New possibillities

The word "religion" stems from a Latin word meaning "to bind".Religious beliefs are seen by the ruling class as binding beliefs,which is to say,beliefs that provide social cohesion under the particular environmental conditions prevailing and which therefore support the status quo.Thus Christianity has proved itself,so far, as a particularly successful belief system.Fractures in such a system might be viewed in the same way as fractures in the earth's crust and as an attempt to overthrow the status quo.

spendius.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

No science without god. Who made who is irrelevant.

This is purely faith based argument that has forsaken science in it discovery.

Also this argumentation is called 'begging the question' - meaning you have assumed the conclusion in the premises. This is fine for faith - but poor for scientific method.

Cyracuz wrote:

I do not think Darwin is wrong either.

If Darwin is right - this random mutation is what made everything tick. A purposful being does not work through randomness. This is the problem with Darwinian theories of evolution and Hawking's theories of the Big Bang Singularity. Both theories include absolute randomness.

A purposful being does not use absloute randomness to create - period.

I am not saying that you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater - it just seems to me you are still choosing what you want - and leaving what you don't with dogmatic belief as your guide post.

TF

0 Replies

Spendius, the word is "relicare". And it means to bind people to God or Gods. You see, in that period, people were stupid and unable to see the light of marxism, like you do. For them religion meant to prey and hope that Gods didn't smash them with an earthquake.

0 Replies

I find it strange that when I pose the notion of the universe as a singularity and call it god you immediately call it superstitious. I have not said anything about wether or not this singularity is concious as one entity. EVERYTHING that exists, and all the ways it interacts is what I mean. Is there a scientific term for this?

When I state that science and religion are concerned with the same questions I do not mean that the church has an intrest in quarks. What I am saying is that no matter wich method you chose, wether you work in a lab or before an altar, you strive to push back the boundaries that you see. The goal is to continue to exist. That is why we have anything at all. That is our motive for doing anything.

0 Replies

val;-

I thought it was "religare".Thanks for setting me straight.I didn't use the word as I don't go in for parading my erudition.

It simply means "to bind".The God bit is yours.

I certainly don't agree that people in the classical period were "stupid".They probably had a similar mix as we have.Juvenal wasn't stupid by any stretch of the imagination.

And I'm no Marxist.

Best wishes

spendius.

0 Replies

Everything that exists as a God is called Pantheism.

Buddhists are Panteists but Christians really cannot be.

1) Sin would have to be part of God - so would satan and other things evil - Christians want thier God to be Omnibenevolent.

2) God created the earth ex nihilo - not from himself.

and so on.

Cyracuz - I think you are putting your foot on a path that will take you well outside most religions. There are answers, but perhaps most other men have not allowed themselves to to consider those answers before and not released themselves of the dogmatic creeds of thier religious past.

I tend to agree with you - I don't see any evil (outside of man's choices) and I think it is a raw impossibility for God to create something from nothing. Thus, I am a christian who thinks that God is everything. Doesn't make real popular at bible study - but it is my road, and my evidence that matters within my religious journey - not thiers. I can only be responsible for my soul.

Good luck.

TF

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I find it strange that when I pose the notion of the universe as a singularity and call it god you immediately call it superstitious.

I find it strange that you would pose the notion of a universe as a singulrity...and call it god...instead of calling it a singularity.

When you are able to find it strange that you would do such a thing...you will not longer find what people have to say about it strange.

Quote:

When I state that science and religion are concerned with the same questions I do not mean that the church has an intrest in quarks. What I am saying is that no matter wich method you chose, wether you work in a lab or before an altar, you strive to push back the boundaries that you see.

Gimme a break. Give us all a break. The last thing the people who "work before an altar" are interesting in striving for...is to push back the boundries that we see.

Think before you post.

0 Replies

You know, when I was little, coming from religious schools, I was taught more to fear hell than to empathize. I think that they should focus more on rational moral reasoning (i.e. empathy) than fearing hell; although the latter is effective for small kids, it will become a problem when they grow up. Then again, I came from a third world country so what do I know about how they teach here...

0 Replies

Any "two" items are necessarily both "similar" and "different". (Trivially they are similar in being the objects of comparison, and different because there are "two"). Therefore to say "science" and "religion" are "similar" because they seek "truth" is potentially vacuous as "objective truth" contravenes the functional flexibility of set membership implied in my first sentence.

It is the observer who assigns similarity or difference to the objects of his active perceptual process according to his needs. Cyracuz demonstrates this with his usage of "I believe..." (which has nothing to do with "guessing" in this case Frank)

Spendius's analysis of cohesive social structures makes more sense than chasing that elusive "Truth". i.e. Science and religion are about what "works", not "truth". (Popper's celebrated "falsification principle" epitomises the functionality of science as opposed to its truth)

0 Replies

I agree with you here TF. We must each do what seems right for us. But it seems that there is christianity and there is christianity. The modern version seems more like devilworship to me. It is a belief system that accomodates the decadent way of western life. I am tempted to state that it has nothing to do with god anymore. Cristianity is a religion that worships the ego of man, his pride, and his ignorance. God is merely a puppet, and Jesus a servant. I just think it's wrong.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Gimme a break. Give us all a break. The last thing the people who "work before an altar" are interesting in striving for...is to push back the boundries that we see.

