Is Religion Humans most beautiful aspect?

Physics cannot replace religion. There is still to much around US physics cannot explain with Formula's. Religion should leave things to the (educated) people. Religion is an ultima remedi but necessary as such.

Ist das opium des volkes...science answers our questions, religion questions our logic. Religion is not logical it requires blind obedience and the reward is comfort from our fears. You can question science, it encourages our enquiry, religion demands dogmatic attention.

Ist das opium des volkes...science answers our questions, religion questions our logic. Religion is not logical it requires blind obedience and the reward is comfort from our fears. You can question science, it encourages our enquiry, religion demands dogmatic attention.

What i question is your ridiculous claim that science can replace religion. This does not mean i care for religion, or value it because it bring some comfort to people.

It is also not right to say that science is bias free. At any normal science period, there is bound to have a set of principles/axioms by which the community of researchers agree on that defines the field. One researcher` s axioms is another researcher` s biases. Practically, all physicists agree that any future discovery must process the symmetry embedded in special relativity. This this a bias? Yes.

Not science, knowledge allays our fears and gives us less reason to require religion. I never said it replaces religion. Ive never said faith is not essential for many, its religion that should be denied. Its dogmatic and fails to serve man.

If you cant use less abusive language, I will not be answering any more of your posts. A little respect , will be answered with respect.OK...

Xris how are you? I agree Believe is Magic but ...How can it be real ?

What i question is your ridiculous claim that science can replace religion. This does not mean i care for religion, or value it because it bring some comfort to people.

It is also not right to say that science is bias free. At any normal science period, there is bound to have a set of principles/axioms by which the community of researchers agree on that defines the field. One researcher` s axioms is another researcher` s biases. Practically, all physicists agree that any future discovery must process the symmetry embedded in special relativity. This this a bias? Yes.

Not science, knowledge allays our fears and gives us less reason to require religion. I never said it replaces religion. Ive never said faith is not essential for many, its religion that should be denied. Its dogmatic and fails to serve man.

If you cant use less abusive language, I will not be answering any more of your posts. A little respect , will be answered with respect.OK...

If you believe in magic, it is real, real for you. Belief can be defended, faith is more like magic and religion tells us faith is belief. I'm fine , I'm so glad I dont meet this abuse in real life. I might get more than banned or reprimanded. Thanks Xris, hows you ?

I agree Believe is Magic but ...How real

Quote:

:bigsmile: how real it has to be to be believed

mi curazon es el mas importante
tengo mi amor cerca mi curazon

tengo mis amigos reales y virtueles
me seinto genial, pero falta iva

2010 primo decade ? no, 2012

:devilish:por lo emperor, los reyes et de terra
Yes, we can Pax 2012
's Gravenhage / Hague:lol:

Religion, Myth, Fairy-tales: we need something to get us through un-interesting Financial Times. :shifty:

Remember King Arthur ? He held the West-Saxons, but couldn't stop the masses of immigrants. A bit like now after the Empire is gone. Another Anglo-Saxon Empire is following as we speak.:phone:

Shall we all help and chip in ? Think not. It's just a system, people will be fine.:poke-eye:

Somehow I think this thread god Hijacked.
I understood the OP to be a question of Aesthetics.
This thread has been discussing one such interpretation fo aesthetics, that of ideological aesthetics. This like every other discussion of the benifits or lack thereof of religion revolves around seperate Ideologies about what (Should) be "human". These are argued from arbitrary subjective baselines. A religion can be ideologically beautiful for its practitioners assuming that the ideals involved are aligned one with the other. There is beauty in dogma and there is dogma in all ideologies. One cannot be without the other. The argument is about which dogma is based from "right" ideals. there is consistency in dogma, there is consistency in ideology, they create a very structually comforting beauty of their own, an aesthetic which both edifies and stimulates a follower.

The issue being washed out by the emotive ideologies crashing into each other is that of, ceremony. Ceremony religious and secular are designed to align with an aesthetic. They can be beautiful in spectacle, costume, action, prestige, and verse. Religion often flows concurrent with dance, art, architecture, poetry, prose, etc... Just as a college graduation ceremony carries with it a beauty that concords with the ideological passing of student to independent ideal (x). Religious ceremonies concord with ideological aspects of a practitioners, "ideal life". Religious ceremnoies are also often used as baseline interpretations for cultures and people's previously unknown to a person, and their ceremony's novel pageantry is beautiful simply for their novelty.

Religion is beautiful, sometimes terribly beautiful like a tornado or volcano, other times passivley beautiful like a flower or field, and all stages of beauty in between. The stark religion of scientism, the current flowing religion of humanism, the "primitive" anamistic religions, and the institutionalized world religion, all dogmatic, all idealistic, all novel, all terrible, and all beautiful.

I care about the truth! What is true here is that i am better than xris in philosophy, because i know more. This is no more different than to say "the capital of France is Paris".

Your appeal to "maturity" is just to invoke a sense of stereotypical notion of how a mature person in our society ought to react. I see no reason for those feelings. You do, so i guess that is important to you.

---------- Post added 05-01-2010 at 08:05 AM ----------



I don` t like to be personally insult especially when the other party cannot reason from premise to conclusion. The fact that this is a public forum makes it important that the discussion ought to be governed by reason, and logic. I don` t like it when people use gestures, and appeal to emotional to get a point across. I see these emotional outburst as being anti-philosophical. I am by no mean atypical. I am an analytic philosopher. I will stand my ground for reason.

Im fine with your views but its not like that in reality is it ? Dogma, the intransigence of religion, that which is painful, harmful and deadly. Its not about ceremony or pageantry its about contraception, jihads, crusades..

It is much a fashion these days for atheists to bash religion out of context. Religion was a necessary crutch on which man limped through the early ages of his existence. Indeed it is time to rid ourselves of the crutch but it would be wrong to condemn those who ever leaned upon it.

No it would not be right but the same crutches exist today. Its not that I oppose its the dogmatic damage is inflicts on all who encounter it.