Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
The fossils, including our forebears, match the junk DNA of current creatures which also matches their changes in the womb as embryos, this making a triple conjunction of closure. Evolution is fact. Its methods are ever under study. No immutability of species. The 'divinely inspired' Bible got it wrong.
The fact you can just make stuff up and not justify it doesn't mean you are not lacking in knowledge yourself.Dude, the emerald tables was authored by three initiates in the beginning of 20th century, and they claimed it was the essence of the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus; Hermes on the other hand, was “Thoth” the Egyptian (it is said that Thoth was an Atlantean Priest-King, who founded a colony in ancient Egypt after the sinking of his mother country), from several thousands of years ago and then the name was translated to Hermes the “Thrice Greatest” by the ancient Greeks. Myth says he was an immortal being who had conquered death.
His scriptures were lost in the great burning of the Alexandrian library.
Off course, I cannot back this up either with physical proof, but I'm just pointing out your lack of knowledge on the subject
In my experience those who accept the limits of Man the most are scientists. We don't just to "Oh God is tunnelling information into my brain, I am his voice!" or "God did it" as answers, we continuously work to expand our understanding, with the full knowledge we'll never finish.
This whole "Religious belief humbles a person" thing is nonsense. It's staggering arrogance dressed up as being humble. Your god is the god and thus your belief makes you special. He/She/It talks to you and guides you, listens to you muttering to yourself and gives a shit who you sleep with. Whether or not you think Man's brain is limited you think you're sufficiently special that the entity you think created the entire universe gives a rats ass about you, one of his chosen. Hardly humble.
Religion has been evolving for the entirety of human history and it's becoming ever more implausible and laughable.
But that doesn't mean we throw the scientific method, which has got us so far, in the bin and just start making shit up. If you don't know the answer to a question the honest reply is "I don't know", not "Hang on, I'll look in this unjustified, falsified book written in the Bronze Age, use my own interpretation and then just make up an answer to your question". Religion gives useless answers. It'd be infinitely more honest if it just admitted when it doesn't know but of course how can you claim to be speaking for an all knowing entity and yet not have answers?
Speaking as someone with a doctorate in theoretical physics that is bullshit. You clearly don't know how the scientific method works and now you're demonstrating you're willing to just make things up. But then I guess that's the attitude your religion teaches, rather than being honest and keeping your trap shut when you don't know something.
Quantum mechanics is almost a century old and in that century the religious belief of scientists has plummeted.
The fact some aspects of quantum mechanics are counter intuitive doesn't lead people to religion. Part of being a good scientist is saying "I presently do not understand this but I won't jump to a conclusion, I'll continue collecting data". I've been dealing with quantum mechanics for the better part of a decade and never has it made me think about anything religious. Likewise with all the people I've worked with.
You might be used to saying "I don't understand this, therefore God" but that's not intellectually honest, it's not the way science is done.
Because stupidity and ignorance are hard wired into us, not because 'science leads you to religion'.
A real religion should not have the "belief in god" as a premise; in fact god is just a word, and not at all a reality. The reality of god is subject to each person's interpretation of the word.
If I think that god is love and creativity, I could drop the word god and use "love and creativity" instead, but it would lose its religious connotation. I do not believe in god as a being, but as a consequence of looking at reality without the dualist perception of the mind.
And about meditation, I posted a link previously to a 5000 year old scripture (Vigyan Bhairav Tantra), which I think is the most complete book for meditation practices ever written and it is not at all unscientific.
It starts with many questions:
Devi Asks: O Shiva, what is your reality?
What is this wonder-filled universe?
What constitutes seed?
Who centers the universal wheel?
What is this life beyond form pervading forms?
How may we enter it fully, above space and time, names and
descriptions?
Let my doubts be cleared!?
Shiva replies with 112 methods of meditation, and no philosophical answer whatsoever. This is science, Shiva was not interested in engaging in philosophical arguments with his beloved, he wanted her to experience this for herself, so the answers will come to her out of her experience.
It is like a person Y asking to person Z. Y: What is the taste of an apple? And Z, without answering with words grabs an apple and gives it to Y asking him to taste it. Scientifically, can you respond to such a question? It would be impossible to elaborate an accurate answer I think, but not at all impossible to experience.
