The manipulation of Religion

[Godless]

oh yeaaah, how predictable of you godless. totally ignore what's being said, and being the dullard literalist you are not leave first base....yaaaawn

I didn't ingnore what you wrote, I tried to figure out what the fuck you were writing, as could hardly fucking understand it!.

So I fucking read it several times, and alas!! at the endofit all I agreed wth you, if U wnt 2 truly be understood, then spend some time perhaps writing a bit more legible.

Godless

 

[duendy]

I didn't ingnore what you wrote, I tried to figure out what the fuck you were writing, as could hardly fucking understand it!.

So I fucking read it several times, and alas!! at the endofit all I agreed wth you, if U wnt 2 truly be understood, then spend some time perhaps writing a bit more legible.

Godless

other can and do...why not you? lazy-eyed?...can you not glean what someof my typos are...?

and 'endofit' what that mean..???????

jokin

 

[geeser]

depends what you mean by 'religion'!

for example in the history of Soviet Union, how many died? millions. and many more suffered, and Had to conform to......the ideology.

so, what do you mean by religion? do you think it is only the Abrahmic religions that cause conflict or does te problem go much deeper than that?

oh yes, all religions are as bad as each other, passed and present.
communism was just another form of a religion, to control the masses, the one thing religions dont want is for man to be an individual, by suppressing that basic need, they create anger and hatred. joseph stalin was a catholic that went crazy with power just like Torquemada, Marcion.
most ideologys are based round a religion/idol/charismatic famous/infamous person, jesus, stalin, atilla, saddam, etc.. no one should ever get complete power over a people again.

 

[duendy]

how do you view Science in this regard?

 

[c7ityi_]

duendy, what kind of "proof" do you want? do you actually believe there IS proof for this? do you think that, because something cannot be proven, it is not reality?

 

[geeser]

duendy: there is no comparison with science, science is only there to advance man, to a better understanding of his surroundings and the ways of the universe.
in the past religion even tried to stiffle science, but not so now, the more we become educated the better our chances of discarding this inane security blanket(god/gods)

c7ityi_:if the is no evidence for a thing, until such time as the thing can show itself to be real, (after all it only needs a micro instance of a thing to prove it exists) it must remain as pure fantasy, there is no other possible reasoning.

 

[candy]

There are times when the "scientific" community can function with the same repressive behavior as religion to ideas that challenge the accepted norm.

 

[c7ityi_]

geeser: What do you mean by evidence? What do you mean by "real"? Seeing something doesn't mean it exists, it just means that you see "it".

The science of today is "unscientific" because they believe in a real material universe, in a multitude of minds, and that mind comes from matter. The Universe is a sensation because you cannot be conscious of something outside your consciousness.

Nobody could ever explain mind out of matter, out of neurons etc. (because mind is neither inside matter nor inside neurons. Neurons and matter ARE INSIDE MIND; are sensations).

The whole universe is inside the universal mind, and everyone is this mind seeing himself (the universe) from one special personal point of view. We are not several minds conscious of one real universe outside, but rather one mind conscious of an infinite number of personal universes inside it.

---

Sciences today are ruled by the principles of Epistemology proposed by Karl Popper, in which he defined the scientific nature of theoretical propositions as being: the possibility of creating experiments which disproved their propositions.

This is not possible for fundamental problems about matter, mind, or the universe itself. For instance, you cannot invent an experiment which would prove that the universe does not exist. So everything you say about the universe is unscientific, and the universe itself is not a scientific object.

Many things can be true and yet unscientific, and many others can be scientific, but not true. This is unacceptable.

This is why Sciences today find themselves in deadlock when confronted by fundamental questions.

