia has a different account to what it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum).
But, in response, evolution doesn't happen in discrete stages--it is an ongoing process. An organic system slowly develops in the BF and then becomes central. At their current state, if you remove the lungs from a lizard, they too will die, but a few million years ago, when lizards needed amphibious organs, they could survive without lungs.
An example of this is our own appendix. We still have one, but it is currently being phased out.
BF is also a very simple creature--if we too had only 18 parts, removing one of it would kill our organic balance.
| Hi. |
You still believe that science doesn't prove a creator?
Lee Strobel explains in his book "The Case for A Creator" how science points toward God.
He shows how Darwinism has been proven wrong with models of incorrect atmospheres. And the truth is no naturalistic theory can explain how nonliving chemicals can somehow form into the first living cell.
You remember Stanley Miller? Biologist who argued the origin of life, with his model that was supposed to represent what the primitive atmosphere was like? Well we know now that this atmosphere has been discredited by new scientists, and if you run the same experiments you still won't get the same results. There is just no evidence that any naturalistic theory can disprove God.
You said you wanted proof that a Creator did exist. We'll I urge you, if you dare, to read Strobel's books and others that you find. *note* (I only "preach" this one book because its by far the most convincing that I've read)
Oh yeah and Mindsatplay, stop copying lines from books and typing them as your own. That was from God:The Failed Hypothesis.
Credit goes to Lee Stobel.
Mario
Lee Strobel explains in his book "The Case for A Creator" how science points toward God.
He shows how Darwinism has been proven wrong with models of incorrect atmospheres. And the truth is no naturalistic theory can explain how nonliving chemicals can somehow form into the first living cell.
You remember Stanley Miller? Biologist who argued the origin of life, with his model that was supposed to represent what the primitive atmosphere was like? Well we know now that this atmosphere has been discredited by new scientists, and if you run the same experiments you still won't get the same results. There is just no evidence that any naturalistic theory can disprove God.
You said you wanted proof that a Creator did exist. We'll I urge you, if you dare, to read Strobel's books and others that you find. *note* (I only "preach" this one book because its by far the most convincing that I've read)
Oh yeah and Mindsatplay, stop copying lines from books and typing them as your own. That was from God:The Failed Hypothesis.
Credit goes to Lee Stobel.
Mario
avinashv wrote…
No, that's not looking at the whole picture.
Um..what's not looking at the whole picture? I think a universal theory can't help but include the whole picture - lol
spoon wrote…
avinashv wrote…
No, that's not looking at the whole picture.
Um..what's not looking at the whole picture? I think a universal theory can't help but include the whole picture - lol ;)
Haha, touche. I misquoted you to begin with. I was only addressing the first sentence of your post.
| also |
Much of science, is based on theory, and theory is another term for faith. Believing that we evolved is no farther a stretch than to believe we were created. Science has proved neither conclusively. And honestly, take a trip down to Tennessee, and drive the Blueridge Parkway at dawn, and pull off to a scenic overlook, and just soak in the visions, you can see truly how everything fits together so wonderfully, in a world created by mere chance, and circumstance, evolving from nothing into something chemically, without a higher conscienceness, I believe it be more chaotic, more abstract. But again, that is purely theory. So, science and religion are two proverbial peas in the same pod. That is what confuses me about religous wars. Fighting over who is right and who is wrong, when neither is able to provide hard proof one way or the other. And the differences are truly minor if looking at the whole picture. Sure, we evolve and change as needed, but is it as simple as that? Or is it that a divine creator is giving us what we need to sustain the changes coming forth? See, what a puzzle this is. I guess that's why it's called faith. I myself, believe in a creator, I was raised Roman Catholic, before you label me, let me clarify, I was RAISED Roman Catholic, I am non-denominational at this time. I find the Roman Catholic lines to be too blurred, In the US, there are so many roman Catholic churches, and each parish is so different,comparing them to trees, they share the same trunk, but many have more or different branches than the others. This confuses me. Deep down they are the same religion, but some parishes don't approve of divorce to the point they will shun a member from their church because of it, many wont. Things of that nature, very strange to me. Also as to morality, they have loosened the moral belt after Vatican II came to pass, things that were wrong before vativan II but society deemed appropriate, they caved and said, ok, it's fine now. I find that appalling. If it was wrong then, it's wrong now, things don't all of a sudden become ok. Remember, they didn't say they were wrong before, they say, Times