If you are a member of a religious group, you'll find that they frown upon thinking for yourself. If you ask any questions, that would appear to go against the doctrine, you might as well have insulted the entire religion.
This is a generalized, all-inclusive statement about all religions, and it just isn't true.
Ever heard of Unitarian Universalism?
A *very* strange place..
I see YRUU is gone? At least officially?
A very strange place indeed. Filled with intelligent people who spend their lives thinking for ourselves and asking questions that go against established doctrine. Funny, no one ever seems all that insulted. Maybe I'm wrong though, you know since I am obviously of low intelligence and certainly prone to being led like a blind sheep.
The YRUU never really worked with the structure of the fellowship anyway. It was a bit too close to traditional indoctrination and occasionally bordered on a soft-sell attempt at conversion. As both things are repugnant to UUs, the youth groups have tended to reform independently within the separate fellowships and are more along the lines of community groups now. As for my fellowship, we have even done away with the youth services (babysitting is provided, but completely secular). My particular group REALLY dislikes anything approaching indoctrination.
Yeah, YRUU was a bit of an eyebrow raiser.
As to the UU's in general, if the wife and I weren't such nasty old sticks, we could join. But you know we'd be making faces at people
No you wouldn't You'd be arguing with the rest of us.
After a couple hours of argument on Sunday, y'all would have some lunch (usually someone's attempt at a new "cultural" dish). After that we all form a mob and find some poor oppressed soul(s) to feed, clothe and shelter... sometimes largely against their will
Seriously, you know why? I mean aside from the fact that we are too lazy to drive ten minutes to get there?
We really do have idjits here who say things like "You aren't really an atheist because I heard you say 'omigod' and I know you put up Xmas lights". I smile vacantly because the only other alternative is physical violence.
Imagine what they'd be saying if they saw us walking into a church - they are not smart enough to understand the UU, it would fry their blessed little brains. I can't do that to the poor things.
LMAO, I wasn't trying to covert ya hon. UUs confuse a lot of people and the "you aren't what you say you are" crowd exists everywhere. Those who confuse easily will always try to pigeon-hole according to their own definitions. Physical violence doesn't really help... contrary to the conventional wisdom of folks around here you can't "beat sense" into somebody.
It is fun to play with them though... especially when one is feeling particularly passive-aggressive.
My aunt is an UU. I like the UU and the way they think. I really like their Social Justice work. I've been to a couple of their services with my aunt. They have this saying, 'Agree to disagree." My aunt uses that phrase a lot.
The only reason I was pulled into become a member is I just didn't feel comfortable worshiping with a Christian denomination that only saw Jesus as a prophet and not the actual son of God. I don't mind that they don't believe that so much. Everyone has a right to believe what they believe, but my belief just has me worshiping with others.
Plus I had the pull to Catholicism since I was 11 or 12. I was lucky to find a more modern Parish and modern priest with more Evolve thoughts
I found out recently that up to a couple generations ago my father's family line was Catholic so I often wonder if something in my DNA remembers that and was calling back to it.
An UU member would say, "Hmm that's an interesting thought. You never know." I like that about them. They know there is so much about the Universe we can never explain.
Extremely well put!!! Smartest comment in this thread.
Is that a fact?
Though you may say you are not of a religion, you believe like many others so really you are.
The things I believe which are many is no other groups doctrine
I'm not Christian but I believe in God.
I am just as or more Intelligent than you.
If you are not with me, I don't care. That's your business
I have no religion to claim and intelligence has nothing to do with any choice any of us make. I could be just as smart as Hawking and that level of intelligence would have nothing to do with my decisions concerning spiritual matters.
@mischeviousme, I question your notion that intelligence has nothing to do with any choice.
So, we could be as intelligent as Einstein and unintelligently decide to stay in Nazi Germany as a Jew? Wow! Not very logical.
Or a more immediate example, you used a smidgen of intelligence in deciding what to write. Right? Or did it all spill out blindly from your fingertips? If that's the case, then I want a refund on my college degree!
Intelligence has a great deal to do with decisions, including choice of religion and form of worship.
Deborah, by the given description, you imply that you are faithful, or a believer. Not religious.
@Phil, it depends on your definition of religion.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
I see you're a type-b definition person. @Deborah may be a type-a definition person.
Of these definitions..I am A type
I used the word religious.
Believing in and worshiping a superhuman controlling power or powers, esp. a personal God or gods
- both men were deeply religious, intelligent, and moralistic
(of a belief or practice) Forming part of someone's thought about or worship of a divine being
- he has strong religious convictions
Of or relating to the worship of or a doctrine concerning a divine being or beings
- religious music
Belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group of people who are united by their practice of religion
- religious houses were built on ancient pagan sites
Treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship
- I have a religious aversion to reading manuals
Merely believing in a God does not make you religious. That God must have some form of power over our lives for you to be religious. That's the importance of the word 'given'.
I believe in the God of Israel, but I believe in many things. Some of the things I believe is not accepted by any religion.
So I am of no particular group.
Names,Titles, and Organizations (whether it be religion or governments) often screw everything up, regardless of intelligence or the sentiment involved, due to the permeation of a stagnant power that doesn't resemble the freedom of humanity, as a whole. Welcome to the chaotic infinity at hand, and if you can find peace within the madness, congratulations, as that's about as good as it gets on this current 3-dimensional plane of reality; cheers!
What about the 4th dimension of time? We have no choice to be 4 dimensional creatures, we are at the mercy of time.
You remind me of a semi-popular blog post that I wrote a couple years ago, on one of my many random blogs, here: http://perpendicularity.org/blog/2010/0 … universes/
So, uh, what about it?
St. Augustus of Hippo once remarked on time. He said "I know what time is, but when you ask me, I have no words".
So, uh, what you're saying is that you can't define nor understand the concept of time? That sucks for y'all (you and your chosen philospher), especially since you have just got done saying how we are all "4 dimensional creatures."
We're trapped in time. Do you not glance at your watch from time to time? We see the effects of time, but that truly is the only way to measure it, just like the other three dimensions, you can't touch up, left right or down. They are only conceptualizations of position and placement.
I was addressing your post and blog post. If you'd like there's plenty of web sites that discuss spacetime and the concepts of linear time. Then there's quantum field physics forums and blog sites.
Child's play... I've covered and researched those, as well... It is just funny that you speak to me about "trapped in time" or "space-time continuums." It's like a Kindergarten student getting hit in the head with a crayon, as I turn around and say, "WTF? I use these things for my work, moron!" LOL!
What exactly do you do? If you absolutely know everything about the subject, why don't you explain it? from the begining.
Why the anger? That would be a primitive response to one that is so high up, such as yourself.
Who in the hell is mad?
Oh, I get it... I must need to be more meek and speak as if I know nothing at all, so I can relate better to the materail at hand. Sure, I can do that... Uh, uh, what is quantum mechanics & chaos? Uh, duh, I don't know, uh, Quantum field could possibly be a freakin' field that is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. All fields, when measured with sufficient accuracy, turn out to be quantum fields; but when measured with modest accuracy, they may behave classically (that is, they do not exhibit wave/particle duality or vacuum fluctuations).
Quantum fields in curved spacetime, the laws of a partial marriage of general relativity (curved spacetime) with the laws of quantum fields, in which gravitational waves and nongravitational fields are regarded as quantum mechanical, while the curved spacetime in which they reside is regarded as classical.
Quantum foam is most likely (oh, no, I need to shut up with this hooey that YOU asked about, not that I'm a Quantum freak) probabilistic foamlike structure of space that probably makes up the cores of singularities, and that probably occurs in ordinary space on scales of the Planck-Wheeler length and less.
Quantum gravity is the boogy-boogy man laws of physics that are obtained by merging (”marrying”) general relativity with quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics are the asinine laws of physics (the devil) that govern the realm of the small (atoms, molecules, electrons, protons), and that also underlie the realm of the large, but rarely show themselves there, as if they did, people like "mischeviousme" would be even more pissed off. Among the phenomena that quantum mechanics predicts are the uncertainty principle, wave/particle duality, and vacuum fluctuations.
Quantum nondemolition is another freaky method of measurement that circumvents the standard quantum limit.
Quantum theory is the same as quantum mechanics; praise be!
Whatever, I'm not high up, and I'm just so sorry for sounding so condescending upon thee... I thought this thang was a forum? So much for freedom of speech...
I don't get angry easily. I see it all as pretty much the same thing; a basic understanding of the fundamental laws of nature. In other words, we don't know anything about anything. Science has an idea and again it's only true in concept and is subject to the design of another, earlier model.
Well if it isn't the neighbourhood troll!
The Mayans gave us time, cept the calendars running out.
This is true on many points. There are so many fanatically religionists and pietists who blindly adhere to the dictum of their respective faith. These people totally abhor any type of intelligent reasoning with them. If you ask these automatons why you believe in such and such( knowing the totally inane logic of the religious premise), they will inanimately reply to you that either their leader stated it, or their religious book of authority dictated it so it must be true.
The average religious person could be totally classified as narrow minded in the least. They are totally adverse to learning anything new because it will "conflict" with their religious upbringing. It seems as if they are afraid of change because this change will compel them to question the validity of their religious doctrine. So they close their little minds, preferring to remain in the dark.
I have noticed that many religious people are very atavistic in their opinions regarding current events, sexual equality, contraception, and evolution. These people are medieval in thinking to say the least. I believe that this is the millenium and religion has NO place in it. However, I do believe in spirituality- spirituality is very different from religion. Spirituality is one person's INDIVIDUAL relationship with God or whatever you elect to call it. I shall not go into the precepts of spirituality here but I know one thing- the truly spiritual person is open to change and is accepting of all while religious people are highly parochial in their thinking thus condemning those who they deem to be different!
That's not necessary true. It may be true in some Christian denominations, like the Pentecostal church I grew up in. They frowned on me when I asked questions and had a lot of rules. I felt like I couldn't be 'Me.' But that is not the same with all Christian denominations or other religions.
My aunt is a Unitarian and they question everything. I was a member of the UCC (United Church of Christ) for about 5 years and they allow you to question everything and develop your own beliefs. Some believe God is a woman (like my aunt) and some believe in the the possibility of Reincarnation.
I am a Catholic convert after feeling the tug to Catholicism since I was 11 or 12 and my Catholic Priest is a modern Catholic who encourages you to think out of the box. He tells us that we don't have to believe in everything the Catholic Church stands on like Birth Control and such. He likes to use the word "Evolve" saying the Church is constantly 'evolving.' He even says you can't take everything stated in bible can't be stated as fact. He acknowledges the Gospels has conflicting passages, but we know for a fact that Jesus was born of Mary, preached the word of God, was Crucified, and had risen. He never tells me I shouldn't ask him questions. He believes more in the Sacraments and our relationship to God.
So my advice to you is to expand your knowledge on Religion and check out different denominations. I used to think the same way until I expanded my circle of friends (I am now friends with Buddhists, Muslims, Unitarians, etc) and joined the UCC. I suggest opening that mind of yours and don't be afraid to ask questions. No one is going to bite your head off for asking them a question if they know you are sincere.
Can I not be of God, can we all not be of the same material? The opinion varries and the perceptions are different, but from seen at another angle, we're very much the same thing. I see the same thing when I look at a tree, I see part of the nature of a greater whole. Why should I be separate from it? Can it not all just be part of a greater whole? It all comes from the same source, there's no need for labels and religions. If we saw everyone else as absolutely equal the need for labels and social standing, would mean absolutely nothing.
You have that right to believe that, but that it is what makes the world a beautiful diverse place because some us of believe in God and some don't. For some people it gives life a meaning or purpose. So don't look down on someone who has religious beliefs and don't think like you.
I for one think believe Nature is part of God and being out in nature I am closer to God than I would be in a Parish. The parish is a great way to commune with God as well. I also believe that Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants all worship the same God. That is our commonality.
I share my God with everyone, but I don't do it with words. I have no choice but to use words online, because I can't share that part of myself any other way. I don't mind going to a church or a temple to debate and talk, to me there is no difference between us. My perceptions are not limited to religion or social standing, so much as I percieve all people and things as one.
This universe is one thing and within it are many smaller universes, that are ultimately still one whole and they happen every moment.
As long as your beliefs make you happy is all that should matter to anyone. Everyone in my family has different beliefs. My aunt is an UU, my brother is Agnostic, my half-sister is Wiccan (although her mom is Christian) my mom is Pentecostal, and I'm Catholic. My other aunt I have no idea what she is because refuses to talk religion. I have reasons to believe she believes in God but does it in her own way, without going to church at all.
I don't think we have the right to go around telling people "you are, you are wrong, and you're wrong." No one knows for sure what is the wrong way or the right way to believe. We are just love one another, even our differences. What matters is that you are happy and not hurting anyone else.
Theresa, I fully understand where you are coming from, and am not against your point of view. I fully support those who do find their faith, and church, and community giving them meaning and support in life. So much goodness and humanity comes from such circumstances.
But when it comes to evangelising, imposing various religious concepts upon those who don't want it, this is not acceptable.
Whose imposing various religious concepts on others? I'm not trying to convert anyone. So I really don't see what you are getting at.
Sorry you misunderstood me, Theresa. I was not in any way accusing you of that, far from it. In fact yours was one of the more generous posts from a christian in recent times.
She's a Unitarian Universalist, Christianity is but one small part of that institution. I found out that (in my town) they have a zen meditation on Tuesdays.
Thank you Jonnyycomelately. I did misunderstand you. Thank you for clearing that up.
And you are mistaken mischeviousme. I am not a Unitarian Universalist. My aunt is. I am Catholic. :-)
I'm sorry, I thought that you were, I'm not a UU either.