 

[duendy]

duendy, what kind of "proof" do you want? do you actually believe there IS proof for this? do you think that, because something cannot be proven, it is not reality?

try and bring the quote with you mate...so we kow what your referring to....i hunted it out and find you man my asking you for proof to substantiate your claim that the body is a mchine, like a computer ...right?

ok. ypou say what's the point of proof?...haha the scientists here will love yu for saying that...YET i bet many also ae beliving in te body = machin/computer myth....as the min accepted paradgim is just that!!
this is how te big pharma-government-psychiatric establishment cartel gets away with their evil, money-making -, social-controlling scam......by pretending teir science IS a science when in fact it is a pseudoscience not based on PROOF......ie., many follow wht they say like those that follow religion. BLIND faith.....you've heard te saying 'being blinded by science' i take it? that

Acdtually, tere is much alternative evidence that the body is NOT like a machine at all. not even a computer.

if you care to survey the history of ideas you notice that every age compares human body to what is understood 'scientifically...so for example, Rene Descartes, compard human body to pulleys and levers, and Fred also used industrial mechanical terms inn desribing the human mind, etc etc

soooooo your assertion that body is merely a mchine like a computer does not hold up. not one bit. nd the belief is not very human friendly ot Nature friendly, to say the least!

 

[geeser]

There are times when the "scientific" community can function with the same repressive behavior as religion to ideas that challenge the accepted norm.

some references please, thank you.

What do you mean by evidence? What do you mean by "real"? Seeing something doesn't mean it exists, it just means that you see "it".

it has only to show one instant of it's self. to any one of the senses, to prove it exists. if it effects your objectivity and mine it exists, if it only effects your objectivity then it must be classed as subjective.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn---------^^^*

got constipation.

 

[duendy]

duendy: there is no comparison with science, science is only there to advance man, to a better understanding of his surroundings and the ways of the universe.


me:: hmmmmmmmmmmmall very nice on paper, huh? but in actuality???? comeonnnn

i am wit candy on this one.
is this what you sense? how heroic science is advancing man. i dont. i feel the fukin wall closin ins what i feel. and i am not the only one who feels this threat. and all backed up by scince and its technology...in the hands of a fascist elite.

in the past religion even tried to stiffle science, but not so now, the more we become educated the better our chances of discarding this inane security blanket(god/gods)
yes i agree about 'gods' worshipped and the dagers of religious ignorance and so on, but whati am trying to point out is that for manymanythe NEW 'god' IS science......ALL experience has to be judged by 'science'....all qualities of feelings and emotions are now jdged by science-ism. didn't you know this?

c7ityi_:if the is no evidence for a thing, until such time as the thing can show itself to be real, (after all it only needs a micro instance of a thing to prove it exists) it must remain as pure fantasy, there is no other possible reasoning.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn---------^^^*

 

[geeser]

mm all very nice on paper, huh? but in actuality???? come on.
I am with candy on this one.
is this what you sense?

no it's what I know.

how heroic, science is advancing man. I dont, I feel the f**king walls closing in,

why?

what I feel. and I am not the only one who feels this threat.

what threat?

and all backed up by science and its technology...in the hands of a fascist elite.

why ? fascist, science is not reactionary or dictatorial.

yes I agree about 'gods' worshipped and the dangers of religious ignorance and so on, but what,I am trying to point out is that for many many the NEW 'god' IS science

science is not a religion, it's the complete opposite of religion, however science is the rational way.

ALL experience has to be judged by 'science' all qualities of feelings and emotions are now judged by science-ism. didn't you know this?

no science can not be judgemental, it only deals in fact. if your facts are wrong, how can you possibly thing science is judging you, if it points out your error.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn---------^^^*

are you constipated.

 

[KennyJC]

For example although impossible if everyone untied under one religion

Well in my opinion that would still be one too many, wether there be a God or not.

Anyway, I think it depends not necessarily on the religion, but the country. America and the Middle East are the worst for it at present.

Speaking generally, I live in Scotland where religion has massively declined. In Ireland (not to be confused with northern ireland) religion is still strong, but they are relatively quiet and not so in your face about it and perhaps they don't let it massively diminish their intelligence, so I can respect them. With a lot of muslims in my city, my general view of them is that a lot of them are pretty angry. And having been to America many times, and of course get a lot of American media on TV here, they mostly seem pretty stupid and in your face.

With religion being a completely different breed in just about every country I have stepped foot in, it's no wonder there are so many wars past and presant. The only answer is for religious people to keep their views in the church or to perhaps "wake up and smell the roses" (c) Water - 2005 - SciForums.

 

[c7ityi_]

ok. ypou say what's the point of proof?

lol, i didn't say that.

...haha the scientists here will love yu for saying that...

scientists are so unscientific today.