have changed and we have to be more modern in our thinking. That is ludicrous. I cannot speak for Roman Catholic parishes in other countries, as I have not actually visited any. But I went on a religous walk many years ago, I visited many churches, all over the Ohio Valley Area, Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, etc, as well as some that had no real label, no denomination per se', and I found one thing to be a constant, each one had human beings in the congregation, and each one had human beings in a postion of power, and each one had what I call convienence laws. Things that absolved them of doing wrong if needed. For catholics, it's the confessional. Great idea, went out partying last night, and drank in excess, Bible says it's wrong, It says eat drink and be merry, but not in excess. Uh Oh, whatever will I do, well, go down to the confessional, tell the priest, say ten Hail Marys, and your golden. ALRIGHT!! Also, keep in mind, there is a blatant lie fed out by many faiths that the catholics pray to Mary, and pray to saints, and worship them as gods, this is far from the reality, Catholics do only recognize one god, they do talk to Mary, and the saints, and ask for their help. THe issue comes that many of the lesser educated who were brought catholicism by means of missionaries, have in fact fueled this by using the terms praying to mary, or praying to St. Cristopher, but that isn't truly what they do, when anyone "prays to" as they say, a saint, they actually say, "St. Cristopher pray for me" This is a request for them to come to their aid, to stand before god as a sponsor and say, hey God, this is a friend of mine, how bought doin me a favor. "Hail Mary mother of god, the lord is with the" This is the tricky one, because as Mary is the mother of God, one asks, how can that be, God created her, ah yes, but it is the mortal, version of god we are discussing, because in the Old Testament, God did say that he would be born of man, and bring a message of hope. This the catholics believe is Jesus, the son of Mary, therefore, truly, if this is to be the case, then Mary is infact the Mother of god. But again, The term Hail, is merely a greeting, Hail Mary, mother of god, the lord is with the, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus,Holy Mary,Mother of God,pray for us sinners now,and at the hour of death. You see, it is again a request for her to pray for the person speaking to her. With Mary, I guess you gotta butter her up a bit, pay her some compliments.. Typical Woman I guess..
Anyway, That's all I have to say right now I guess.. I tend to type alot real fast, and end up bablling a bit. But I hope this gives you a glimpse of how I see things, and for those who believed the hype, I hopethis clears things up about Catholics and saints..
JimK
Anyway, That's all I have to say right now I guess.. I tend to type alot real fast, and end up bablling a bit. But I hope this gives you a glimpse of how I see things, and for those who believed the hype, I hopethis clears things up about Catholics and saints..
JimK
Woah that changed direction quickly.
I'll respond to two things: The proverbial peas in a pod--I sort of agree with you, but if you read my previous post about the omnipotence paradox you'll understand why I have my hesitations to accept this.
As for creationism: Understand that I am not saying it is not possible--I am saying that we currently do not have the knowledge to explain it. I also realize that is *very* different from disproving it. It's the same reason why I feel like laughing every time people think that all life in the universe breathes oxygen, is carbon-based and needs hydrogen dioxide to live. If Earth's gravity were off by 1%, the moon would not have formed as a result of the gravitational pull that caused the collision resulting in the moon, earth would have heavier gases on it's surface and we may have become Nitrogen-based life-forms that breath Fluoride and require hydrochloric acid to survive. Is that possible? No idea whatsoever, but I highly doubt anyone else can say that too.
I also want to make my position in this clear--I do not follow any organized religion, but I strongly believe in its important and necessity in society.
I'll respond to two things: The proverbial peas in a pod--I sort of agree with you, but if you read my previous post about the omnipotence paradox you'll understand why I have my hesitations to accept this.
As for creationism: Understand that I am not saying it is not possible--I am saying that we currently do not have the knowledge to explain it. I also realize that is *very* different from disproving it. It's the same reason why I feel like laughing every time people think that all life in the universe breathes oxygen, is carbon-based and needs hydrogen dioxide to live. If Earth's gravity were off by 1%, the moon would not have formed as a result of the gravitational pull that caused the collision resulting in the moon, earth would have heavier gases on it's surface and we may have become Nitrogen-based life-forms that breath Fluoride and require hydrochloric acid to survive. Is that possible? No idea whatsoever, but I highly doubt anyone else can say that too.
I also want to make my position in this clear--I do not follow any organized religion, but I strongly believe in its important and necessity in society.
Sorry, you do not have access to post...
Wanna post? Join Today!