Sorry, I thought by the way you were talking that you may have switched venues. Again, no insult intended.
Oh I wasn't insulted. I wasn't insulted by jonnycomelately either. I was just confused by his comment. No, i didn't change venues. I am still a Christian, but one that actually loves all her neighbors no matter what their beliefs. Alls good. :-)
He acknowledges the Gospels has conflicting passages, but we know for a fact that Jesus was born of Mary, preached the word of God, was Crucified, and had risen.
= = = =
In my poinion; the most conflicting passages are those which contradict those things which Jesus said.
Why would a Christian not believe first, those things which Jesus is said to have spoken (FIRST) .... and put those other conflicting verses which were spoken by someone else aside; until those things can be understood in such a way as to agree with that which came out of the Masters mouth? ...
NOT the other way around!
I feel your frustrations. You must remember that the books were written 3,000 yrs after Christ. The stories were past down by word of mouth until someone decided to put it to paper (or whatever they wrote on back then) so like the Telephone Game some of what happen or said has been changed as the stories were passed down generation after generation.
You must also remember some books that were originally part of the bible has been removed (like the book of Thomas, Book of Mary, and the book of Judas) just because the Church and King James felt they didn't fit with what they wanted Christians to believe. I learned from a documentary that King James removed the book of Mary simply because it was written by a woman. Is that true? I don't know for sure because I wasn't there, but I do know it is not in the bible.
We were not there so we can not say exactly what these people witnessed, but we know Jesus was born of Mary, preached the word of God, prosecuted by Pontius Pilot and was Crucified, and had risen. We just need to follow the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Jesus which he preached about loving your neighbor and what we believe to be Social Justice.
A lot of the people who wrote the books of bible also included their own opinions. I am not concerned with fears of what they didn't understand at the time. I am only concerned about my relationship with God.
I will not argue with you about the bible. I can't tell you what to believe. I can only share my thoughts with you and you can ponder on it if you like. Everyone interrupts it differently even ministers/priests. I like that my pastor believes in scientific evidence and what has been written in scrolls that archeologists find and that corresponds with what is in the bible.
50 and 690 B.C. Isaiah prophesied the destruction of the Temple AND that Cyrus shall perform all my pleasures even saying to Jerusalem, thy shalt be built and to the temple, thy foundations shall be built.
The city and temple had not been destroyed YET!
625 B.C. Jeremiah prophesied that the king of Babylon shall invade Jerusalem taking the people captive and that he will destroy the city and sanctuary. And it shall lay desolate for seventy years.It was destroyed in 586 B.C.
590 B.C. Ezekiel prophesied the gathering of those that had been taken captive in 605. In 586 prisoners were taken again and the city and temple was destroyed.
Daniel, 605 to 539 B.C. In 539 BC Cyrus decreed that all Hebrews who chose to could return to Jerusalem and rebuild it and the Temple.
Approx 20 BC king Hared ENLARGED the existing temple.
Never does scripture say that the temple will be rebuilt a "SECOND" time.
I don't know where people get the notion that it does.
In Matthew 24:34 In reference to everything that he had been saying in the PRIVATE conversation with four of the disciples Jesus said; "Verily I say unto YOU, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled". , but nobody knows what day or hour for the end shall come as a thief in the night.
Then ... in 96 AD John had his visions of things gone by, current events and things to come.
And then ... in 326 AD a world power did create its own religion and collected certain scriptures to establish a doctrine.
We have free will to interpret these facts any way that we want to.
Draw your own conclusions.
It should be religion and misunderstanding.
Ok. You really don't have a clue. Do you? That statement borders on ignorance. If you are speaking of people in the US. You do realize buddhism is a religion? Does that apply to you as well?
If that's the best you can do at hurling insults at others you might go back to the drawing board. It's pretty lame.
I'm not a buddhist, christian, muslim, sufi or hindu. I just think that the indoctrination method is getting stale.
You know, say what you want today. You'll change your tune tomorrow. I've been reading your posts for a while now.
It's all bogus. Religion, spirituality, atheism....whatever. Anyone who argues any side is caught in the beliefs of their own head along with what someone they look up to has also said. When you speak of religion and philosophy there is no new thought under the sun. We all read. We use the thoughts of others to assist us in formulating our own opinions; but it is all bogus. Do you understand that? You can't prove a thing. Your personal spiritual beliefs are as foolish and pointless as those of anyone else.
I've read your posts. Sheesh. You lit matches with your mind? And you are dogging the Christians? I don't get it.
And yet you fail to include yourself in that statement. If everyone's belief is bogus, that would have to include your beliefs as well. Right?
Oddly, yes. Because I accept that I know nothing past what I can see and feel doesn't change the fact that my opinions on what may or may not be are equally bogus.
I've already admitted that my beliefs were bogus, on numerous threads. I've said that what I believe is unimportant and that all I know is what my brain tells me I should know. This means that I absolutely don't know anything and I'm comfortable with it.
No. I'm afraid claims of clairvoyance and telekinesis put you in a different category. You obviously aren't comfortable with reality.
Those were just stories from my childhood. I think maybe my mother was putting me on.
I don't think so. If it realy happened, I don't remember any of it. If it didn't, my mother was possibly just trying to make me feel special. My childhood has many gaps, I can only remember bits and pieces.
Emile R, you must come to terms with the fact that Ad Hominem isn't allowed in debate. It doesn't matter at all what credibility MischeviousMe has. It's the argument that you debate, not the person.
You must learn what, exactly, is being argued. Once you have....please feel free to join in.
He doesn't need to justify his credibility with you or anyone, Emile.
If I had any credibility to begin with, more people would read my hubs.
Bingo! But how do I get emoticons into my replies? Probably there isn't an emoticon for "Bingo!"
Actually, he does. If he expects to be taken seriously. If he is going to make conflicting statements repeatedly, he can't expect not to be questioned on it.
How exactly do my statements conflict? I'd like to know so that I don't continue to make that mistake.
First, let me explain why I came in with barrels somewhat loaded. You can't condemn large swaths of humanity over religion. People are unique and until you understand the thought processes that have led to conclusions for the individual you can't honestly make such a statement. The OP was inflammatory. This type of thing does not invite debate, so much as it invites bickering.
To answer the question. You have interesting thoughts at times, to be sure. But, many conversations we have become engaged in, you back down from assertions so quickly that I am left reeling in response; unsure of where you truly stand. Couple that with major deviations in your philosophy from thread to thread and I'm suspiciously wondering if you might look at this as a popularity contest.
You talk of living in the now and that may account for it. The now may work nicely if you are living under a tree with a cobra, but real life interaction demands some continuity of thought. You are an intelligent guy. Your conclusions are as valid as the next person's. Own them. If I am to search for wisdom in your words wtf can't be a major factor in my response.
I am an in and out kind of person. I sometimes see what I'm going to say with clarity, other times not so much. My brain varies from day to day, much like evry other human being. Half in half out, that is what most of us are. Though some tend to try to stay all in or all out, The non religious try to stay in, the religious try to stay out. This can't be said for all individuals, hence the above spectrum.
Well, sure. We all lack clarity at times. I'm not so sure I completely agree with your statement. We can share our thoughts in such a way that we may not be as clear as we intended, but I'm really talking about a different type of thing here.
Anyway, like I said, I think you make some interesting points. I think you have an interesting outlook; when I can pin down exactly what that outlook is.
Ha ha ha! Great when you can push the Ego out the door with you boot, isn't it!
All I know, is that I know nothing. I only have a basic understanding of the workings of the universe, until we figure out what it's about, I'll always just have a basic inkling of an idea.
Emile R, tell me how you are an agnostic when:
A creator must have created himself for himself to be the creator by an unknown method.
Matter was created by an unknown method.
Even if whatever superior powered 'God' exists, the unknown method would have been what created everything, so he isn't the creator, by any standards. Even if you pretend like God created the method that created mass, he is left with having no causal effect, since it was the method that created matter, God could not have had a causal effect for once again, his own method must have created him. Or of course, Infinite regression, which would once again render everyone obsolete and the creation being down to the method at which was possible to create.
He's got a big clue, what he says applies to most religions. It's you who hasn't got the clues, Buddhism isn't considered a religion by many, so it's just for Misheviousme to have not included it when he said religion.
In it's very definition, it is a religion or a philosophy.
So please, keep your bitterness out of the forum Emile R, the man makes a point, religions are rigid.
And so are you, what with believing that Pope Benedict XIV is a nice man for murdering millions of lives in one of the most painful ways possible.
Aw gee, did I hit an itty bitty nerve in you?
Get a life. I'm agnostic. I don't have anything against either side. I simply think the childish bickering, finger pointing and less than intelligent OP's are getting to be a bore.
I don't know if you have bothered to listen to the Christian side of the argument or not, but they are all thinking for themselves for the most part. I don't know that they are spouting regurgitated dogma any more than the few atheists who chose not to think for themselves do also.
This holier than thou attitude of everyone scrambling to claim non religion is humorous at times. You guys may, or may not, have noticed; but everyone does have a brain and they do, for the most part, use it. (Some of the present company may not be included in that statement. I don't know. I'm still trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt here.)
Have you recently bought yourself a new pair of Rose Coloured Spectacles, Emile? I don't think there is a more hypocritical country in the world when it comes to the US of A and its religiosity.
Sure. there are some beautiful and enlightened individuals, from all walks of life and all religious persuasions, but there are some frauds out there too, earning lots and lots of money from their magnetic abilities to attract dumb followers.
I wouldn't dare to argue that point. But, I don't know any preachers. Most of the people here on Hub Pages seem to be reading the text, listening to others and coming to their own bizarre conclusions.
My problem with the OP was simply that it is highly hypocritical. You can't follow one religion (call it a philosophy) and then continually lash out at others who are doing the same thing you are doing, without appearing to be a little silly in the process.
I have no use for religion. I'm actually a little scared of it. But, the OP is ridiculous. I am pretty much surrounded by Christians. I may not agree with them, but they aren't looking to the church to tell them what to think. They honestly don't care if they don't agree with the church. Haven't any of you been listening to the Christians that post here? They think God speaks to them directly. I think that's the same with all of them. Whatever they want to think they assume God stuck in there head.
It is no different from some of the 'spiritual' voices here who just know that they have somehow been given information that makes them know the truth on a spiritual plane.
Oh I see, so you are surrounded by a group of humans who say they adhere to one set of rules (that the church set), but in actual fact make up their own set of rules that are freely allowed to conflict with the church rules that they pretend to follow? All on the basis that the same God who was supposed to make the rules of the church, told them conflicting views individually?
Oh I see..
Read their posts man. Not simply to give yourself a platform to attempt to sound intelligent when you respond. Take the time to read what they are saying. Sheesh.
"I am pretty much surrounded by Christians. I may not agree with them, but they aren't looking to the church to tell them what to think"
Christians adhere to a Christian church. The people around you do not seek the guidance of their church, the very thing that makes them Christians, and instead, do what they feel like. I don't think I misread anything x
Please point out where I have though, it would be an enlightening experience.
You'd be omitting the millions of people that adhere to the church's rules, and remind themselves of them, every day of their lives when they read the Christian rule book, the Bible.
Except for the fact that Christian status requires authority, and merely reading a book and interpreting it doesn't make you a Christian, it just makes you a person calling yourself a christian.
Those "millions of people" if not adhering to a church are not christians. Just people who pretend they are.
Otherwise you would be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
I think you're possibly confusing general Christianity with Catholicism. Many of us aren't bound to any legal doctrine other than what we translate doctrine to be from the Bible, hence from God. Attending church, or belonging to a church, are optional to many Christians. I'm not stating whether that is what one authority or another believes, I'm stating what many Christians would tell you is the reality of it.
There are many, many people that don't attend church but lead Christian lives.
Everyone may use their brain to an extent, and it's precisely the extent used that worries intelligent people. The religious are susceptible to all manners of trickery, the fact that they have adhered so strongly to something without any proof is the perfect exemplification of that.
And not so much a nerve but my amgydala Ignorant statements such as " you do realize buddhism is a religion?" and "that statement borders on ignorance" does that.
I'll never understand this argument... what makes you think people don't have proof? Maybe it's not the kind of proof you would prefer, or maybe it is and they wouldn't want to openly share personal things with those who mock them... you don't know what anyone else has experienced.
If you don't understand the argument, then you don't even know what comprises proof or evidence.
And neither do I care about what anyone else has experienced.
If you can show me something that provides evidence, then please do.
It is a very simple argument to understand.
That is so very true Jaxson. But for those of us who have experienced God's presence we can share. The real things in life are never really talked about in the open because those who don't understand almost always ridicule. Maybe they feel threatened, who knows.
Ok. Your post is exactly what I'm talking about. You just know, don't you? God spoke directly to you. You might read a Bible, but you think what you think is right on the topic.
Am I right?
Who wouldn't feel threatened by anyone who claimed they've seen God and wants to share it.
Children will tell me that they saw santa claus clambering up the chimney, I am as inclined to believe them as I am inclined to believe any other poor delusional soul, especially those that are so convinced of their own brainwashing that they feel they can share it with others
Poor Timmy, there was never any santa :'(
I must say I feel sorry for you. Unfortunately you own heart will never be open enough for God to enter it...oh but at least you aren't the delusional one ...or are you? And you are even unable to accept that there is a possibility. Very dilusional thinking there my friend. At least I'm able to admit that I don't know but it's what I believe. You on the other hand are unable to accept someone elses belief. And if there is a God, which no one knows but could be possible, who is the delusioned one then?
The ones who believe in a God, of course. You said it yourself, "no one knows"
It's easy to think I know something, it's hard to be critical of everything I think.
