Jesus V. Religion - Page 4

why wouldn't you?

science appears to have excellent morals and ethics, when compared to contemporary religions. science allows me to fap. it also seems to recommend that women in sweltering heat do not cover their body totally.

On January 13 2012 08:57 Loco wrote: You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether.

dogmatism is the main problem with organized religion (also it's pre-requisite). Philosophical concepts that exceed the logical realm are flamed along with the religious blindness by atheists around the world and it's true that they shouldn't. However, this is something that organized religion should partly be blamed for as well... You can't really blame atheists that flame on the web and classify them the same as the brain-dead fanatic followers of organized religion. Said atheists might be somewhat sort-sighted (trivially in comparison to most religious people imo ), but their actions are easily fueled by the prevailing sheer stupidity that is cultivated by religious corporations around the world.
I thought of an analogy with black people but it's stupid. =/

On January 12 2012 16:11 taco wrote: Warning: This video is not worth your time and features a nutbag that capitalizes "He" when he speaks of Jeebus. Show nested quote + This nut: To qualify for grace all you have to do is realize you don't qualify. It's about His behavior, not yours. You are free if you are in Jesus and the Cross is proof you have freedom to struggle. Wow!!!!! 69th most video viewed on the web today!! God is good!!! Thats true regardless of how many views though. Hoping to make Him famous through it all! Ps i love how it still says 301 views cuz it hasn't updated haha God saw all you were going to be/do before He went to the cross, and He still gladly went. You don't have to hide anymore.

I agree. This guy is a delusional drooler.

edit: The relationship between science and human values.

On January 13 2012 14:27 nolan wrote: science appears to have excellent morals and ethics, when compared to contemporary religions. science allows me to fap. it also seems to recommend that women in sweltering heat do not cover their body totally.

Science "appears" to have excellent morals and ethics? What are you talking about? Science has none to offer, since it is concerned with what is (prescriptive or normative statements), whereas morals and ethics are ought statements. And it is well recognized in philosophy (under Hume's law) that you cannot get an ought from an is.

On January 13 2012 14:35 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 08:57 Loco wrote: You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether. dogmatism is the main problem with organized religion (also it's pre-requisite). Philosophical concepts that exceed the logical realm are flamed along with the religious blindness by atheists around the world and it's true that they shouldn't. However, this is something that organized religion should partly be blamed for as well... You can't really blame atheists that flame on the web and classify them the same as the brain-dead fanatic followers of organized religion. Said atheists might be somewhat sort-sighted (trivially in comparison to most religious people imo ), but their actions are easily fueled by the prevailing sheer stupidity that is cultivated by religious corporations around the world. I thought of an analogy with black people but it's stupid. =/

Agreed.

On January 13 2012 13:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: why would you want to get your ethics and morals from science lol

dude, please stop being so enigmatic and enlighten everyone with your view of things, making some sort of argument.
I'm still waiting to hear why you think Aquinas is the man (or why the Roman Catholic guy in the link you provided is correct perhaps?) , while you claim to be a non religious person.
I am not smart enough to understand everything you mean with those one liners (not that I disagree with this last one)