PS: I know I posted a few lines out of arrogance in previous posts directed to Dywyddyr, and I apologize for that, honestly. Sometimes one gets carried away by the old habits of the mind.
If I think that god is love and creativity, I could drop the word god and use "love and creativity" instead, but it would lose its religious connotation. I do not believe in god as a being, but as a consequence of looking at reality without the dualist perception of the mind.
And about meditation, I posted a link previously to a 5000 year old scripture (Vigyan Bhairav Tantra), which I think is the most complete book for meditation practices ever written and it is not at all unscientific.
It starts with many questions:
Devi Asks: O Shiva, what is your reality?
What is this wonder-filled universe?
What constitutes seed?
Who centers the universal wheel?
What is this life beyond form pervading forms?
How may we enter it fully, above space and time, names and
descriptions?
Let my doubts be cleared!?
Shiva replies with 112 methods of meditation, and no philosophical answer whatsoever. This is science, Shiva was not interested in engaging in philosophical arguments with his beloved, he wanted her to experience this for herself, so the answers will come to her out of her experience.
It is like a person Y asking to person Z. Y: What is the taste of an apple? And Z, without answering with words grabs an apple and gives it to Y asking him to taste it. Scientifically, can you respond to such a question? It would be impossible to elaborate an accurate answer I think, but not at all impossible to experience.
PS: I know I posted a few lines out of arrogance in previous posts directed to Dywyddyr, and I apologize for that, honestly. Sometimes one gets carried away by the old habits of the mind.
And most of you guys are telling me I'm posting out of supposition. We are talking about the future man, everybody here is supposing stuff.
Some suppose religion will die away with science, I don't.
I'm saying science will eventually validate many practices and methodologies of religion, as it is doing right now. Yoga and meditation have actual scientific evidence for their many contributions to health; but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Let’s say in the future there would be a “scientific religion” only based on Yoga and Meditation, even if it would be based on science and not presupposes an existence of god or any philosophical arguments, it would still be a religion because of the unmeasured future outcome.
Some suppose religion will die away with science, I don't.
I'm saying science will eventually validate many practices and methodologies of religion, as it is doing right now. Yoga and meditation have actual scientific evidence for their many contributions to health; but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Let’s say in the future there would be a “scientific religion” only based on Yoga and Meditation, even if it would be based on science and not presupposes an existence of god or any philosophical arguments, it would still be a religion because of the unmeasured future outcome.
Make your mind up:
Me: WTF is a "true religion"?
You: A good definition of religion:
Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God.
You think?
Hardly an answer to question 2 for one thing, is it?
Maybe you should look up the definition of science. It would help you in future.
You are.
And most of us can provide some basis for our suppositions. You haven't.
Yet you haven't replied to post #179 (which was questioning what is unsupported supposition for the most part).
Then, one more time: what is your definition of religion? And why are you redefining the word?
Is it because you actually want to forget about god, learn science but somehow maintain your conviction you are "religious" for some obscure reason?
Dywyddyr: Would you say Buddhism is not a religion?
It is a non-theistic religion, meaning that the nature of God is not pertinent to Buddhist teachings.
I know Buddhism has many believes, but god is not one of them. Also, these believes only serve as a motive for practice and meditation. If your motive for meditation is merely scientific, it will not affect the outcome.
It is a non-theistic religion, meaning that the nature of God is not pertinent to Buddhist teachings.
I know Buddhism has many believes, but god is not one of them. Also, these believes only serve as a motive for practice and meditation. If your motive for meditation is merely scientific, it will not affect the outcome.
And what would the basis of the supposition that “religion will die away with science and evolution” be?
I never said I want to forget about the possibility of god, but I don't take the belief of god as a motive for my actions.
Nope.
No?
Wiki (of course).
With "evolution"? Not a clue, you'll have to ask whoever said it. But science is gradually reducing the places god can "hide". Eventually he'll be reduced to a true non-entity. Much like Osiris, Thor et al.
Er, so what's the value (or point) in believing in god?
