cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But just imagine the SOUND of a solid swing connecting with that big ball. Gnarlissimo. (Shame about the batter's wrists.) cn
PROOF that GOD Exists......
- Thread starter NetGuruINC
- Start date
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...that's the outer shell of religion, my friend
What I am comparing is a term known as religare, 'union'. It is the basis of religions, or, the root understanding of religious attributes in man's condition. Religion is not all churches, ties, and knee length skirts. So, yes, I can compare them like that 
It is a provable truth that religion has been on man's mind longer than scientific study has. Doesn't make one better than the other, it just 'is'.I was a kid once, you were, we all were, etc... There was a point in our childhoods that we started to 'know stuff'. This usually results in the kid thinking they are more than a kid, 'smart'. Our parents would normally have something to say about their new little 'smart ass'. I'm finding more and more that young aspiring scientists are a bit like that. They gain a bit of knowledge and puff up with pride. Me, I puff up with good ganja - hehe!
*also, real religion is about a never ending review of data that pours from one's own mouth, so yet again comparable
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
I think there are two main reasons why people believe in things that are not real (religion/theology/spirituality).
1. It makes you feel special.
(you really aren't special in the eyes of the universe, you're are merely a by-product)
2. It makes you feel like you will still exist after you die.
(you as in who you are, when you realize what makes you who you are, you begin to understand that you barrow, take or leave pieces of yourself from others. We are nothing but our ability to make choices, everything else was learned and taken from others)
You are not special, no one is... and most likely when you die you cease to exist. It may not really be this way, but this is where all evidence points to.
You can be a courageous and suck it up, accept it... or be a coward and pretend to know things that you really don't know to make yourself feel better, or feel special, or feel like you are going to continue to exist when you die.
The choice is yours.
1. It makes you feel special.
(you really aren't special in the eyes of the universe, you're are merely a by-product)
2. It makes you feel like you will still exist after you die.
(you as in who you are, when you realize what makes you who you are, you begin to understand that you barrow, take or leave pieces of yourself from others. We are nothing but our ability to make choices, everything else was learned and taken from others)
You are not special, no one is... and most likely when you die you cease to exist. It may not really be this way, but this is where all evidence points to.
You can be a courageous and suck it up, accept it... or be a coward and pretend to know things that you really don't know to make yourself feel better, or feel special, or feel like you are going to continue to exist when you die.
The choice is yours.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...Gobstoppers, I choose Gobstoppers
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
^Defined: Fantasy, i choose fantasy....Gobstoppers, I choose Gobstoppers
I am completely ok with this, even if i may not agree.
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
While I tend to agree with much of this, and I do dig the sports analogy, I would like to point out that scales and evaluations are, at some point, invented by man. I bet if we all sat down and tried hard enough we could come up with a scale of evaluation to rate religion, religious practice, etc. But, we would have to all agree that this defined scale is based upon a set of group deliberations in order to erect a hierarchy of values. We could use very rational measures like surveys of practitioners self-reported happiness levels, etc.; and, these would be collected and balanced against more objective, standard measures of the individual like health, and observations of how often the engage in logically deduced moral behavior.; we could then also define religious practice according to how well one follows a given religious doctrine--as compared to both the writings and contemporary teachings of that religious institution--thereby erecting several spectra (a la the Levi-Strauss personality assessments). In short, we could collect a shit-ton of data ABOUT religion and its followers and then place our findings on numerical scales but, as you sort of point out, to what avail? you couldn't collect this data and directly compare it to science or philosophy or anything without reducing disparate disciplines to their lowest common denominators. And once something has been diminished so greatly it always opens the door for the absented information to be used as argument for why the comparison is wrong.
anyhow, just a long response to the notion that you can't put religion on a scale. sorry bout that...too much coffee and herb
be easy
dannyboy602
Well-Known Member
I think humans have huge egos. And therin lies our fallibility. But there can be no proof of God's existance. It has to be that way. It is a matter of faith.
I also think we were made in His image and God himself has a huge ego. Who else would undertake the creation of the universe?
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
By raising a population to value reason above all else. The problem is, this population could not be controlled by another group. They would soon have a monopoly on technologies and science. Look at human history. As science and education increase, Mankind excels. Add religion, and we kill each other. Pretty basic.