Nolan is #1. Sam Harris #2

On January 13 2012 12:32 locoo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 08:57 Loco wrote:   On January 12 2012 23:27 Stroggoz wrote: well a lot of pretty intelligent people in the world have a similar opinion as silver, and their opinions are based off facts. So religious people are generally stupid and atheists are smart cuz they has the belief in dem facts? No, the belief in something other than atheism has no link with diminished intelligence whatsoever. It's the unimaginative self-righteousness or indignation that's really annoying - from both sides. Each can be as dogmatic as the other. And this idea that religion is the cancer of the world and the only enemy Man has got to get rid of in order to recover some kind of utopia, and that it's some kind of duty of yours to discredit it at every turn is horribly misguided, arrogant, and comes from a clear misunderstanding of human nature. An evolutionary biologist like Dawkins is intelligent, yes, but also very limited in his understanding of the psyche and he's, like everyone else, harboring prejudices. The first part of discussing these issues seriously is to first be humble and acknowledge that we are just animals making sounds with our mouths - we don't know as much as we pretend to. Vaihinger said that mankind is a species of monkey suffering from megalomania, which strikes me as a very accurate way to put it. Since reality cannot be truly known (Kant), human beings construct systems of thought to satisfy their needs and then assume that actuality agrees with their constructions; i.e., people act "as if" the real were what they assume it to be, and possessed by a belief try to pass it on to others. Someone not eager to pass on his beliefs to others is alien to this Earth. These assumptions rule both science and religion - but at least some religions seek to establish direct contact with the real, or the Noumenon, whereas science is limited to observations of phenomena. Why couldn't there be truth in religious experiences, nay, more truth than in collecting data from observed phenomenon? I think this is something many atheists don't want to wrestle with, they just want to dismiss it and align themselves fully with science. The only thing we can say about science is that the process is useful when we see it as a progression where the ultimate goal is being less wrong, rather than as a collection of truths. And if it was sufficient and we truly could be aligning ourselves with it fully, and be "believers of science", we wouldn't need philosophy to give us our ethics, something that science cannot do, since you can never get an ought from an is. When Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" he was right, in my eyes, because both have their place and "these conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether. And I thought the OP video sucked. Couldn't finish it. I agree with you a lot, just a couple pointers "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition." -Albert Einstein That quote you used of Einstein is either not true or needs context, I think I remember the letter in which it was used, not completely sure but will look into it when I have the time. That said Einstein did hate being called an atheist, that is because that word is poor to define most "atheists" believes, the problem here is definitions, I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that there is no Christian or Muslim God, but my believes are that it's plausible that something/someone started this universe, still doesn't help our cause because then who started the starters? it's pointless and theres just no answer so for now we just stay with "agnostic atheist" which means we don't/can't know right now, kinda like this: in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein explained: I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.[6] Anyway the problem here is with organized religion, not with beliefs about what's real and the meaning of life and such, as we know nothing of it, I could tell you nothing of it. And also you might want to check out Sam Harris on how science can give us ethics and morals, he also has a book on it called The Moral Landscape, not saying I 100% agree with him but can't hurt to hear his arguments, he's one of my favorite lecturers because he keeps things as simple as possible and doesn't really try to confuse the audience so that they just have to agree with him like so many other lecturers do.

It's a real Einstein quote, and here's the context:

What separates me from most atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. The fanatical atheists are like the slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the “opium of the masses” — cannot hear the music of the spheres. I prefer the attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and our own being. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) German-American physicist
“Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium” (1941)


I'm familiar with Harris' Moral Landscape. I have some criticisms of it but it's too much to get into here. There's no denying that the world he believes in - if everyone adopted this morality - would be better than this one, but he is not logically consistent and quite naive. He's basically trying to make a science out of utilitarianism, which already has its own issues. There are some convincing arguments from a negative utilitarianism point of view from my perspective, and it is a much better ethical system than utilitarianism. I like him a lot more than Dawkins, though, since he's more humble.

People can be divided into 4 groups - super religious, kinda religious, atheists and spiritual. The super religious are those guys we all know that don't really like to ask questions and act like sheep. They just follow every single word in the Bible and what the church tells them. They have absolutely 0 critical thinking. The second group - kinda religious - they believe in God but do question some of the religion-system's flaws but mostly keep it to themselves. They go to church on holidays, pray sometimes but really aren't that much ritualistic as the super religious people. The atheists are generally smarter than the previous two groups but their critical thinking skills are engulfed in Ego so they don't really want to know how or what started it all. They would refute and try to debunk anyone who tries to reason on how the fuck it all started. The reason for that is because they associate that questioning with God and God with religion and that becomes a psychological blockage. Of course there are exceptions and those exceptions do realise that after all SOMETHING has to have created this world and it has to be intelligent. Non-intelligence cannot create intelligence and non-life cannot create life! They can sense this but don't know what alternative to God to put so they are still lost.