And if He does exist then who is delusional. After all no one knows for sure, which means it is entirely possible.
"But for those of us who have experienced God's presence we can share."
How do you know it was God you experienced?
I don't "know" but it is what I believe. And I have been able to share with many people who have had similar experiences. Kind of when a person enters a room and you can feel their presence, this is similar but so much stronger. It would leave no doubt in you.
So, this powerful incredible presence only occurs to those who force themselves to believe "enough" before feeling it?
Those that do not feel it? Pah! They are fools, they do not believe enough in that which cannot be explained!
What has the world come to OutWest
@Outwest ,I understand you perfectly
And sometimes when I read the news of broken families, young girls pregnant,young men killed in drug bust or watch the latest murder on TV,I know what the world has come too-hopeless, hearts hurting,voices calling out.
The self help industry all over the globe makes billions ,every year out of people seeking self help for a whole host of individual and relationship problems.
The question is "Why doesnt God do something" it should be "Why doesnt mankind"?
What has the world come down to...who knows but I think alot of people who are here arguing agaisnt God are trying to find the answers about God otherwise they would not waste their time. Maybe someone will give them the answer so that they can start their own search.
Most of the time it's to vent anger, or to dissuade from religion because it causes world problems.
Without preconcieved delusion and the illusion of "the right way", there would be no need for violence.In order for everyone to be on the same page, religion should be secondary to social position. The problem realy isn't religion, it's attitude and social prejudice.
Yep and if they don't wanna do that ,I could give them a shovel to dig over my backyard,could do with some manpower
That is nonsense, you can't "feel" someone entering a room. What are you, a Jedi?
Maybe you can't, which explains why you have not found God.
If you claim you can, then you are being dishonest, despite finding God.
Is there some reason why God can't find me? He's invisible, I'm not.
I'm sure He knows exactly where you are. That's probably why He is leaving you alone.
That makes no sense. Surely, if there was anyone here to convert, I would be one his main targets.
I don't think it works quite like that. God is not here to convert you but is here for you to seek out. Unfortunately for you the responsibility is yours. Such as life. I personally was not seeking God. But by actaully being more open to changing ideas about life I just happen to "find" Him. I can't explain anymore than that. I'm just relaying this experience because I originally was hoping to talk to others who've experienced this. There are those people here as well as everyone else. Believe me Troubled I was agnostic for so many years and used the exact arguments that I hear on this forum. If it could happen for me, believe me it can happen to anyone. I'm no saint.
Of saints and sinners, there is no distinction.
And, how do you know it works like that? Why is it that plenty of believers claim God sought them out?
So, you weren't even looking but you tell me I'm supposed to look. Contradict much?
I don't believe that any more than I believe in your God.
We often find things when we are not looking for them Troubled. I'm sure there are many different ways for people to "find" God. Being open is a good first step. I'm sure you are here looking for something or you would not waste your time. Good luck with it.
Then, that would contradict your previous claim.
How about contradiction? Is that a good step towards finding God?
I have found a tremendous amount of contradiction and hypocrisy from believers with no luck required at all. But still, no gods.
We find what ever we are looking for.
When we spend our day looking at the ground, searching for small change we come home at the end of the day with pennys in our pocket.
When we are looking for fire wood to put in the fireplace, we stay warm on cold nights.
You are a lucky man Troubled; you have found what you are looking for.
Or are you?
OutWest, Troubled is on an ego trip (as I'm sure you've noticed).
He denies his true self likely because he cannot see it, either. All he sees is ego and his physical self.
And yet, he can see the products of God's creation. And it is His universe, after all.
God's purpose has never been to prove himself, but to rescue His children from physical attachment. Even He knew that some would refuse to be rescued -- fearful to step out on that limb because it required faith instead of physically-based belief.
Invisible? We had better hope so, as long as we're dressed in ego. The sight of the living God might vaporize our bodies. That's how painful is our attachment to ego and physicality.
Funny how everything with you is ego, you're obsessed with the ego. Yet, you claim Jesus parted a boulevard of snarled traffic so that YOU could pass through. And, you claim I'm the one with the ego.
No, I see the products of evolution, not your irrational beliefs.
Ego, ego, ego... obsessed much?
Very wise lone77star to point out how God's purpose it not to prove Himself. And that it requires the risk of faith from the heart and not the concrete of the physical world. I'm sure Troubled will say how convenient that is because as we all know he has an answer for everything. Blah blah blah.
And, just exactly how was lone77star supposed to know what God's purpose is in that regard?
Troubled, thousands of persons per day experiences the realization of God's purpose for them. Oddly, they all testify virtuely of the same realization not being aware that the others exist.
Hahaha, what a tragic statement. How many African tribesman that have never heard of monotheism will tell you that their miracles were "God".
The reason people associate coincidences with God is because it is rammed down our throats so that when it does happen, we will associate with it.
It's a marketing plot. No, I will not buy your candles.
Lookee there.....it's a world religion chart and ??????? Could it be?????
Yes. I see buddhism listed. Go play elsewhere. You aren't really making the headway you'd hoped. \\
Yet if you talk to a buddhist, their realy not all that religious. They'll say that what they are doing is following a path to enlightenment, where a christian will say they are following Jesus's path. In buddhism you follow your own path or you can choose to follow another. If buddhism is a religion, it's more a free flowing method and lacks alot of the indoctrination method found in other disciplines.
Right. Keep telling yourself that. You sound exactly like a Christian arguing that they don't follow a religion. Why believe that of buddhists and not Christians? Sounds a little biased. It's always fun to follow a crowd....is it?
I'm just telling you like it is. I don't follow any crowds and I don't feel I need to. I look at all things as being rediculous, that includes all forms of religion, philosophy and spirituality.
And yet you prattle on and on. Sharing your philosophy/religion. Bashing Christians. Telling how you see into the mind of others.
What is wrong with this picture?
I like debating, I'm sorry if it bothers you. The Tibetan buddhist's see debating as an art form and a form of meditation.
Right. Please bring a valid argument up and I would love to debate you.
Where is the debate here? You make two statements that are simplistic and may apply to a very narrow percentage of the population. Let's take Christianity as an example.
I would say that the statement applies to groups like JW and Mormons, Seventh Day Adventist and Mennonites. I guess the Amish, although they do push their kids to go on an Amish version of walk about. So maybe not.
Baptists. Are they all in line? With whom? Do you understand how the whole structure works? They could be in agreement with thirty in this congregation and none in another. They just do whatever feels good to the ones gathered together at the moment. There is no real structure.
I know a guy who is a Lutheran ( I think). He was highly perturbed over the ordination of the gay and lesbian clergy. He is still a Lutheran and still outspoken against it. They still let him through the front doors and still take his money. I think he is still a deacon.
Examples abound of people who have their own convictions, go their own way and do whatever they like. Just as you do.
Since there are 30,000 sects within Christianity and within those sects each particular congregation thinks differently and no one is bound by any oath or law to follow what the clergy says, how does your OP apply to them? It doesn't.
If you don't know what you are talking about, how in the world can you debate it?
We can debate any one thing you want to debate about. How about the Upanishads or Zorastor? We can debate about Xirxes, on whether or not he was a sufi or a Persian. I tend to lump all religions in as a whole, as much as possible. Though I tend to see the biggest offenders in christendom. A christian once told me that New Orleans deserved Katrina and that Katrina was Greek for vengeance.
@mischeviousme, you have a twisted sense of "religion."
I too have studied Buddhism. I studied under Rinpoche Gyaltsen, amongst others. I was even married to a Buddhist for twelve years.
Sure seemed like a religion to me--a beautifully spiritual religion.
So, what's your definition of "religion?" Please define.
Here's 2 for reference:
"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
Buddhism fits both of those from my own experience.
Pahahah, I'm sorry, that's just too great. Since when were charts found on the internet the authority for the definitions of things? Pahaha.
What were those books that were invented to let people know what the definitions of words were? Oh yes, dictionaries. That is where you go if you are confused about something's status. Pahaha.
noun /ˈbo͞odizəm/ /ˈbo͝od-/
A widespread Asian religion or philosophy , founded by Siddartha Gautama in northeastern India in the 5th century bc
Check and mate Emile, give it up.
You were wrong, no need to cry, nor to grasp at straws either, we can move on now "sheesh"
It isn't check or mate. You really really need to get this need to be right in check. It's unbecoming. It's a disagreement. We can certainly go back and forth, finding sources to support our claims; but, the final point is that we can both find information to support our claims.
If you really really need to think you made a point, go ahead and believe it.
No, you googled "religions of the world chart" and found one that said buddhism. Not a source of authority.
I went to the authority of the definitions of words, and provided authoritative support for my statement.
There's a big difference
And you need to get your incessant Ad Hominem addiction checked, it's really quite inappropriate.
No, you are wrong. Check and Mate!! I binged, buddhism is a religion and I got some free pictures. I just picked the one with the pretty colors.
I like pretty colors.
If I had a religion, I definitely would want one with pretty colors.
As to this thread: Some very smart people are very religious. That may not be common, but it's factual. People who don't like it need to cinch in their belts and soldier on.
Thank you, thats the whole point. Simply because I disagree with a conclusion doesn't mean people didn't come to that conclusion independently through their own thought processes.
Religion is a tougher nut to crack than simply saying others are ignorant sheep.
If you binged instead of Googled, then it was truly you who was wrong
That's a good argument though, changing the subject n' that.
Don't be silly. That's one problem I have here. People arguing hangnail points. You are right and wrong. Some people call buddhism a religion. Some people see it as a philosophy. Why are you going on and on about it? You know this. We both do.
Oh really? Because this doesn't seem to agree with what you just said:
"You do realize buddhism is a religion?"
Given the context that was in, which was to ridicule Mischeviousme, you seemed to be very certain that overlooking Buddhism in "religion" was even almost "ignorant".
But now you say that's both? Very bizarre indeed Mrs "R"
Religion is a man made thing, complete with status,uniforms and an accountant.
Christianity endeavours to follow the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ.(minus all the hoop-la)
I do not know much about Buddhism ,except two monks were great company recently when I was stranded in LAX. They were fine with being a Christian ,but most of the time all they wanted to talk about was fishing in New Zealand
Listen. You apparently have an issue driving this conversation that I am not aware of. Which puts me at a disadvantage, yet I will persevere.
Buddhism is a religion. Imo. Not always practiced the same. Just like Christianity. It can be a philosophy. Just as Christian teachings can be used. I was attempting to be conciliatory when I said we both understood this.
If you want to believe we are at some philosophical impasse, I can't stop you. If you want to pretend we are embroiled in a debate that must be won...fine by me. But if you look at it squarely you might notice that we could appear to be arguing for argument's sake. It's pointless to attempt to prove it is, or it isn't. It depends on your outlook and the behavior of the adherent to the teachings.
I don't understand your confusion, you specifically attacked another hubber, calling him ignorant - saying, and I quote: "you do realize buddhism is a religion?"
Given just how sure you were about this "fact" in your entering post, It seems odd that you are now pretending to be conciliatory.
Insulting someone and then being conciliatory, that's a new one!
It was not an attack. If I said 'You do realize the sky is blue' is that an attack? One can certainly make a different statement about the sky. It was an observation. Typing in color may entertain you, but it doesn't drive home an invalid point. You really need to focus here. Why are you so upset?
"Ok. You really don't have a clue. Do you?"
"That statement borders on ignorance."
"You do realize buddhism is a religion?"
"If that's the best you can do at hurling insults at others"
"you might go back to the drawing board. It's pretty lame."
In the 5 quotes, you make 5 attacks against the speaker, and make one completely invalid point.
It seems rather odd that you made no argument against the OP and merely made fun of him?
Odd being my word, for rude and inappropriate
Perhaps you need a second opinion? What you said was rude (and wrong), please note that
Poor MischeviousMe what did he do to deserve such treatment? It's you that should get such treatment, spreading lies on HB, the shame!
Backing out so soon? It would seem as if you can't pretend like you weren't rude and insulting anymore, my day has got better
Justice is served
Philanthropy2012, let's be brutally honest here. You have clearly shown that my post to mischevious me was correct. This thread invited bickering; not meaningful debate or discussion. If you want to carry on in this manner you will have to find someone else to play with. I've stated my position. It serves no adult purpose to continue on in this manner.
So now your argument is that because you decided to say wrong things to MischeviousMe, it's his fault?
I think you'll find that what you say is ludicrous This thread didn't "invite" bickering, you invited yourself, knowing full well you were wrong in the first place, apparently.
And I would hesitate to call it a "position", considering that you admitted that what you said isn't true... A Troll, is what that is known as.
It served no adult purpose to insult someone with invalid points to back yourself up either, it didn't seem to stop you?
Have a good 'eve
So, now you post to yourself in red. I never should have posted the colored pie chart. I may have created a monster.
I have a few suggestions, but I'll hold them in reserve. I don't want to appear insulting, but......d*mn. You really need to get a grip. This isn't the war you are attempting to turn it into. We disagree. Get over it. Stop being a troll.
Considering I proved you wrong about 25 posts ago, It would seem that you are being the troll, for meaninglessly carrying on the conversation, resorting to attacks on my colour schemes instead of argument. You cannot salvage any dignity at this point Emile R, with more hurtful and sarcastic comments.
@Phil, you're talking garbage.
I was a Buddhist for more than a decade. Even married one. It's a religion.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Buddhism fits both.
The path to Enlightenment has philosophy, but the purpose of that path is religion.
Christianity has philosophy (the Beatitudes, for instance), but the purpose of it is religion -- the awakening of the true self.
Just to put salt on the wound, the chart is even wrong! What an offence to HB that this chart was ever even entered.