Think before you post.

Ditto man. I do not think that you are stupid, but you are making it hard to maintain this belief. Seems to me that you are more concerned with shredding my theory than trying to understand it. Do you have any idea whatsoever what a priest finds important in his work?

I have a question for you: Do you have people in your life that you love? A wife perhaps. How would you explain the connection between you if you don't believe in anything that cannot be reduced to numbers and equations?

I feel I also have to say that I find your sceptisism refreshing.
May you all have a happy new year

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Gimme a break. Give us all a break. The last thing the people who "work before an altar" are interesting in striving for...is to push back the boundries that we see.

Think before you post.

Ditto man. I do not think that you are stupid, but you are making it hard to maintain this belief.

I do tend to be a bit ham fisted at times. Sorry about that. No insult intended...just my way of being emphatic.

But I wrote this particular bit of emphatic ham in response to your comment:

"When I state that science and religion are concerned with the same questions I do not mean that the church has an intrest in quarks. What I am saying is that no matter wich method you chose, wether you work in a lab or before an altar, you strive to push back the boundaries that you see. "

Religion is not interested in investigation or pushing back boundries Cyracuz. Religion, in fact, does its best to discourage questions in general...at times, burning people to death for daring to ask or explore them.

You are doing more than presenting religion in its best light here...you are simply fabricating a reality for it that does not exist.

Quote:

Seems to me that you are more concerned with shredding my theory than trying to understand it. Do you have any idea whatsoever what a priest finds important in his work?

I was an altar boy into early adulthood. I've served mass for priests, bishops, and even a cardinal at one time. I served mass in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. I've had personal friends who were priests and monsigniors. Until about age 25...I was fairly certain that I had a calling to a religious vocation.

I know what priests find important...and one of the things they find MOST IMPORTANT...is to councel people NEVER TO DOUBT any teachings of the church...and never to question any of them.

The last thing on their minds is to encourage inquisitiveness...or to encourage any of the thing that makes science, science...namely, create hypotheses and attempt to refute them.

Quote:

I have a question for you: Do you have people in your life that you love? A wife perhaps.

Yep...Nancy. Nuts about her.

Quote:

How would you explain the connection between you if you don't believe in anything that cannot be reduced to numbers and equations?

Did I miss something?????

And where have I ever even intimated that I think reducing things to numbers and equations is paramount?

By the way...I do not do that "believing" thing at all.

Quote:

I feel I also have to say that I find your sceptisism refreshing.
May you all have a happy new year

Good. Talk about it with me as much as you like. The people here all know how much I love to share my skepticism...and the reasoning behind it.

0 Replies

It seems that you have a great deal of experience with religion. I have not had that much I must admit. Norway is not catholic, it's protestant, and the encounters I have had with priests where I have stated the problem of belief contra science have surprised me. It was here that I first was presented with the idea that there is no contradiction between religion and science, and that they strive for the same goals. I admit that it is a long way from no contradiction to any type of equalness.
It is wrong to generalize religion or science, and I have been guilty of doing so here. But when I refer to christianity I refer to the word of christ, not the word of his followers. There is a difference I think, and I do not believe that Jesus himself would have renounced science in the way the church has done for so long. It is not in an attempt to provoke that I make the statement that the rule of the church has more in common with Hitlers rule during WW2 than what Jesus taught.

By the way Frank, something caught my interest. You don't do believing ever?! Strange. I was under the impression that you cannot go through life without believing something. I mean there must be something you don't know where you are forced to make a hypothesis on too little information...

Quote:

You are doing more than presenting religion in its best light here...you are simply fabricating a reality for it that does not exist.

Seems I do. But maybe the words written above can serve as some kind of damage control.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

By the way Frank, something caught my interest. You don't do believing ever?! Strange. I was under the impression that you cannot go through life without believing something. I mean there must be something you don't know where you are forced to make a hypothesis on too little information...

I hypothesis...I guess...I estimate...I suppose...I think...I assume...I conjecture...I speculate...I deem...etc.

I do not "believe"...whatever that means to you.

What "believe" means to me...is that the person saying he/she "believes" whatever it is he/she believes....is disguising the fact that he/she is actually doing one of those things I mentioned.

A hypothesis, a guess, an estimate, a supposition, an assumption, a conjecture, a speculation....does not become a "belief" until it is characterized as such.

I don't do that...EVER. I do not ever disguise my guesses or such.

Quote:

Quote:
You are doing more than presenting religion in its best light here...you are simply fabricating a reality for it that does not exist.

Seems I do. But maybe the words written above can serve as some kind of damage control.

Indeed it does, Cyracuz. This was an excellent post on your part...and I thank you for taking time to point all these things out to me.