The spiritual group are the ones who are closest to the truth. Being spiritual means that you have acknowledged the fact that you are a soul in a physical body and aim to perfect your soul while in the physical state. Not all spiritual people know the scientific side of the universe but they do realise that religion is there to control and divide people. I would put it this way - religion is the net that catches most of the fishes daring to search for the truth in life - where it comes from, how are we created. Those who continue on their journey to enlightenment go past the net searching for something that has answers instead of beliefs. Something that doesn't say "You are nothing, you are a sinner and you shouldn't eat from the tree of knowledge." That's what religion is and that's why many people are atheists because they realize the ridiculousness of this trap. And so they remain passive, unwilling to jump from their cage, seeing only the net we call religion as the only thing that is out there. They fail to see past it and never come to the truth.

Those who dare to ask and search past the trap of religion until they are satisfied, become spiritual and with the advancement of modern day science more and more people start connecting the dots and putting science and soul on the same side. When Einstein finished his Unified Field theory he didn't really have the answer to all that there is, science just wasn't advanced enough. But he did scratch the surface of the truth - consciousness. He said that the unified field that everything in the Universe is subjected to on its most basic level has something to do with consciousness. Many years later science and spirituality meet to explain the most daring of all questions - what are we, where do we come from, who created us? It is Quantum Mechanics that gives these answers and the reason for that is because in order to understand what everything is you have to understand what the smallest structural unit of the whole is. Finding the code, the most basic level upon which everything else grows. That most basic unit is consciousness. All that there is and ever will be. That is why it is intelligent. That is why it is pro-life. Because consciousness creates and manifests. We are mere manifestation of the Unified Consciousness that we call Universe. Religious people call it God and give it form and identity. They need to put it in a more human form in order to relate to it. They put it in different frames and curve it to the best of their liking. But it's simply consciousness creating forms and expressions playing in it's own virtual reality that we are simply a part of. Just like we are creating our own virtual realities such as the internet and video games using only a code, the universe is doing it in it's own fashion, one so perfect that the characters in it don't even realize it until they begin their quest for englightenment.

D_smart I'm not so sure if life is the purpose of the universe or even the most important aspect of everything that is. And life seems to have come from non-life as amazing as it is.

And saying the spiritual group have it correct about the real meaning of life and the reason behind it all is incredibly pretentious so say the least. And it's one thing I'd also like to address, I have met some "spiritual" people and they have said basically the same as D_smart, something along the lines of : religious people = sheep, scientific/materialistic people = underdeveloped and close minded, spiritual people no matter how much they really know about how things really work = the real deal. It's really frustating, seems like no matter what people always feel the need to feel superior to others.

not all people who call themselves spiritual are spiritual. All religious people believe that they are spiritual. Few of them are to a large extent.

Nice post Loco

On January 13 2012 15:49 locoo wrote: D_smart I'm not so sure if life is the purpose of the universe or even the most important aspect of everything that is. And life seems to have come from non-life as amazing as it is. And saying the spiritual group have it correct about the real meaning of life and the reason behind it all is incredibly pretentious so say the least. And it's one thing I'd also like to address, I have met some "spiritual" people and they have said basically the same as D_smart, something along the lines of : religious people = sheep, scientific/materialistic people = underdeveloped and close minded, spiritual people no matter how much they really know about how things really work = the real deal. It's really frustating, seems like no matter what people always feel the need to feel superior to others.

Ah, and this is why we shouldn't be too quick to discard the wisdom of the ages simply because it is religious. Perhaps the most accurate statement of them all was made in the Ecclesiastes: "All is vanity." Cioran, the greatest pessimist of all, and an unbeliever, went as far as saying that everything was in it, and that, in fact, whatever is not in it is false. "Ecclesiastes is a challenging revelation of truths which life, forever the accomplice of futility, battles against furiously."