Let's start with the fact that the chart has "Atheists, Agnostics etc." as one of the slices of its incorrect pie. Etc? Nice. Informative.
Let's then move on to the idea that it says 750,000,000 people. When it was over 1.1 billion in 2005, and has been growing rapidly since.. Your chart says that there are 750 million in 2009? ...
Every animal starting from hydra got a brain Emile and they are using it. Analytical brain is a human specialty(more developed in humans, thats all), and not many, especially the religious, don't use it[especially concerning their religion]
We all have our blind spots jomine. We are also all narrow minded. If we insult an entire group of people (whom we don't know), simply because they are a loosely associated group; how, exactly are we more enlightened than they are?
A fact, however undesirable or inconvenient is still a fact. No religion/god is based on logic or reason. It is the use of these faculties we call intelligence and hence religious can be termed non-intelligent, but they will not be the only ones(Again, they might be unintelligent only with respect to religion, in other fields they might be)
Another thing is nervous system(brain) is the organ that uses the maximum energy and all animals try to preserve energy and hence tend to use brain as less as possible, and human beings are no exception. Among the multitudes you find that there are very few people who are known to at least a majority. The rest of as are the rule not exceptions.
Enlightened?? There is no enlightenment needed but a willingness to use the brain we already have.
Note Emile I'm not telling anybody is a moron because they haven't got brain, but because they are unwilling to use that part of brain that make as intelligent.
And I say it may not be moronic to firmly state that anyone with religion isn't using their brain at its full potential; but it certainly shows evidence that the same argument could easily be used against the person making the statement.
Religious beliefs are irrational and regarding that aspect they are idiotic, but that doesn't mean they are idiotic in all aspects. For Benedict to be pope he has to have ambition and a Good brain to be what he is, but the beliefs he propound, if he beliefs in it, does not make him intelligent in that respect.
Yea but that's just your opinion(not a fact) ,because you don't know every Christian,never have ,never will, neither will I
Sp perhaps its not good to assume or generalise.
I don't need to know any christian, i only need to know the logic
ROFLMAO, good to know. You be sure to come back when you "know" the logic then.
As for me, I've always seen stereotyping an entire group as completely illogical. Of course I see it as intellectually lazy and an indication of ignorance too.
I'm sure you can manage to twist it around in your brain that it ISN'T bigotry when you do it to the religious but it IS when the religious right does it to gays. However, making broad sweeping generalizations about a group based on an obviously limited understanding of that group... well, there is a name for that. It's not "logical" or "reasonable" either.
Don't let me stop you though, I love watching a paragon of intelligence at work.
Think yourself too clever, eh?
A group is consisting of many individuals with different versions, but Christians in general is having the belief that there is a god and he came himself as his son and got killed to save mankind.
Religious people believe there is a god and he created everything.
Both these are illogic and irrational and hence unintelligent. If you read carefully i didn't say all religious are idiots, what i said was they are idiotic in terms of there religious beliefs but may be intelligent in other aspects.
You have no idea. Fortunately, I have based my assessment of my own intelligence on reason and logic.
You do realize you are using the definition of Christianity provided by those who you deem illogical and unreasonable? Once again, carry on.
I should, of course, take your word on what is intelligent. BTW, shouldn't it be illogical instead of illogic? Especially since illogic isn't a word? Bah, don't even worry about it, you don't need to master a language to call someone unintelligent (at least you spelled that right). I would point out though that taking any stance on creationism as truth is illogical, however, as there is no observable evidence of any theory out there. Without observable evidence, EVERYTHING is conjecture.
Good. Since you are apparently knowledgeable about all religious beliefs, please tell me how mine are idiotic? Remember, if your "theory" is incorrect on one single person, it has been proven fallible. (Horrible scientific standard eh?) Theories that have been proven fallible are pretty much garbage opinions. Since you HAVE said that "they are idiotic in terms of religious beliefs" then go about proving that by examining the idiotic beliefs of all religious individuals. Once again, I am volunteering to make your job much much shorter.
Simple, anybody thinking "creation" happened and there is a god who created, is an idiot. This is a generalization of all religion, and I can point out all the irrational beliefs of the major religions, including the "belief in existence", but why waste time on such a clever intelligent person like you, who believe only with "evidence" and who examine every single specimen to know the "truth".
Yep Im a fool for Christ
100% Guilty as stands.
Burrying one's head in the protective sands of religion and not considering all other variables, is unproductive to learning. No one religion, no one science and no one way of thinking, that should be how it is. Unfortunately, there are still people that haven't reached that level of acceptance.
Ive spent the last 40 yrs searching and seeking ,no not my head buried in the sand at all.
Quite the opposite in fact-one should be slow to jump to conclusions my friend.
The previous post was quite black and white so I responded accordingly is all.
I could say I spent my whole life learning about things, yet I'm still not 100% anything. My name, my job and my religion are not who I am. They are just labels I use to define what I think I should be.
I don't know ALL that I am ,but I sure as heck know a lot more about myself than I used too
Hey and they way I figure it why not ask the one who made me,seems like he'd know me exactly.since he put me together ,wired for life,yep thats me
P.S Do you know who you are yet?
Who cares whether you are a fool or not?
But I appreciate your honesty.
I would back out of the conversation at this point as well jomine. It's easy to spout rhetoric isn't it? When faced with having to prove it then slinking away is the best option. Completely rational and reasonable that is
I did that already, when you proved how intelligent you are, that mere mortals like me cannot argue.
For the benefit of the great, the most intelligent, MelissaBarrett
GOD:the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Religion :a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Illogic:the state or quality of being illogical
Intelligent: having the faculty of reasoning and understanding;
Believer:- The world is very complex and hence it need a creator. (the logic is all complex things need to be created)
Creator should be more complex than the created.
So the creator needs a creator(the believer disagree without any reason, so illogic.)
Proof and evidence are subjective and hence mere opinions, doesn't matter in a scientific/rational discussion.
What we can know for sure is matter(atoms/molecules/earth/sun/stars) exist. Suppose you live a million years, what you find that all atoms change its location but never cease to exist. So there is no need for any creation.
Time is a concept based on location(the different locations of sun with respect to us). Hence beginning and end are mere concepts, so no creation.
Supreme being?? There is no supreme, it again is a human concept, a comparison.
Ruler of universe? A good laugh, and wishful thinking.
Hence there is no reason or logic in religion, and unintelligent.
Actually, according to the best scientific knowledge available to us, there was a time where there was no matter(technically energy-matter is just a duality and it existed in energy form) but only energy in the universe, and the universe was very small. The 'forming' of the universe was absolutely necessary for us to come to this point, so creation would be necessary in that sense.
Not quite. Time is linked to space, space-time. Time started at the first moment of the Big Bang, because before that point, there was no space-time, so no time.
We know one thing. There was a cause for the universe exploding. It is more likely that there is a creator than not, because there must be a cause
What is that knowledge? That light can be treated as sound and the Doppler effect of sound can be extrapolated to light?
That there are both red shifted and blue shifted galaxies?
That travelling through dust can red shift light?
Energy is a concept. So how are you going to convert an object(matter) to a concept(energy)?
What is this universe that is small?
As I told matter and space is eternal and there is no "point" where there was an absence of matter, so no creation
How do you link two concepts(time and space), by mingling minds? Space is our conceptualization of nothing, space is not a "thing" for it to link with anything! And pray how this time started at that point? Was there any clock that started precisely then?
Is the universe a bomb to explode? Did the creator also exploded?
Light does travel in frequencies, that's the difference between colors, fyi. We see redshift in the cosmic background radiation in every direction as well. Not every galaxy or star has to be travelling away from us, that's just a misunderstanding from a simplified explanation of what the Big Bang is.
Energy is absolutely not a concept. When two subatomic particles are smashed together in an accelerator, part of the kinetic energy in the particles is converted into new matter. I did the math somewhere else a few months ago on one example, and the new matter had 150,000 times the mass of the two original particles. Thinking that energy is a concept just shows that you don't have a very good grasp of modern science.
It was small, now it isn't.
There was a point where there was no matter, only energy. Something had to happen for matter to come forward.
Listen, this isn't something that you are going to learn on a forum. I would suggest starting with some introductory physics classes and working your way up from there.
Space and time are linked... if you travel faster time slows down(or speeds up, depending on your frame of reference). I'm not spouting nonsense, this has been verified through experimentation both through travel with atomic clocks, and by monitoring basic particles of matter at high velocities.
Relativity doesn't yet extend outside of the boundaries of our universe, so we have no math or language to describe it. It would be possible for our universe to be extremely small if viewed from 'outside', with all of our space simply being relative. We just don't know yet.
Everything we have discovered has further supported the Big Bang theory... it's more than just looking at redshift. Look into it some time.
The Bing Bang is just a simplified, idiotic explanation of why some stars moving away from us!!
That is more nonsense. There is no mass either, what you measure is the "inertia" to accelerate, no mass. What you said is when two particles collided, they changed and became two other particles.
Listen I'll advice you to first study what time and space is. Instead of mugging up nonsense, use YOUR brain.
The HK and other similar experiments only proved that the clocks they use change with speed and nothing else, that is the clocks are not reliable at high velocities. Time is a measurement and clock is the instrument we use, if a clock slowed, it does not mean time slowed. In cold temperatures the "scale" we use contract, does that mean the length contracted?
Universe has a boundary? What is outside of it? What is it made of? What is the shape of this universe?
If you do not know, then why try to teach, first learn.
Relativity and Bang are the new fad religion, not science.
No, not really. When looking at the visible universe as a whole, everything is moving away from each other(although specific instances have objects moving toward each other). Just as in an explosion, debris moves away from the explosion, and everything has a tendency to separate, some particles will collide and/or move closer to one another. Even the background radiation is moving away.
On top of that, galaxies are accelerating, not just drifting.
Two other particles, with more mass. When we say two objects have different mass, we say they have different inertia. Inertial mass is only a different way of measuring mass.
So, you don't agree with conservation of mass?
Are you one of the 'common sense' people that won't believe something if it doesn't make sense to you? Sorry, I believe that nature is the only one that can show us what natural law is, so I rely on experimentation.
What are you talking about? Two clocks go different directions at the same speed, and come back with the predicted change in time... care to explain what made that change? Care to explain why the half-life of an isotope will extend under similar conditions? Maybe the isotopes just look at their watch which doesn't work right at speed...
Do you have a better theory for these results?
We don't know, but clearly you know better. By the way, I recommend you not use your GPS, because it's programmed to work with relativity.
I'm glad we have someone here who knows better than the most intelligent physicists, I'm sure you have a counter explanation for every experiment that supports relativity as well.
Seriously, just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's not right. The idea of matter being mostly emptiness didn't make sense until we figured that out either.
Oh! Man you don't even know what happens in an explosion! You know why the Andromeda galaxy is coming near to ours?
What is this "mass", to conserve? You conserve matter, not mass.
It won't do any harm to use your brain too. It is the not the experiment per se is the problem, it is the interpretation of result.
Oh it is time coming and hitting the atoms that make it run slow!!
Is it the same fellows that indoctrinated you into religion, indoctrinated you in relativity too?
Argument from authority. You are also implying that, since you are not intelligent you have to depend on the "intelligent Scientists" and priests.
In other words, relativity is wrong, but you can't provide a better explanation for any of the experiments that support it?
Gotcha. Until you can explain those experiments, including math that supports them and predicts other experiments, I'm afraid you're doing nothing more than blowing hot air.
An irrational explanation is as good as no explanation.
Maths is about description, not explanation.
Relativity is creationism disguised as science.
When you understand the difference between concepts and objects, that is difference between imagination and things that exist, you come and argue.
No, Light is a concept. It is the medium that mediate light, the object.
I'll give you an example that might be easier for you to understand.
Wave; wave is a concept, it is water that is the object. You take a photograph of the wave, all you see is water.
Object is anything with shape. Concept has no shape.
All issues of clarity aside, you say the medium that transfers light is the object? What medium is this? What is it made of? Does it have mass(or, as you prefer, inertial mass)?
So you think light is the same as waves in water... just a propagation of a wave across matter?
What is this matter then? Is it even throughout the world and space?
What medium? Don't you know wavelength and frequency apply to wave, which is a concept? That means light is SIMILAR to wave. So it need a medium, to propagate. If you call that propagation 'light', then it is a concept. If you are calling the medium light, then it is an object and it ought to have a shape.
Mass is a concept. It does not apply anywhere.
I said similar, not same. Light is similar to wave, but not same.
Matter is anything that exist, anything that got a shape. Through space? Space is our conceptualization of nothing. Space = nothing.
You said that the medium that mediates light is the object. What is that medium? I want you to tell me. Don't avoid the issue like the above. Is it matter? What is it?
Light comes from the Sun to the Earth, travelling through 'space'. So, what is the medium that is propagating the light? Tell me, please.
It is matter, it is object. Nothing travels "through" space, space is not a medium or path for you to travel.
No, I'm asking what it is. 'Matter' isn't sufficient. Can you be more specific?
I want you to tell me what it is that fills the distance between the earth and sun that allows light to reach us here.
Right, but you have to concede one valid point, there is no magic in nature.
Now you have to tell me one more thing, how the earth and sun attract each other, rationally.
Don't tell me gravity, it is just the name given to it, you could as well call it abracadabara.
In short, can you tell me the mechanism by which two discrete objects exert influence on each other?
Then I will tell you what the medium is..
Why I ask you to do is because, it is you who came with your theory here, not I. I only said your theory is irrational, that is, it is not possible.
Sometimes nature is thought of as magic before it is understood... this 'point' is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is nature.
Rationally, or scientifically? Rational isn't scientific.
Of course not, we haven't experimentally verified the mechanism of gravity yet. I could provide different theories, or you could read about them yourself.