I'm sorry, I seem to be unable to see the rest of your answers (specifically the replies to my post #179). Did you use an invisible font, or is my computer playing silly buggers?
If you don’t think that Buddhism is a religion, from that standpoint I agree with almost everything you have said here. But I do think that Buddhism is a religion, one of the most important ones. And it is non-theistic.
Wiki :
The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator.
That is a supposition.
I don’t see any point in believing in god, I see it (most of the times) as a hypocritical superstition. Because you cannot “trust” something you do not know, and if you say you are certain about the existence of god with doubt in your heart then you would be lying. And with blind belief, doubt follows inevitably.
I never said science has proven those things, I just said I believe (there, I said the word you wanted) that science will someday validate them.
True teachings are those teachings that are not lies. In the religious scriptures there is much truth, and there are also a bunch of lies added by hidden agendas of politicians (including religious figures such as Pope, priests, etc.).
Er,
You: Would you say Buddhism is not a religion?
Me: Nope.
Note the denial of a negative...
And now you're redefining gods.
It's an extrapolation of an observed, continuing trend.
Then what's religion in your equation for? And you stil haven't given any definition (no matter how spurious) of "religion" that doesn't include god.
No, but you DID say:
And gave examples.
And once again you avoid the real question to state tautologies. What ARE these "true teachings"?
There's a difference between interpolating from current data points and just making stuff up. I believe, based on past experience and physical models, the Sun will rise tomorrow. This is supposition but it is well founded in reality. Someone who says "Tomorrow the Sun will be replaced by a giant squirrel" is not making a well founded supposition.
The evidence is that religious belief in the Western world is on the decrease. The evidence is that religious belief goes down with education, particularly education in science.
You have no evidence for that. In fact you have to ignore evidence to the contrary!
Being relaxed and healthy is a good thing, that isn't rocket science. Eating well and exercising has always been known to be good for you. It's practically tautological!
Besides, neither of those are religious, they are just life styles.
The Bible is the big book of multiple choice. You can find a passage to justify almost anything, including slavery, genocide and incest. When something is disprove or falls out of favour you pick another verse. A book which can say anything says nothing.
Why do you think they are not religious? They were certainly born out of religions.
Agreed, but bible is just one of many scriptures.
My sincere apologies SciWriter, I did not neglected your posts, I read them carefully; and the picture of the graveyard was LOL 4 me.
The reason why I didn't answer is that I agree with what you said. But let me elaborate:
Agreed, for me it is good that you have “joined the battle”. It is in fact because of people like you that fake blind beliefs are being destroyed, for me this is nothing but good.
That is exactly my point man, so you have the same answer to the OP as I am trying to state.
I am dead serious about that man; he was born in a Jewish environment alright. But he was condemned and killed by the Jewish establishment of the moment, because of his statements.
He was not against Judaism, but he gave the Jewish teachings his interpretations according to his own understanding, he was not at all an orthodox Jew (if Jew is a title that can be credited to such a free man). He never compromised his consciousness for something that is written.
Fragment from the Gospel of Thomas, that states when disciples were trying to “fit” Jesus’ teachings into a Jewish background:
“the disciples say to Jesus, "Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel, and all of them spoke in you." To which Jesus replies: "You have omitted the one living in your presence and have spoken (only) of the dead.".
Jesus even discredited all commandments of the Old Testament, therefore in despair his disciples asked him what commandments he teaches to what Jesus replied:
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34)
Another Jesus statement against orthodox Jews (Synagogue goers):
Matthew 23:25-28 saying, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 You blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”
Completely agree, but my point is that science is still to prove the relationship between what we know of evolution and the theory of reincarnation.
Reincarnation is not discredited by the findings of evolutionists. I know that reincarnation is still speculation and not science, because science has not yet found a being that is behind the body, not driving the body (mind) but the observer of the mind.
I understand your point in your whole statement of post #178. And I agree with you.
The thing is, meditation is beyond all that, it is against false assumptions and one should never jump into conclusions for our own experiences on meditation; meditation has nothing to do with god, but it does with religion. The Buddha is the grand master of meditation, giving birth later to Zen, which is the heart of Buddhism:
• “In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true..”