I hope we have both gained from the experience.

0 Replies

Quote:

I hope we have both gained from the experience.

I know I have. Smile

0 Replies

fresco:-

"What works".For sure.That's where to jump off from.The cradle of the industrial revolution in NW England had "what works" for swaddling clothes.
You have to laugh at these heretics trying to find a superior tone in undernourished theology simply because "what works" requires serious effort and wringing it out on technologies which we began.
Notice how your remark has been ignored.It has to be because it leaves them all gasping.They have even resorted to Valentine card sentiment which is a dead giveaway.

Have you seen Light Fantastic in BBC Four?Those guys are our guys don't you think.Heroes all.

It has taken the grand larceny of Russian oil to knock us off top spot.

spendius.

0 Replies

I didn't see fresco's post until you said it now spendius. Guess I was too busy dodging franks hammer... Smile

I have stated alot in this thread that is impossible to verify. One thing I am still certain of though is that the similarity I was aiming for really is there. If we see the two counterparts as tools, religion can be said to have been the tool that humans used until they got a better one. Namely science. But the methods of science were formulated in the beginning by people who were working against the lies of the curch. They recognized that our senses are inadequate to explain the world, wich religion has clearly demonstrated, and wich I also have demonstrated in this thread, so they set out looking for something to build on. In this sense there is a likeness: The desire to fill the void. The difference is that where a religious person may be willing to fill it with anything, a more sceptic and scientifically inclined individual will not fill it with air just because it is more comfortable than emptiness.

I do not think this is a matter of believing. Who in the world does not rely on "what works"?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

fresco:-

"What works".For sure.That's where to jump off from.The cradle of the industrial revolution in NW England had "what works" for swaddling clothes.
You have to laugh at these heretics trying to find a superior tone in undernourished theology simply because "what works" requires serious effort and wringing it out on technologies which we began.
Notice how your remark has been ignored.It has to be because it leaves them all gasping.They have even resorted to Valentine card sentiment which is a dead giveaway.

I cannot wait to hear what Fresco has to say about those of us who are "..heretics trying to find a superior tone in undernourished theology..."

Spendius...every indication; is that your belief system is not the result of "serious work." It appears to be the result of supersition....blind, fear-filled superstition. And guesswork!

One does not show a superior tone by acknowledging that one does not know the answers....the way I do. One shows a superior tone by pretending one knows the answers.

But...I am enjoying your pretense. It provides laughs.

And along those lines...I really owe you a "thank you" for the huge laugh I got out of one of your earlier posts. The one where you wrote:

Quote:

I thought it was "religare".Thanks for setting me straight.I didn't use the word as I don't go in for parading my erudition.

I can't tell you how quickly a picture of the emperor with no clothes parading down the avenue came to my mind when I read that gem.

0 Replies

Well,there you go then.
It must be superior to not show a superior tone and acknowledge you have no answers before it is feasible to reccomend it.

Any chance of a clue on what "every indication" means.Or of "it appears".

I know what fresco will say.The "what works" brigade all think alike.They only dispute about improvements.Any answers outside that are not for us.We don't know any and we don't pretend otherwise.Not ever.

What does your stuff do to take television,say,from where Logie Baird left it to where it is now.Or to go from the Wright Bros to a 747.Nothing I would say.
The same applies to a host of inchoate ideas from brilliant minds,which leave me in awe,and to which the "what works" principle has been applied and which now dominate your entire existence and those of everybody you are likely to know.

It must be good fun to be an emperor and parade around with no clothes.Ladies like emperors don't you know.Ask Mr Kissinger.

spendius.

0 Replies

Frank:-

I'm glad I gave you a "huge laugh".It is good for the nervous system is a good laugh.Or so the experts say and I believe them on that.

You are right about me not doing much serious work.I hate work.I do my bit I think but some would say that that is a self-serving assertion and I would not argue with them.

spendius.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Well,there you go then.
It must be superior to not show a superior tone and acknowledge you have no answers before it is feasible to reccomend it.

Any chance of a clue on what "every indication" means.Or of "it appears".

I know what fresco will say.The "what works" brigade all think alike.They only dispute about improvements.Any answers outside that are not for us.We don't know any and we don't pretend otherwise.Not ever.

What does your stuff do to take television,say,from where Logie Baird left it to where it is now.Or to go from the Wright Bros to a 747.Nothing I would say.
The same applies to a host of inchoate ideas from brilliant minds,which leave me in awe,and to which the "what works" principle has been applied and which now dominate your entire existence and those of everybody you are likely to know.

It must be good fun to be an emperor and parade around with no clothes.Ladies like emperors don't you know.Ask Mr Kissinger.

spendius.

Jesus Christ, Spendius...you must really be getting frustrated....because this post really is over the edge.

Sorry...I thought you had more to you. If I had known you were a child, I would have gone easier on you.

Try to recover.

And...if you do...post the single most compelling argument you have.

I'll show you were you are wrong!

0 Replies

New possibillities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know