FYI, these theories are more than just ideas. They are mathematical, and they predict future experiments.
You really shouldn't try to mix rationality and science. Before the discovery of atoms, the idea that solid matter is mostly empty space was irrational. A person could look at a rock and see that it wasn't full of mostly nothing, but that didn't make it right.
Wow! A rational explanation is called theory. All science is rational. Don't confuse religion with science.
In short, you do not know. The theories like particle theory(gravitons), the space wrap, string have all great holes in it, that even earth will pass through.
Theories are not ideas, a theory is the rational explanation of what happened.
An atom is the smallest particle of a given matter, with all the properties of the matter, what is the problem in explaining. When you divorce reason from science it is either called idiocy, or religion.
Wow, you completely avoided my point.
When we consider matter on the atomic level, all matter is mostly empty. Before the discovery of the atomic and molecular nature of matter, the idea that a solid stone is mostly 'nothing' was completely irrational.
Your statements show that you don't believe in true science. If something doesn't make sense to you, then it can't be true. Unfortunately, nature has shown itself time and time again to do 'irrational' things.
As if you know very well what an atom is!
People of yore know water could sieve through rocks, now you are telling me subatomic level, it is nothing.
Unfortunately, it is nature that is rational. What is natural we call rational. It does not have idiocies like 'nothing' suddenly attaining width, length and height to become something. Your true science, relativity, has nothing to do with science.
You "believe" in experimentation. Tell me, what will you take to the lab, to verify space expanding, or time dilating? Space and time? Can you show me the picture of the space and time you'll be taking to the lab, to do experiments with?
I just want to clarify something, and I'm not trying to be rude.
Do you understand that your grasp of English isn't perfect? Perhaps that is a cause of the confusion.
Do I have to tell you again, we are not talking about "laymen language", we are dealing with "SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE", where you have to define all key words words unambiguously, and clearly that you can use the word consistently all throughout the dissertation?
Who defines the words then? Do you define them?
Oh yes, I understand the scientific method. Can you show me where along the line the scientific method defined 'force' as only a verb and not a noun?
In science all nouns are objects, so please show me this "force" you are referring to... a link to the image will do.
You said according to the scientific method. Show me where the scientific method proves that all nouns are objects.
You still haven't told me what the matter is upon which light propagates in the distance between the earth and sun, by the way.
My god!!! We were discussing science, now you are in court? What has proof got to do with anything? Who are you going to persuade?
Science/physics deals with objects. Objects are named, nouns. You point to the object and name it. Imagine it like a movie. Theory is the movie and objects are the actors. Now if you think force is a noun, an object, show me the photo of the "force".
Force is "to force", that is what something has, not something is.
You haven't told me how gravity works, yet!!
You can't show me any scientific testing that shows that all nouns are objects? Instead you bicker about choice of words? You said the scientific method shows that all nouns are objects, so back it up.
Exactly, you don't rely on science. You try to use what you consider logic and reasoning. That is not the scientific method.
I asked you first. You're just hiding because you can't answer the question.
If you can't tell me what the matter is upon which light propagates, then you are clearly being dishonest by claiming to know what it is but refusing to answer.
I said in scientific methods, all nouns are objects, I didn't say it shows all nouns are i=objects, so listen.
Agreed in scientific method we babble, and call it a theory!
First, I told you I have not come here to propound theories, that is what you do. I only said your theory is irrational, hence not possible. Gravity and light acts through the same medium and as you do not know what gravity is, how can I explain light to you!
According to the very precise and accurate measurements taken, gravity appears to warp or curve the space around an object causing other objects to move along those curved paths with no apparent "forces" on the objects themselves.
That's why people float around inside space vehicles when in orbit even though they are well inside the gravitational field of the object.
Why this warped SPACE preventing earth from slipping away, didn't crush the objects on the surface of the earth? Does the hard, tough SPACE that can hold earth has a soft hand?? How our space ships are able to penetrate this hard space?
Or what is this "space" that warps?
How did you measure "space"?
I have no idea what you're blathering about, but it is quite funny.
To be precise, you have no idea what you are blathering about.
It would have been funny, if it was a chimpanzee that said "space warps", but unfortunately you look like human.
You lost all credibility when you came in saying you know better about how light works, and refusing to say what matter it is upon which the light waves propagate.
You are not a student of science. You depend on what you consider rational and logical. I have shown that nature isn't always what we call 'rational', but you did nothing but dodge the issue.
Is it rational that solid rock is actually mostly empty space? Is it rational that, if we look at a chunk of solid lead, we find that only a tiny percentage of the space the lead takes up is actually matter?
What if I ask you what are quarks made of?
The answer is the same, that medium is the fundamental 'particle'. So your question should not be what is made of, but how does it look like and what light and gravity got to do with it. But you said nature is all magic, so two discreet particles might be attracting each other through magic.(That conform to your notion too, science is irrational).
I Hope you have heard the term density. People knew perfectly well that the higher the density, the densely packed the matter and lesser density means it is loosely packed or there is more space in the matter. So lead has less space compared to say wood. So by the same token, it is perfectly rational to say an atom has space if it is made of smaller particles. But you make the assumption that atom has space inside, though you do not know the structure of atom. If you had made that assumption based on the above premise it is rational. But you said that only because somebody told you so and you believed him without any second thoughts. As long as you are going to believe only authorities and as long as you are not willing to use your brain, as long as you think science is irrational, it does it matter to you what light or gravity is, any nonsense will do.
1 - Knowledge of density doesn't mean someone would think that a block of lead was mostly hollow. That idea is irrational.
2 - I don't take people's word for everything. There are these things called schools that have other things called classes. Some of these classes are called science where you can do experiments and see results for yourself. Others are called math and you can learn how to describe and predict what is and will happen in these experiments with numbers and letters.
I'm sorry jomine, I'm done arguing with you. You clearly aren't a student of science, as you place 'rationality' above truth. It just doesn't work that way. If nature does something that doesn't make sense to you, you can't just make it go away by saying it's irrational.
Knowledge of density says there is space inside matter.
Once it was taught in schools, earth was flat, so might be true for you.
You still haven't told me how you did experiments with space and time.
For once you made the correct statement, maths only describe, maths never explain and the whole science is about explanation.
When you say nonsense makes sense to you because it is taught in schools, when you say nature is all magic, it means it is time to leave you to people with straight jackets.
So let them take care of you, be happy in your world where space wraps/bends, time dilate, length contract, mass increase and where 1 dimensional and 12 dimensional monsters exist.
Dude, I'm really starting to like your posts. Well said.
Thanks for admitting you are irrational. Now we only have to redefine intelligence to mean irrational.
Trouble, that is a somewhat incongruous statement.... If you don't know what he is talking about, how can you know it's funny?
If you want to be respected as a-theist, or a-gnostic, or what ever you decide upon, then I take you back to that question of "intelligence."
Intelligence, really, is the ability of an individual to first recognise that he or she does not know the answer to something. Then to consider possible answers and try to come to a conclusion. It's a process of education, an advancement of life knowledge.
I don't hear anything from you that indicates much intelligence yet. Maybe you are keeping it under wraps. Are you really interested in the opinions of others? Do you think deeply about what is being said? Maybe you have your answers already. Are you really unintelligent? Can you show us evidence to refute that?
Please don't get me wrong.... I am not knocking your a-religious or anti-christian stance. That is reasonable as far as I am concerned. However, for you to be regarded as credible, there needs to be some humility in listening clearly to what christians say. They are not all idiots, and not all of what they say is idiotic. If you think it is, then come back to them with non-idiotic replies.
Okay, Jonny. Obviously then, you must then consider my explanation above about gravity to be complete unintelligible nonsense, according to what you just said?
And, Jomine is perfectly rational, yes?
Is it not? What you said is, earth is held in its place by space.
How space, the gap or an expanse or emptiness or absence of everything, can warp or hold anything?
You say it is rational to say "nothing" can hold/guide objects like earth or sun in its orbit but intelligent people say it is nonsense.
Where do you come up with that nonsense? Why are you lying about what I said? Propounding your own personal, misinformed version of reality has nothing to do with anything science has to offer.
That isn't even remotely what I said or implied.
Yes, your gibberish is nonsense.
Energy in Physics is the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules)
If energy is the property of matter, then how can anyone say energy was/is converted to matter?
Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.
The total energy contained in an object is identified with its mass, and energy (like mass), cannot be created or destroyed. When matter (ordinary material particles) is changed into energy (such as energy of motion, or into radiation), the mass of the system does not change through the transformation process. However, there may be mechanistic limits as to how much of the matter in an object may be changed into other types of energy and thus into work, on other systems. Energy, like mass, is a scalar physical quantity. In the International System of Units (SI), energy is measured in joules, but in many fields other units, such as kilowatt-hours and kilocalories, are customary. All of these units translate to units of work, which is always defined in terms of forces and the distances that the forces act through.
A system can transfer energy to another system by simply transferring matter to it (since matter is equivalent to energy, in accordance with its mass). However, when energy is transferred by means other than matter-transfer, the transfer produces changes in the second system, as a result of work done on it. This work manifests itself as the effect of force(s) applied through distances within the target system. For example, a system can emit energy to another by transferring (radiating) electromagnetic energy, but this creates forces upon the particles that absorb the radiation. Similarly, a system may transfer energy to another by physically impacting it, but in that case the energy of motion in an object, called kinetic energy, results in forces acting over distances (new energy) to appear in another object that is struck. Transfer of thermal energy by heat
occurs by both of these mechanisms: heat can be transferred by electromagnetic radiation, or by physical contact in which direct particle-particle impacts transfer kinetic energy.
If I need an elaborate lecture from wikipedia, I could read it myself.
You said this "Energy in Physics is the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work".(And you should know that when yo say capacity to work, it is a concept)
Now from the quote you gave "When matter (ordinary material particles) is changed into energy (such as energy of motion, or into radiation), the mass of the system does not change through the transformation process"
According to you energy is a property of matter and capacity to work. Now how do you convert matter to its property and capacity?
Work is the ability to change the location of another object or in simple terms the motion of one object that can be transferred to another(convoluted in wikipedia as force acting through a distance....)
A system can transfer its motion to another through physical contact, which is called as work/or energy as the case may be, but my question is how matter(object) can be converted to this energy(concept) or vice versa?
Incidently what you call heat or Thermal energy is vibration/motion of molecules in a given matter. In common language the more the thermal energy/heat, the more the vibration.
Deborah, don't bother. Jomine will re-define words to suit his preferences, and even went as far to argue that there is no such thing as 'mass', so our experiments where kinetic energy is converted into mass are bogus to Jomine.
Why you think, everybody believes just like you, that it is nonsense that make up science?
Since you know very much about mass, for everybodys benefit state what mass is, clearly and briefly.
And as it is your contention that there is a "thing" called mass, provide a picture of the thing "mass", if you can(that is, if you have any honor).
Thanks, I didn't realize that . I won't be letting him waste my time.
That's why I stopped the debate on my end. I debate to learn and to challenge my own beliefs. There was nothing here to learn. When legal definitions by the Supreme Court are made by "a bunch of lawyers" wanting to "persuade a jury" then I need to look elsewhere for debate partners.
You can always find so many who agree with you, without questioning, that you can have a 'meaningful debate'.
Some of my best debates on here have been with those with vastly different viewpoints than mine. The ability to debate with intelligence while sticking to a point cannot be overrated. There are many here that do that. You don't.
You are, of course, free to think it's because you don't agree with me. Those who don't agree with me that I've debated know better.
If I remember correctly yours and your courts definition of religion is a sincere belief.
And neither of you say what that belief is.
Anybody going out in the morning has a sincere belief that they won't get into any accidents, anybody transacting in fiat currency has a sincere belief that it holds its value, and by your definition they are all religious.
Then your UU have beliefs in both supernatural and irrational.
So to have a "meaningful debate" you have to clarify that points but as far as you are concerned instead of that, I should ignore that aberrations for a "meaningful debate", but that is not how a debate is.
About goin to lawyers for definition, by the same token you can go to lawyers when you have a disease.
1. The first four words of a definition are not the whole definition.
2. I would love to hear what beliefs I have in the supernatural.
3. There is a difference between a supreme court justice and a lawyer. The job of the supreme court IS to make definitions. That's what they do. No juries involved.
You have no knowledge of my religion personally, just what you can scrounge on Wiki yet you feel you can tell me that it 1. Isn't a religion or 2. That I believe in supernatural forces. You are completely ignorant about my beliefs and making assumptions.
Those wishing to debate generally have some vague clue what they are debating about. You don't.
But I agree with you. One of us here DOES have idiotic views and DOES lack intelligence.
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?
The definition is a sincerely held belief.
What "belief" it is?
A belief is the confidence in a statement/person.
I gave you examples that people can have beliefs that can be held as strongly as is required by the court, but will never come under the purview of religion. If you still have doubts ask any communist whether it is a religion.
So as long as the term belief is left open, the definition does not clearly and unambiguously define religion and cannot be considered a definition.
Now your personal belief, you said you are uu and UU has belief in irrational and supernatural and you say it is not your belief.(and you have not divulged anything other than that, about your belief.)
I didn't say I know your personal belief, I only said according to the definition, a supernatural is needed, it to be religious.
And as far as I know, only a lawyer can be a judge, and courts make judgements hearing all sides of a story and depends which side can persuade the judge/jury and they make llegal definition and not scientific definition, and the purpose of both are different.
Belief in the supernatural is not required by the U.U. religion therefore you cannot know by looking at wiki whether I personally have supernatural beliefs.
You said my religious beliefs were illogical yet you have yet to tell me which beliefs those are. Yet you say I'm obtuse.