Acdtually, tere is much alternative evidence that the body is NOT like a machine at all. not even a computer.

what is it more like?

if you care to survey the history of ideas you notice that every age compares human body to what is understood 'scientifically...so for example, Rene Descartes, compard human body to pulleys and levers, and Fred also used industrial mechanical terms inn desribing the human mind, etc etc

humans have a tendency to recreate nature and themselves. paintings. books. movies. computer games (worlds). a computer is not even close to a human. it is still very primitive. like a computer game is not close to the real universe, in terms of size and stuff.

 

[duendy]

no it's what I know. why? what threat? why ? fascist science is not reactionary or dictatorial. science is not a religion, it's the complete opposite of religion, however science is the rational way.no science can not be judgemental, it only deals in fact. if your facts are wrong, how can you possibly thing science is judging you, if it points out your error. are you constipated.

i feel you are not awareof the threat.

where do e begin.

heard of the Patriot Act?

the waron drugs and terrorism?....etcetera?

all tis is a threat. may not be to you if you are a comfortable smug middle classian, high achiever and all that. but to many tis system is a major threat and its getting worse, and so are their techno weapons develpped through their fascistic application of science.

a 'sciece' also used to drug people and diagnose them 'mentally ill' when there is NO scientific proof for their daignoses.

all this is the misapllication of science for evil purposes of control

 

[duendy]

lol, i didn't say that.



scientists are so unscientific today.

me:: how do you mean? elaborate please


what is it more like?

me: the body in comparison with the machine?
the machine is a machine and the body is an organism


humans have a tendency to recreate nature and themselves. paintings. books. movies. computer games (worlds). a computer is not even close to a human. it is still very primitive. like a computer game is not close to the real universe, in terms of size and stuff.

exactly, it is a machine. sorted!

 

[c7ityi_]

me:: how do you mean? elaborate please

i did just a few moments ago in this thread.

the machine is a machine and the body is an organism

what is an organism? it sounds much like an advanced biological "machine".

 

[geeser]

i feel you are not aware of the threat.

again what threat, there is no threat from scientist, the people that fund there research, well thats another story.
so I gather the scientist should stop and humanity should revert back to the stone ages.

where do e begin.
heard of the Patriot Act?

yes,To deter and punish terrorist acts, but what has that to do with the scientist, surely it's a govenments thing.

the war on drugs and terrorism?....etcetera?

again a govenment thing.

all tis is a threat. may not be to you if you are a comfortable smug middle classian, high achiever and all that.

actually I'm a working class man I'm a builder, my main skill being a carpenter.

but to many tis system is a major threat and its getting worse, and so are their techno weapons develpped through their fascistic application of science.

again science cant be deemed reactionary or dictatorial, your blaming science for the political misuse of the ideas, yes we have new technological weapons, but the original idea behind them was not warfare, IE black powder(sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter (potassium nitrate).) commonly known now as "gunpower" was originally for fireworks, you just cant blame science for it's misuse.

a 'science' also used to drug people and diagnose them 'mentally ill' when there is NO scientific proof for their daignoses.

yes there has been some nasty things done in the name of medical science, and they still are in cosmetic science. but you cant blame the scientist, it's because people need these things, that these sciences have advanced to fill these voids.

all this is the misapllication of science for evil purposes of control

agreed, but not for control, but to fill a need.
you seem to be blaming the wrong people.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

organised religion is corrupt at its very core it all revolves around money so how can something like this ever be good,

all i say is this the things that the religion are based on like truth, honor, love, compassion, respect, non judging, are all very good things to live by but the people belongong to this religion show none of this, they start wars prejudge others, kill, lie, dissrespect and generally dont actually follow there teachings atall so i sum it up as this.

a load of bullshit based on a good idea that fucked up.

 

[duendy]

i did just a few moments ago in this thread.

me:: well if your gonna be like that whats tew point in discussing?


what is an organism? it sounds much like an advanced biological "machine".

no it's npt a machine i have explained it is organism NOT machine. a machine is put togther by a person ith a moveable thumb. an organisn grows....exfoliates from a centre. so your calling it machine is just a limiting metaphor.

why do yo wanna b a machine soo much anyway?...would you date a computer?