• “Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.”
• “Look within, thou art the Buddha.”
• “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.”
Patanjali’s Yoga sutras are a great resource of yoga and meditation:
“All impressions and reactions are known as 'mental fluctuations' or 'thought-waves', and yoga is the control of thought-waves in the mind.”
Patanjali
Milarepa (Zen Master):
“My religion is to live and die without regret.”
“All meditation must begin with arousing deep compassion.
Whatever one does must emerge from an attitude of love and benefitting others.”
Nagarjuna (Zen Master):
“All philosophies are mental fabrications.
There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.”
Even Jesus was try9ing to teach meditation to traditional Jews using their own religious language:
Jesus was once asked when the kingdom of God would come. The kingdom of God, Jesus replied, is not something people will be able to see and point to. Then came these striking words: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)
OK, but reincarnation and Luke saying things about "within" are just suppositions and so they carry no weight.
Personal subjective belief is one thing, but putting it on others as fact and truth is another thing.
science is for those who want to think
religion is for those who want to feel,
Science is for those who want to know,
Religion is for those who want to believe
(i had a point somewhere...)
what about all the non-religious idols sci?
i think money would be a thing that ppl worship..maybe Barney, definitely Doctor Who..
And you will all worship me..
not because i want you to, but because i'm so giant..wheres my flyswatter?..
(couldn't resist..)
true.
but
one usually thinks of ones personal subjective beliefs as true and factual,
whether theist or atheist..
case in point, the atheist desire to convince believers that 'there is no God' even though they admit there can be no proof either way..
I can go with that.
I must find my diary and make a note of this momentous occasion!
Pfft, don't be so modest. We already do.
Not quite the whole truth. Some atheists simply "don't believe" and are either asking what proof there is or pointing out that there's no proof on the theist's side either.
which is why religion won't die.
and why science and religion need each other..they are a set.
that would be good and well, IF atheist would quite making it about how wrong theist are. those two points you made gets lost in the attack.
I'm not sure about that.
Religion may well die (as in "belief in god") due to fewer gaps for him. But the "need for belief" may well survive (probably will, it seems to part of what makes us human) and stay on as something "more rational". Maybe a belief in humanity...
Okay. "We"'ll stop making it about how wrong theists are when they stop making unsupportable claims about god.
Explain how they are religious, in that they promote a belief in a deity or deities or spiritual realm of any kind.
The same seems to apply to any holy book. The Torah is basically the Old Testament and so the 'Big Book of Multiple Choice' applies to it trivially. There's plenty of examples of Koran quotes about how Islam is a religion of peace but you should kill apostates or anyone who tries to lead you from the big invisible guy in the sky. I used the Bible example because the majority of people on this forum are, at least it seems to me, to be Western and thus have more familiarity with the Bible. I personally have more familiarity with the Bible than the Quran but when it comes to my views on them it's much the same for each, fiction masquerading as wisdom and truth.
And you once again avoid responding to the points I raise. I've said repeatedly that science isn't leading people to religion. This is backed up with evidence, in that the most irreligious groups within any given country, including the US, are those with the highest levels of education, especially in the sciences. In general the level of religious belief goes down as social liberalism and scientific knowledge go up. I also speak from personal experience as a PhD in physics and a professional mathematician/physicist. Neither I nor anyone I have or do work with has been lead to religious by science. In fact I can't think of anyone I've worked with who was or is a believer and I've specifically asked those various groups at one time or another.
Where is the evidence of your claims? You clearly don't understand the scientific method, the developmental history of science, the recent (ie last 100 years) history of science, the plummeting of belief in scientists in that time and the profound lack of belief in scientists now. You seem to be basing your claims on your ignorant view of how you think science is developing. Quantum mechanics doesn't lead scientists to religious, the only people who get spiritual justification from quantum mechanics are those who don't understand it, ie the hacks like the makers of "What the Bleep Do We Know?".
Rather than avoiding my retorts of your claims why don't you respond? Or are you trying to bury your head in the sand for fear you might find out you're wrong? The truth has nothing to fear from open discussion, you shouldn't have any reason not to respond. Assuming, of course, you have evidence to back up your claims.