I have not divulged any personal beliefs to you because you have not asked. You just keep repeating that my beliefs are irrational. I assumed that to form a conclusion about my faith, you had to know something about it.
You gave no pertinent examples. None.
Please read up on the supreme court. You are making (again) uneducated assumptions on the purpose/scope/operations of the court as an entity. I haven't the patience to educate you.
So basically, all of your arguments are invalid. Try learning instead of looking up things in the dictionary.
Because you didn't say anything about your beliefs, other than you are UU and I've quoted the UU beliefs which are supernatural and irrational and had asked which all did you subscribe.
I again and again repeated to you, which all beliefs can be called religious beliefs. I didn't say your beliefs are irrational, what I said was every religious beliefs are irrational. If you have religious beliefs then it is irrational.
I had boldened the irrational and supernatural part of UU beliefs and had asked whether you accept it or not, which you chose to ignore.
And neither you nor the court came up with a definition of beliefs, or what all constitute religious beliefs, but only said "sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons"
A communist keep has a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons, so he is religious by definition, but nobody including the court say he is religious.
So non lawyers can become judges?
Courts do other functioning other than interpreting law?
For your information law is made by congress/parliament depending on the country and what the court does is interpreting it. And a court definition is for the purpose of social justice and not for anybody to do a scientific enquiry.
Neither have I, and you have tested my patience very much
On what grounds? That you cannot come up with a clear, valid, and UNAMBIGUOUS definition? Or you cannot come to terms with UU, your religion, for having supernatural, in it tenets?
I, and usually most people. look up the dictionary when we want the meaning or definition of a term. We go to courts/legal book to know about law. We see a doctor when we want to know about disease. How is that, in your place?
1. You never quoted a thing that said UU's believed in the supernatural. You cut and pasted something you THOUGHT said that. See that's the problem, you are cutting and pasting without reading.
2. You cut and pasted only part of the legal definition... the rest requires that the belief hold the same place as the God of other people. Your examples therefore, are invalid. Once again, it's because you lack understanding.
3. Actually, non-lawyers CAN become judges. Good luck figuring that one out. Here's a hint: It's not in wiki.
4. Just to humour you... Here are the tennants of my religion. I've cut and pasted so you will understand them. Find me a supernatural element.
There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
5. If "usually most people. look up the dictionary when we want the meaning or definition of a term. We go to courts/legal book to know about law. We see a doctor when we want to know about disease. How is that, in your place?" then maybe you should ask a UU about their faith rather than wiki...
Your arguments are still invalid. I'm starting to think its a reading comprehension issue which is a shame since your bible is apparently wiki.
Edit: Just because I grow weary of you completely missing the point... (Which is basically you don't know everything and looking it up online doesn't grant you knowledge... or maybe it's "Things don't always fit in your little boxes, no matter how much you would like them to"... I'm throwing in a couple links about the place of atheism/agnosticism/humanism in my RELIGION...
But I'm sure you knew that right? I mean wiki and the oxford dictionary must have said something about it.
I did ask you, your belief, but you ignored it.
"hold the same place as the God of other people." So it is an unambiguous definition. So let us see. A religious prays to his god, so do you pray to universal justice?
A communist/LTTE of Sri Lanka hold their beliefs with such conviction(their beliefs hold the same place as god), that they are ready to die for it, are they religious?
Or is it that you do not know the meaning of "unambiguous"(even with your very high IQ and BA english)? I'll wait, you go and search the annals of court.
And while you are at it, please look up the definition of definition(scientific) too.( As far as I know a definition is to limit the meaning of a word, so that the word can be used consistently and unambiguously, I may be wrong, I don't have a BA english, I only hold a mastery in surgery.
In your country may be, In mine only somebody who studied law are made judges, in any court.
Good that you refined it,
Now let me ask 1 question.
What is spiritual?(this question I've asked several times, but you evaded the answer.)
And removing the spiritual part, there are so many organisations and groups that follow the principles(I was part of some such groups), who will never claim they are religious, who will even resent being called religious.
One more thing I would like to know, with your very great intelligence and BA English, why then you first quoted an online dictionary(for which you have a great contempt), which had a circular definition and when I pointed out the obvious flow, why you had to go to a court definition? Is that a problem with Very High intelligent people?
And to quote you "I am also being told that my religion (which isn't really a religion)",
I too said the same thing, though you say it is religion, it is not really a religion, it is just philosophy.(In the same sentence you claim yours is a religion and not a religion, first get a grip)
And I never said all philosophies are idiotic, I didn't have any comment on it, while what I said was all religions(that is those religions that come under the purview of a proper definition of religion) are idiotic.
So I'll leave you at it, to figure out when your religion is a religion, and when it cease to be one. I can't refute such intelligent arguments.
But I agree, when confronted with arguments that can't be refuted, it is easier to run away than admit you are wrong.
Your first contention was there is no supernatural in your belief, but wikipedia proves the contrary, then you become an unintelligent, which'll be difficult for you to accept.
I had told you to find out the difference between object and concept before arguing with me, yet you didn't do it.
Are yo here to spread ignorance?
That depends, electromagnetic radiation is energy, but not really matter, so it's not really a property, while kinetic energy that affects the state of matter is a property.
radiation:The act or process of radiating
That is radiation is actually a verb, to radiate. Something is radiated, that is something in motion.
So it comes to that energy is synonymous to motion/ motion transferred, is still a concept.
And yes we call so many things and concepts energy, light energy, heat energy, when we are exhausted we are drained of energy.....
So in effect the term has no particular meaning, or the meaning is contextual.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The examples you provided for energy is that of motion. 'Nothing' cannot move, it is always something, some form of matter(the form is immaterial). So energy conversion is always motion transfer. In case of radiation also it is the same, say ,between sun and earth, the radiation transfer the motion of molecules in the sun to that on the earth.
Just supposing..... that so-called "big bang," was just the thought process, the instantaneous thought, of an infinite energy, that decided it wanted to reflect upon itself. To do that the Infinite Energy (paraphrase: Divine Consciousness, God, whatever you like) would have decided that it had to make the opposite of itself, the "image," in order to reflect upon itself.
Follow on your supposition: The opposite, the Reflection, is US, ME, the entire Finite creation which you and I are a part of.
In popular terminology, and in reality what so many from different schools have spoken of: The Word (as in the Gospel of John), OM (as in Sanskrit, etc.), and all the other references to the Infinite, unfathomable consciousness.
This is offered to you for discussion. Please, don't let's get into angry argument. Let's explore and listen to the ideas of everyone here who wishes to speak.
Wow. It really bugs you that I know I am intelligent doesn't it? It must suck that you can try and call me an idiot but I know better.
You are still using rhetoric, yet you have failed to prove how my own religious views are idiotic. The points you are making have absolutely nothing to do with anything I believe. That's likely because your thinking is limited to "All those who are religious believe in creationism."
Stereotypical thinking is completely irrational. You cannot say "Some religious people believe in creationism so therefore all religions beliefs are idiotic." It shows an emotional bias with no basis in fact or logic. If you would like to say that those religions that believe in creationism are irrational, you MIGHT have a valid argument. (I doubt that you would be able to argue it logically, as your emotional issues would likely get in the way) However, my particular religion does not so it is immaterial in the conversation.
You have still failed to prove that my religious viewpoints are idiotic. Nice try though precious. Way to fight the good fight.
Once again lets see
Religion :a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies
Cause, nature and purpose??? What is the cause of the universe? I just explained it just is, there is no cause.
There is no purpose, it is our need to have a purpose that create religion. Universe is neither created nor driven according to any purpose as there is no being(superhuman agency part of the definition) that controls or set purposes.
God, soul and spirit are all concepts, and as they are concepts it need an intelligent being to conceive, that is they are all immaterial and hence do not exist, just our dream or wish.
If you do not have any of this beliefs then how can you be religious by definition?
One more "belief in existence"!
Do you believe the sun or mount Everest exist? Does your non-belief make it to cease its existence? So saying I believe god exists, is irrational. If god exist, he exist by the definition of the word exist. Then you'll also have to tell what this god fellow is or what this fellow can do!
You are becoming more incoherent. Please try to calm down.
Religion has several definitions. (That's what the numbers on the side mean). Sticking to one that you think proves your point means that you can't argue the other points. So, since I too can google... and cut and paste lets look at the complete definition...
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I am religious under section 1 b (2), 2, and 4.
So yeah, I'm religious BY DEFINITION. UU to be precise.
And you STILL haven't said a thing that is relative to why my religious beliefs are idiotic. So either 1. Admit that you made a broad sweeping generalization that was both stereotypical and false or 2. PROVE why MY SPECIFIC religious beliefs are idiotic.
In short, s*** or get off the pot. It's okay precious we all make the mistake of assuming that what we know of the world is all there is. However, before you form a diehard opinion about every single person of a specif group (the religious) you should maybe learn more than one religion. Otherwise, you are no better than the indoctrinated "idiots" that you rail against. You don't really understand what you believe, you are just repeating what people you want to be like say.
The difference between you and the more believable atheists on the forums is that they obviously know their stuff. You don't. You just are parroting what they say. It's kinda sad actually, by now ATM, PCUni, or Earnest (may he rest in peace) would have either have ripped me apart logically or conceded (they do sometimes). You just keep repeating irrelevant statements.
Is it that I'm incoherent or you lack the ability to understand? Calm done? I never get emotional over ideas!! That may be your lot.
Religion has several definitions. Let us select the definition why you are religious, 1 b (2), 2, and 4.
b (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Faith:belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
See all your definitions contains the word you are trying to define, circular. I used that definition because it clearly state the meaning/definition of the word "religion". It tells you what constitute a religion, not like the definition you quoted, "religious is one who have religious faith"
See you can have a religious faith in the permanency/supremacy of dollar, does that pertain to the discussion we are having here? I am talking only about that meaning of religion what the general population mean when they say religion. If you have any separate, specific definition for religion for your private use, I'm not discussing that.
So if you are religious by definition you should "believe" in a supernatural power/spirit/ or soul or such incorporeal/conceptual beings.
I already told you, I also told you why "I believe in the existence of god"
statement itself is irrational.
One religion? Knowing a good deal of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and a certain extent of Islam, Chinese(confusious and Lao) philosophy and a little Greek will not constitute one religion.
To an extent I may be similar to Pcunix, I have nothing to do with ATM/ or the his nonsense, there may be some similarity between earnest(I'd debates with him). I have no intention to rip apart anybody. I know people are incorrigible even if they are confronted with all the logic and reason. I do this for my own amusement.
One personal question, why you said about earnest he rest in peace? I read he was banned from hubs, but is it worse?
Earnest passed away. I miss him very very much.
I am religious. I belong to a religion... specifically I am a Unitarian Universalist. I am a devout U.U. You can argue that it isn't a religion, however, the rest of the world doesn't agree with you. They may not agree whether it is a Christian religion or not, but I've never heard anyone say it wasn't a religion. That's new. If you would like to claim it isn't a religion then have at it. Although I think that dismissing all religions that don't fall into your definition is a bit like throwing out any experimental results that don't fit a theory then claiming it is a fact.
As I am religious, I have religious ideas. The fact is that you seem to have no idea what those beliefs are yet insist on calling them idiotic. I'm going to have to chalk it up to lack of knowledge on your part. In addition, I'm going to have to assume that your complete stubbornness to engage me in reasonable debate stems from a strong desire to maintain your own stereotypical ideas regardless of any additional information. You are so rooted in your own ideology that anything that threatens it is ignored. You are functioning in much the same way that those religious individuals who refuse to see your so called logic and reason behave. In short, you are a hypocrite.
I would also like to point out that there are several religions that don't believe in a God. There are several more that believe in him/her/they quite a bit differently then the standard "creator and father" definition. I assume that they are also not religions according to you.
Wikipedia:Unitarian Universalism is a religion characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning"
You are accusing me, as if it is I, who made the definition. I had stated, from where I took that definition, dictionary.com It is the same definition that is given in oxford and encarta. You are free to provide any definition, but my only insistence is that it should not be circular, and it can be used consistently.
Now lets as see truth and meaning.
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
See, your truth goes more with philosophy, not religion.
Again I'm reminding you, it is not me who made any of these definitions.
Ideology?? There you are completely wrong. I have no ideology. In fact I don't even put any arguments. I only insist on defining the words clearly and unambiguously, so that the meaning can be clearly understood.
I had explained you why I say religion is irrational. OK. let me try once more
Belief in existence. We don't BELIEVE in existence. Existence is a fact. Belief is the confidence we have in the truth of a statement/person. If somebody says he believes in god, it means,logically, that he believe what god said, not that god exist. Lets change god to sun. "I believe in sun."
Have you ever heard such a statement? We say sun exist. Now "I believe in my president/parents..." See the difference.
In short belief has nothing to do with gods existence. It depends on what you mean by god. For some, it is creator, for some father.... . In short it is a word without any particular meaning attached to it, nor does not resolve to any object in this universe.
Similar is the case with spirit, soul.
Now there is another word "spiritual"(regarding UU) It is an ambiguous word that can mean concerning spirit or moralities(truth and all such concepts). When it is spirit, it becomes religion and if morality, it becomes philosophy.
In short, your problem is that you don't define your words clearly, rigorously and unambiguously , you leave the meaning open, that there is always an escape route for you, when confronted.
Again I tell you it is not me who made all this definitions.
Buddhism and Jainism, confusionism are mostly put along with philosophy. Satanism is another with out god.
Hinduism(especially the older versions) have gods for natural forces like rain, sun and water.
Atheism, relativity, Quantum physics can all be termed religion.
So lets make the clear distinction,
Religion deals with supernatural(god/satan/soul/spirit.....)