D_smart forgot a little something in his analysis though, and it is that most so-called spiritual people nowadays resemble this:



And I disagree with the claim that religion is "You are nothing, you are a sinner and you shouldn't eat from the tree of knowledge." Swami Vivekananda, one of the greatest men who has ever lived, had a better definition of true religion: "To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is religion. Whatever you do for your own sake is not religion."

Well you just put spiritual people in a category of your liking. The "New Age" movement is a different thing. Why do people always have to put things into known frames. If atheists hear someone talk about the creation of the Universe then he is religious. If religious people hear someone who says religion is bullshit then he is an atheist. Frames are created to trap you and that is what you just did. The New Age movement is a perversion of spirituality just like religion is a perversion of spirituality but people need to put other people in these frames to make sense of something they don't understand. Spirituality is about perfecting your soul. Nothing more. Don't add man-made labels to something that is existential.

My girlfriend is a hardcore christian and I'm an atheist. I think the poem is stupid. I don't know if she's seen it yet, but she would probably love it. I don't argue with her but I explain my side of things and she explains hers and we try to come to a common understanding.

On January 13 2012 18:23 D_smart_S wrote: Well you just put spiritual people in a category of your liking. The "New Age" movement is a different thing. Why do people always have to put things into known frames. If atheists hear someone talk about the creation of the Universe then he is religious. If religious people hear someone who says religion is bullshit then he is an atheist. Frames are created to trap you and that is what you just did. The New Age movement is a perversion of spirituality just like religion is a perversion of spirituality but people need to put other people in these frames to make sense of something they don't understand. Spirituality is about perfecting your soul. Nothing more. Don't add man-made labels to something that is existential.

Thank you for liberating my mind, as I could not see the trap. Without your help I would still be living in shackles. I'm pretty sure I could stop eating for a whole week with all the prana you've just sent my way.

You took my very clear statement (so-called spiritual people nowadays resemble this) and gave it another context to suit you. Notice how I was targeting a particular group of people, rather than the topic of spirituality itself. I won't add man-made labels to something that is existential, but I will add a man-made label for you: pretentiously self-assured know-it-all.

And, by the way, you are in no place to speak of the New Age movement in a pejorative manner like you do, since everything that you've blessed us with here, Ô Wise One, can be found in New Age thought. It was also very nice of you to lecture me on what spirituality is and what it isn't, as if it was something that I obviously knew nothing about, for how could there be somebody spiritual on this forum full of 60 IQ sheep-like people?! Of course there can't be, other than D_smart.

On January 13 2012 18:23 D_smart_S wrote: Why do people always have to put things into known frames.

On January 13 2012 15:39 D_smart_S wrote: People can be divided into 4 groups - super religious, kinda religious, atheists and spiritual.

seriously bro?

look what yo did Dsmart your stupid posts woke up Loco from his slumber.

What you call spirituality is just bullshit same as religion why because its based on the same random assumptions based on "faith" lacking the slightest shred of evidence of logical thinking, there is no reason to believe in a thing you call "soul", there is no reason to believe that our consciosness is something beyond the simple biological process of the brain, in fact all evidence points that our conciosness doesnt trascend it in any form, damage the brain and your consciousness will be damaged, so yeah no matter how much your ego struggles to be great, we are just semi-smart animals meaningless to the cosmos.

On January 13 2012 19:01 egood wrote: My girlfriend is a hardcore christian and I'm an atheist. I think the poem is stupid. I don't know if she's seen it yet, but she would probably love it. I don't argue with her but I explain my side of things and she explains hers and we try to come to a common understanding.

how could there be any common understanding between an atheist and a hardcore christian, that is not possible, one is a reasonable being, the other believes in invisible overlords.