I could site countries that have secular societies, but this is not an Atheist society. Just secular. Science has trumped religion from day one. You can argue this point. On your computer or iphone. Over electrical cables and air waves. Through a monitor. In your house. Which is heated. And air conditioned. With science. Not religion.
Technology = Brought to you by science, not religion.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Knee-length skirts?? You ... rake. cn...that's the outer shell of religion, my friend
I was a kid once, you were, we all were, etc... There was a point in our childhoods that we started to 'know stuff'. This usually results in the kid thinking they are more than a kid, 'smart'. Our parents would normally have something to say about their new little 'smart ass'. I'm finding more and more that young aspiring scientists are a bit like that. They gain a bit of knowledge and puff up with pride. Me, I puff up with good ganja - hehe!
*also, real religion is about a never ending review of data that pours from one's own mouth, so yet again comparable
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
Right, and because there would be no control group, it would be impossible to SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THIS. You would have to evolve at least one entire human species on another planet free from all other interference than the one you are testing: religion. So, no, i don't see how you could easily prove this.
I'm sorry, to blame all killing and wrongness on religion, that's what is pretty basic. man fights over power, religion is just one thing out of which differences arise and was very expedient as a "reason" to start a war. if it hadn't been for religion, we'd still fight over other shit and your kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
I'm sorry for being a dick here, but i'm just tired of watching you misuse the word "site" to mean "cite"
This is an opinion based on your perspective. Science doesn't care whether it trumps nor does it try to trump, nor is it even pointedly interested in trumping anything. It is a methodology and epistemology geared towards understanding the physical realm. And, recognizes that there are aspects of existence that are viable, real, and very interesting, but outside of the scope of scientific inquiry.
Technology, as you have listed it, seems only to include inventions and materials: you have exempted novel ideas and processes. Furthermore, science may do well to explain WHY a technology provides what it provides but it is entirely possible for a layman to make a discovery and use it simply because it achieves his desired goal.
I'll watch your video but the mere fact that its premise is "imagine if all atheists left america" makes me think its probably not going to advance intelligent discussion.
be easy
Dr.J20
Well-Known Member
I just watched that and there were few statistics actually presented besides "most" of this kind of person etc. What this also assumes is that the data it does present falls into the realm of causation, but they are in fact correlations, not proof of causation. Since you fail to grasp the difference, refuse to acknowledge the contextual problems with you statements and ultimately are in this discussion, not to advance understanding, but to simply try to aggrandize your position and devalue anyone else's, there is no point in discussing.
be easy
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...man, you've only been here a little while and I can't rep you anymore
"epistemology geared towards understanding the physical realm" - spot on.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
Oh the humanity. cn
...I was just taking a sip of my soda when I read this, close call
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
The video states what would happen if you removed a population simply because they did not believe. If you want to refute the claims of the video, present evidence to the contrary. To state I am out for blood is more an emotional reaction than discussion. I can never apply reason to faith. So to devalue someone else's opinion only bolsters it. Every one is entitled to what they want to believe. Just don't try to prove it, unless you really can, using facts. By observing Atheism, we can begin to see how and why it exists at all, like any other alignment, no?
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
Funding would be incredible. But you would merely have to raise a group without religiosity. Exposed to everything BUT. Secluded. "Another Planet" I take as environment. Within a few hundred years, it would be apparent.
I don't. But religion is mans greatest threat. Do you need numbers?
I'm stoned. I'll cite you on site the next time I use cite correctly. Outa sight!
I never spoke of science as a personality. I merely said science yields more results.
You seem to have this notion that scientists wear bunny suits and murmur to each other scribbling notes on clipboards...If somebody observes a need, tests different solutions, and draws a conclusion based on results...This is what you described...
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Just to play devil's advocate and to test your debate skills, I propose that Science can be a tool of evil as easily as a force of good. Science has revealed many ways in which we could destroy ourselves, it's our collective conscious that caused us to use it for progress. The moral framework for this conscious has been convicted and reinforced by religion. Without these values in place to counter natural shortcomings like hubris, greed, wrath, and sloth, science would destroy our world.