Philosophy deals with truth and meaning(and such concepts).....
Atheism, relativity/Quantum deals with irrational(I'll give Atheism an exception, cause mostly it is not a belief system nor it is a term that can be defined with a single definition).
Supernatural and irrational defy logic and reason and hence idiotic.
Philosophy is quest to define, based on logic. It is critical analysis.
Now you choose, you belong to which one.
Note: I've only simplified the available definitions, I'm not saying any of it is rational or irrational, it is the definitions. I'm like the audience who appreciate music, but themselves, cannot sing. I'll tell you whether it is good one or bad one, beyond that I've nothing. Whatever happens, happens on the stage.
Let's take this a step at a time.
You agree that my religion is a religion correct?
I'm assuming that is going to be a yes (can't argue with wiki right?) so we'll move on the the next question.
If I adhere to a religion then I am, by default, religious. Correct?
For simplification, lets go with the legal definition of "religion"
The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being...
Or is the the supreme court's definition not equal to an online dictionary?
Ok lets take this definition and analyse it.(In spite of the fact that it is made by a bunch of lawyers, who want to persuade a jury).
"religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor"
Sincere and meaningful belief in what? You can't hold a belief for beliefs sake. Again, you can have belief in the dollar. It is the sincere and meaningful belief, ie, faith in the dollar that keeps the economy going, is it religion?
Since you are adamant, I checked the three standard dictionaries, Oxford, Cambridge and Encarta, which all says a belief in supernatural is essential for religion.
My question to you is simple, do you believe in supernatural?
If not, how does your belief qualify as a religion?
According to wiki, UU is a search for meaning and truth, which by definition is philosophy. I may be wrong about what UU is, then you have to tell me what it is, and which part of it is religion.
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part
Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.
These are the tenets of UU, which I'm quoting from wikipedia.
I have boldened some,
I. Spiritual, which I told you may be moral, or regarding spirit. Former is philosophy and latter is religion.
2. Forces don't create. Force is a verb, it need somebody to force, so irrational.
3. It say about god, supernatural.
4. It says about spirit, supernatural.
Now do you concur to all the above from UU, or you approve only some?
Your grasp of English is that weak? Force can be a verb or a noun. Gravitational force, magnetic force, nuclear force, etc...
"it need somebody to force" Every effect needs somebody to have caused it?
Your grasp in Scientific language is weak. In common parlance you can use a word as verb or noun as and when you please. In science the word has only one meaning and it is a verb.
Gravitational force, magnetic force, weak force, strong force.... Great forces they are!! For your information there are only two forces in nature, push and pull.
In science? What branch of science defines 'force' as only a verb? Can you provide some sort of source or citation to back up that claim? I can provide thousands that support the idea of force as a noun.
I thought there weren't any forces in nature... Let's take a look.
1 - You claimed that force is a verb, not a noun.
2 - You state '...there are only two forces in nature...' In that phrase, 'forces' and 'nature' are both nouns.
So, if we take Jomine's word for it, there are only two forces in nature, but they don't exist.
Dern it all I sure do wish I had some smarts so I maybecould defends myself and kinfolk.
Although I disagree with your viewpoint, I understand what you're saying. However, I think it goes further than jut religious groups. Any thing your a part of, whether it be a job, a group, a frat, sorority, club, to some extend its expected that you "think" or rather conform to some of their standards.
"If you're not with us you're against us". That's about the mentallity of the average group of people.
i do agree with that statement. the average mentality of any-religious or secular-group of people
I don't even like being around my friends and familly, based solely on the fact that their mostly religious and/or are sports fanatics.
thats valid. i grew up in a religious household & i used to be one of those peopleu described. once something is embedded into you, it's hard to dismiss it but it is possible. now that's its always a good thing, you have to challenge them on their turf. Whether they respond quickly, or jump to the gun, they are listening, and they will think about the dissenting opinion presented to them.
Think you're right Ashley we molded by society,culture,family,religion,schools.
You are basically shaped and molded
to fit in your location in life. Until you
become and independent thinker
and than everyone gets their feathers ruffled.
I have no religion as most define it. As the supreme court defines it is paraphrased this way :Any set of concepts or beliefs by which you live your daily life. Atheism, by this definition, is a religion. Being an athlete constitutes their belief system. Especially if they do it religiously. As it is defined here, my religion is beyond what you have ever encountered, therefore, I think that intelligence is required for religion (or science) to have arisen at all. Have a nice day!
mischeviousme said: "I don't get angry easily. I see it all as pretty much the same thing; a basic understanding of the fundamental laws of nature. In other words, we don't know anything about anything. Science has an idea and again it's only true in concept and is subject to the design of another, earlier model."
That's nice, there's a New Age "object/concept" religion out there that you'd be glad to adhere to. Personally, I've never seen a rock talk, but whatever floats your boat. Maybe PCP & LSD isn't so bad after all, albeit I'll pass on the drugs, but thanks anyway...
What a weird and delightful bunch of humans we are ,speak for myself I hear you say,well now wouldn't that be unique on Hubpages speaking for ones self.
To me, it doesnt matter how people arrive at knowledge or understanding ,but that they arrive
If I write something that appears to go against my OWN religion, I'm still chastised for not thinking for myself.
Chastised my non-believers, that is. People are generally the same.
Lordy. When people start using colors in a forum thread, it's time for me to leave..
This entire discussion is opinion, correct? There is one thing I didn't see in here that I must share. I know without a doubt that Jesus Christ is real. Now I was raised Catholic, but I did't find the answers to my questions there. I had a deep desire to know what was true. Now that I know there is no religion or person who will ever sway me from the truth. The bible being the oldest and most published book should tell everyone something. What it tells me is that God's Promises are real and I am proof. If you seek the truth with your whole heart and soul, you will find it, and when you do the truth will set you free. Noey
Religion, Science, Intelligence, Myths, Legends, & Folklore, Ancient History, etc., are all a "good mix" for many of us curious Homo sapiens - including the critics and the skeptical, although none of those things will ever "blend well" with the people who constantly stay in a confused state of mind, such as yourself.
Tell me how I'm confused. Are you here to show the masses how confused and utterly blind they are?
For one, you change your mind and belief system from day to day and two, you admit that you have needed to experiment with psycho-troubled substances to "find awareness," and three (although the list could go on), your extra additions of LOL emoticans reveal the rest of the story. What a shame... I'm not showing "the masses," as you say, anything other than pointing out the obvious.
It reveals that your attack was laughed at. You can attack my credibillity all you wish, just be mindful of your own.
Attack? Oh, I'm now attacking people? I've heard of pantywaist pansies before, but dang! I had no idea you felt "attacked," as you say. Now that's funny right there... If I tone it down anymore for ya, I'll be drooling over myself with slow, syllabic sounds and moans. I'm trying to come down to your level, and it still isn't good enough for you to understand; ha! WTF?
You keep slinging attack after attack. You're just making yourself look like an extremist, of which there are many.
There you go again, flinging labels at people. I'm now an extremist? At what, may I ask? Your little name-calling and labelling makes you sound like one of those little brats that like to spout all day long about what they know about universe and the inner-workings of the cosmos, but when anyone questions them, it is "oh, no, I'm being attack by a merciless being from the cosmic jihad!" You react that way, because you have no backing or credentials whatsoever, but I wasn't going to say that, albeit you insist on slinging dung and proclaiming false accusations. Unlike most people in a debate, confused beings like you need credentials or else, you get silently laughed at and felt sorry for.
At least I'm making people laugh. I may be a clown and I may be ignorant of your ways, at least I'm not a @!$* about it.
Although being a clown or humorous is better when the person does it on purpose, your self-admittance to the laughingstock stage, is worthy of at least one good chuckle from me. Ha~ha... I'm being a ... what about it? Hey, no need to start name-calling and picking on the poor innocent donkeys...
So... What are your credentials? What makes you think you are the authority on the subject?
I think I would rather be an intelligent quadruped than a "random, omniverous, semi-intelligent bi-ped." Mentioning no names, of course.....
Hey, there's nothing wrong with you wanting to be an instinctive animal with nature-given intelligence, it is just than when people go further out, they often end up being "semi-intelligent," like my modest self stated, and unlike what you may want to believe, Homo sapiens are considered bi-peds, and I choose to be omnivorous, but there is no need to re-direct you to a health & fitness blog, just to explain why.
Who is attacking whom? I never claimed to know anything about the cosmos, I just say it like I see it. You have any issues that need to be resolved? You seem like a very angry person. I have a couch if you feel like talking about it for a while. How is my behavior making you so angry? And if I'm the cause of your anger, how do you feel you are being constructive with it?
You brought up anger first, in an earlier post, which, as you say, is a primitive response. I can't get mad at for what I feel sorry for, but that could change, of course.
Maybe there was a miscommunication of sorts?
I imagine that where you went wrong was in engaging in conversation with him
Insane Mundane is just a troll, I wouldn't waste the time reading what he says
You have an inferiority complex, and you often call anyone a troll that you can't relate to that doesn't succumb to your asininity. In fact, I've seen you get labelled as a troll within certain comment fields @ HP, as you must really be bitter about that. I hope your wounds heal, but personally, I've never lowered myself to the point to where I even acknowledge that "online trolls" exist. Since you seem to have a fetish for such, please explain what qualifies one as a troll, dear 'common sense' hater.
I was just about to call him out. But I don't like feeding into too much negativity.
Hahaha yeah, that's very kind of you, I just thought I'd try and save you the trouble of reading whatever gibberish he decides to try and feed you this time
Read the thread, and it is obvious that you seem to know a lot about gibberish, since that is all you provide outside of your occasional "copy & paste" Google Search quotes. Oh, how original. You might as well get your intelligence from the back of a cereal box, since you have none of your own.
[color=#ff0000]Bunghole Bopping Boisterous Bohemian?[/color
Call me out? What, is this a western showdown? Alright! I've got plenty of ammunition for your negative attack, although I've been as positive as I could be, thus far. Ha-ha-ha! What a joke! You people start subjects, threads, forums, etc., and can't even handle the feedback without getting defensive. Maybe I should just be lame like "Philan," and start calling everybody a troll. Nope, I'll pass dear wanna-be cyber-villain... LOL!
Okay, well bold print usually does: "Bungole Bopping Boisterous Bohemian?
More troll talk, oh, how so creative...
Oh, more trolling - much more creative
Oh, I get it, you use red colors to compensate for the lack of intelligent statements. Hey, whatever works for you...
Intelligence is one of the 9 traits that define the spiritual integrity of our Celestial spirits. It is not define by religion nor gender,but by spiritual concept.
Every creature of life is endowed by God with intelligence.It refer to the intellect of our Celestial spirits from which we communicate,choose and coordinate the ability and integrity of the spirituality within our spiritual bodies.
So lets reevaluate your stance on what intelligence is.
Philanthrophy2012 is a great example of this forum thread, as he detests not only religion, but also intelligence, and obviously so, as the self-hating troll continues forward with ITs utmost asininity. It's a shame, however, that we can't get on a topic that doesn't involve childish name-calling, or else, I guess, the poor chap "Philan" would have to retire to the ladies room and begin taking out his/her anger against one of the exposed orifices that he/she deemed necessary, and commence to pervading a gap that doesn't quite so resemble the one between the poor bloke's ears.
Without even reading Insane Troll's post, I can imagine since it starts with "Philanthropy2012" it'll be another of his hate speeches, I urge all people not to waste their time reading it, he's our local neighbourhood troll.
Okay, Miss Multiple HP accounts. LOLOLOL! Your the Hood's Hoodlum! Plain & simple... I know what you're doing, trying to bring me down to your low level of scum, but guess what, it doesn't matter anyway since I don't pay for HP's web hosting nor do I own the actual servers, do you?
Alas, Philan accuses people of "hating" when He/She has to use multiple accounts to circumvent banning or to save face, just to make his trolling attempts throughout random forums. In fact, this imbecile has even admitted on certain forums that he/she uses other accounts to do such. Don't even try to drag me down to YOUR troll status, as I may be a lot of things, but not some under-educated troll wanna-be, like you. LOL!
Okay, folks, carrying on, or as IT says, Happy Hubbing
I am not defending all so-called religious persons, but I experienced the problem with witnessing to nonbelievers is getting them to think in the correct arena; the arena of faith where God can do anything period.
Intelligence relies on knowledge, and knowledge without wisdom is very dangerous. Wisdom comes not from the immediate or near future, but long term considerations into the pass and future. Max wisdom comes from God. This arena is spiritually reflected most by the heart with love.
The most intelligent and technologically advanced societies tend not to seek higher humanitarian values for the good of all, but instead seeks to overpower and conqueror other societies such as dramatized by Nazi Germany. So, what changes the heart of man other than Godly values?
"Without science religion is lame; without religion science is blind.", Einstein
Bravo, @wilmiers77. Well said!
That's why it saddens me to see so many so-called Fundamentalists disrespecting science because it doesn't match their shallow interpretation of scripture. It's painful to watch their ego, arrogance and laziness.
If they only approached the gates of heaven as a beggar, they could find truth. As it is they are blinding themselves to it all.
And the same goes for the non-believers who ridicule. They do not know, but they presume to know it all.
Even Einstein started out knowing how to be humble. Too bad he clung to his laurels and forgot his roots. Humility is the antidote to ego and the only way to learn anything.
Exactly which part of how we got here could NOT POSSIBLY have been engineered? Just cause I don't know how fizzies work, doesn't mean they don't. Even what is scientifically called the Big Bang. Terraforming a planet might be how WE got here. Imagine a civilization as old as the universe itself. Imagine that civilization compared to ours now. Consider this: Everything is a manifestation of energy...including consciousness. Consciousness must be included in the equation, because consciousness exists. We are in the universe, and the universe is in us, therefore, the universe has consciousness.
My wife hogs our blankets! Everything I said is logical. Here's another thing I see. We, as in earth people, have not yet found the "End" of the universe, therefore, we can not definitively say that we have found the "beginning" for if there is no "end", what we have found cannot possibly be the "beginning" and the real problem is this...no matter what we do, we can't see the end because we can only see the past.
Oh, and by the way, I represent no "religious" group at all. I find religion to be a quaint idea which changes nothing whatsoever. It had a purpose, but that purpose evolved. Now, it is an obstacle to true enlightenment.
Have you actually studied the scriptures? If so, please name a few moral codes that are superior to the bible's teachings.
@Druid Dude, you do not know "true enlightenment."
If you think you are nothing more than that Homo sapiens vessel, then you are truly lost.
If you think that the advancements of science (and what a sexy bunch of logic is found there... yum!) are all that there is to "enlightenment," then you're barking up the wrong tree.
The purpose of religion is to awaken the "true self" (the soul). That is what was "Enlightenment" to Gautama Siddhartha. That is what was "everlasting life" to Yehoshua of Nazareth.
And to the Druids? They believed in reincarnation, to the irritation of Julius Caesar. But death without enlightenment becomes a separation--a rift. With enlightenment (everlasting life), death is merely a step in a long continuity.
Some people's interpretations of religion are an obstacle to enlightenment. But that's only ego getting in the way. True enlightenment is the death of ego and the reawakening of the true self.
Ego is the obstacle. Even scientists cannot make advancements when ego is in full force.
And did @aware make a blanket statement, too?
@mischeviousme, religion and intelligence not a good mix? It depends upon your definition of religion. And it depends upon the religious group about which your speaking. There are many and not all of them are the same.
Sure, there are some that frown upon thinking for yourself, but you're generalizing again! Such generalities are founded on poor logic.
I found in my more than a decade in Buddhism, that thinking for myself was far more acceptable than in any other religion. And yes, Buddhism is a religion.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
That fits Buddhism and many other religions perfectly.
I was even married to a Buddhist for 12 years. And I studied with Rinpoche Gyaltsen while he was in Los Angeles. My favorite Buddhist book is "Way to Go," by Khentin Tai Situ Pa. Very religious stuff. And I've had many long conversations with a lovely Cambodian couple about wisdom and compassion.
I know what you mean about asking questions going against doctrine (dogma). My grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister. My poor grandmother couldn't stand my talking about the memories I had of other lives. She said that she had only and always been only herself, never someone else. To which I replied, "Exactly! I agree completely." But she was talking about her body, and I was talking about the immortal, true self, within (the soul) -- the non-self in Buddhism -- that which "allows" things to happen, as in the rainmaker principle. This is the true self that perceives the as-it-isness of things and resides in the paramita.
Too Many Generalities
@mischeviousme, for all of your philosophizing, you seem to be relatively clueless. Perhaps you know a great deal, but it's being lost in translation -- between your brain and your fingertips. Don't speak with generalities; you lose too much when you aim at the whole what applies only to a subset.
Oh really? Because this doesn't seem to agree with what you just said:
"You do realize buddhism is a religion?"
Not by the definition of religion.
In Buddhism there is no God, no creator, and religion is the worship of God
In his defense, per his argument, he agrees with you. He is arguing the same point you are. And, by a narrow view, I would agree. He was upset with me for making that statement. I'm just not a fan of narrow views.
Religion, by practice, trancends that definition. Buddhism, in my opinion, many times falls into the category of religion. It is entirely up to the practices of the adherent.
Aye, but in this case, there is no need to chastise a fellow hubber for disagreeing!
Again, you miss the mark be a mile. I wasn't chastising. I'm beginning to worry about your ability to understand the written word.
More insults? Hurtful, Emile R.
You hurt some feelings today, put a mark on your tally chart and feel satisfied.
"experiments only proved that the clocks they use change with speed and nothing else, that is the clocks are not reliable at high velocities"
In a long history of grappling with nonsense this thread is right up there
I would advise anyone passing by to take a read all the way through, I have'nt seen such funny twaddle in a long time.
Come back at times, after worshiping your god Einstein.
Who made Einstein? God loves a good disguise.. Consider this: Halloween used to be a night of fear and superstition. Inspiration turned it into a fun time, filled with strange and horrendous spectres that taught our children not to take the boogeyman seriously. Candy, candy candy...all things must surely pass, but new things arise. That is immutable and very Jesusian(Think I just created a word!) Everything is a manifestation of energy, including consciousness. I am in the universe, and the universe is in me. When I was a child, I spoke as a child.
Yep, and the cool thing about that, is that the cosmos is always changing while people that adhere to the stagnant belief systems out there, are constantly fighting against the "fade to black." Then again, we have people out there that doesn't even believe that energy exists because it isn't an object with a location, as they say.
The preacher of reality! Who made you the know it all of our planet?
Melissa they might be aware of the Universal Life Church does have a lot of Mystics,Metaphysical,Psychic etc ministers. Alot of them go under Universal Life Church although they might not advertise it. They do teach classes on all spiritual things like Wicca for example. I can't remember at the moment all they cover, but I do know plenty of them fall under the UU. So that might be what they're trying to get at.
HattieMattieMae, I don't know enough about the ULC to comment on them. I don't believe they are affiliated with the UU church in any way though. The names are similar but it's not my denomination.
Melissa, run! You're far too intelligent to contribute to this religious thread. You know that the two cannot cohabit in the same person.
I know, but I am apparently too stupid to find the back button. As such, I (with my lowly 131 IQ and B.A. in English) am being forced to listen to someone call me idiotic while cutting and pasting online dictionary definitions.
I am also being told that my religion (which isn't really a religion) and all members of that faith unquestioningly believe in the supernatural because Wiki says that we draw inspiration from those faiths that believe in God. I draw inspiration from Shakespeare too, but that doesn't make me a dead Englishman. The person making these claims likely never heard of U.U. before rushing to the internet to find something they could quote out of context to prove that I really did believe in something that I don't.
Could someone who is much more intelligent than my idiotic self please tell me how to get off this page? I accidentally wandered in when my foam rubber helmet bounced off the keyboard.
But Again They register the dogs on their to be ministers. Ha Ha than their dogs are legally able to marry other dogs. I had to laugh at that one when I first heard it Melissa. Anyone can sign up to be a legal minister on that site regardless if you're an atheist, or agnostic, or what spaghetti monster! lol
I understand why you feel this way. I have had this experience myself in religious circles. However this is a sweeping generalization. Unless you have had first hand experience with every single religion out there, you can't honestly say that all religions do not allow you to think for yourself or allow you to question. It's people's ego's that don't allow questioning and free thinking, it's people's ego's that cause wars, not religion. They just use religion to justify their actions which were really caused by their ego's. I have learned to accept that the faults we so often observe in religious circles is not in the religions themselves but in the people claiming allegiance to those religions.
With reference to your other point on evolution, insistence on adherence to the biblical creation account as interpreted literally, does not permit freedom of thought and questioning.
Actually it does. No one is forcing me to insist on anything, it is my choice. However I do feel like others are insisting that I depart from my Biblical Worldview. EXAMPLE: If it has been discovered that if you ingest cynanide you will die, then no one is forcing you to refrain from taking cynanide that is your choice based off of the previously discovered fact. Therefore, if I claim to accept the Bible as The Word of God, then how inconsistent of me would it be to not accept the Bible's account of creation. Thus, it is a necessary conclusion that does not necessitate any coercion.
By suggesting that those who do not interpret the creation account literally are pleasing men and rejecting the doctrines of God, you are thereby passing a judgment upon these others from a position of perceived superiority. Thus you are denying them the right to free thinking, because the results of doing so take them away from what you perceive to be the truth.
Now it makes no more sense to regard Genesis literally than it does to interpret Jesus' parables and Revelation literally. You don't seriously believe that a literal 10 headed dragon is going to walk up your local beach and order an ice cream do you? Or that birds swooping down eating seed off a path are actually literally satan? Of course not; they are allegory, parallel, pictures, etc. So why should Genesis be different?
Don't forget that the ancient Hebrew picture of the universe was of a flat Earth supported on pillars that went down through the waters below to Sheol; that the sky was a dome over the Earth on the underside of which the sun and moon traversed; and that the stars were either the light from Heaven poking through holes or angelic beings around the throne of God.
Hahahah ok now you’re exaggerating. I wasn’t suggesting anything about anybody, like I said I speak for myself, I don’t speak for others unless I say so explicitly. Furthermore, by accusing me of passing judgment on others you’re shifting the argument to another issue to deflect the attention from the real issue at stake which is “why Christians do not accept evolution even after many of their leaders do.” So may I ask that you stick to the topic and let us not get side tracked into oblivion with the end result being futile bickering with neither of us making any headway into the psyche of one another.
Now, in reference to your statement regarding the symbolical nature of the Bible; yes I do know many texts are to be taken symbolically. But here is where you are missing it and where many others do as well. By what method do you determine when a text is to be taken literally and when it is to be taken symbolically? You cannot assume that the whole Bible is to be taken metaphorically. Did you know that there are clues that help us to determine if a text is to be taken in metaphor. The first clue that I always look for is if they tell you overtly that it’s a metaphor; which Jesus did in His parables. He explicitly stated to His disciples that His parables were metaphors. He then went on to explain what they represented. He did the same thing in the book of Revelation. But He did not however do this with the book of Genesis.
Your reference to the ancient Hebrews and their actions are not relevant to the validity of the Bible. For even the prophets were constantly admonishing the ancient Hebrews for departing from what the Torah taught. Their actions have nothing to do with the accuracy or validity of Bible doctrine. Does the conduct of a Physics teacher reflect the validity of the principles of Physics? Certainly not, and the same goes for the conduct of all those who claim to believe in God. Their conduct has no relevance at all whatsoever to the truth or falsity of the Oracles of God.
We can take a line of scripture metaphorically when a literal interpretation is demonstrated to be incorrect by historical or scientific enquiry.
Furthermore the Hebrew picture of the universe came a result of their interpretation of scripture. If it was for scientific enquiry, this view would still be held by the Church and anyone else who takes a literal view.
I have to agree with your first point totally. In fact I started a hub about this issue yesterday. I should be through with it today or tomorrow.
Regarding your second point I disagree because the Bible clearly states in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is spherical.
You have to get pass this "scientific inquiry" issue. Scientific inquiry is nothing more than common sense. But it appears that these days it's not so common. So what, big deal! Someone observes some phenomenon, comes up with a hypothesis, tests it and it holds and then it becomes a principle of physics, or biology or some other branch of science. This is not difficult to do, will you please discard your awe of them! I detect idolatry, but hey I'm just sayin. It's called using your reasoning faculty! We all have one, who's saying not to use it?
When a Bible scholar has the time and resources to conduct scientific research it is a piece of cake, believe me. They have a harder time trying to understand metaphysics than we do physics.
The prophet Daniel greatly exceeded the scientists of the babylonian empire who were very learned in the sciences. See Daniel 1:20. Its no big deal to think scientifically, in fact it is a habit for me. That's just a fancy phrase used to describe thinking logically.
Irrespective of what you claim the ancient Hebrews believed concerning their idea of the universe can you find in the Bible where these alleged views could have originated?
Time and time again whenever someone argues that the Bible is not this or not that they always point to man as a reason for believing so, but rarely do I come across individuals who are able to point to scripture for faults.
I could find people with faulty ideas in any religion or scientific discipline. Will you please get off the people and stick to the Bible. If you're looking for faultless people, good luck!
Religious practise accounts for a dogmatic and limiting framework; spiritual living means enquiring where you need to use the intelligence, not to be mistaken for the limiting ego or frame work of thought.
Exactly. We agree. This is along the lines of what Jesus said to the pharisees and sadducees of His time. For lack of a better term, yes many refer to Christianity as a religion but in truth it is a way of life. In fact, in the days of the early church shortly after Jesus's crucifixion, burial and resurrection Christianity was referred to by many as "the way". The time is coming when God will hold his people accountable for the religious practices that they have added to the faith that have turned people astray.
by Alexander A. Villarasa 8 years ago
The naturalist's perspective that life could come from non-life, and intelligent life from non-intelligent life is so simplistic as to defy logic and reason. The nature of life and intelliegnce is so complex for them to be expressed in such a seemingly simple concept called "evolution by...
by paarsurrey 10 years ago
Only an Intelligent Being could endow intelligence to others; universe or nature or evolution are deaf and dumb; they cannot bestow intelligence on others of their own; it is the Creator God- the Most-Intelligent the Most-Wise who has bestowed intelligence to others as per His design of evolving...
by Eric Graudins 13 years ago
It's going to be hard for me to write objectively about this, but I'll try.I've recently seen a documentary about the child witches in Nigeria. I think it's just about the most terrifying and horrendous thing I've ever seen.The diagnosis and labelling of a child as a witch is pretty simple.If...
by pisean282311 11 years ago
Ok..being atheist , you dont believe in any intelligent supreme being ...my question is, you began atheist because of your observiation , experience and what role has religion played in making you atheist?
by Nichol marie 6 years ago
Do you believe that some religious people are to blame for, more people becoming atheists?Maybe people feel as though they are not ever good enough not because of God but because of other people condemning everything and give up on pursuing to be "Good"
by Gary R. Smith 9 years ago
What basic principles for living do religions and philosophies share in common?I would enjoy reading answers from a wide range of perspectives - Buddhism (which has been said to be a philosophy, not a religion), Christianity, Confucianism, Agnosticism, Science - or a personal worldview that is not...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|