What are your religious views?

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.

What are your religious views?

Deeply religious - I follow a strict religious code and trust my life to a higher authority
22
19%
Somewhat religious - I believe in a higher intelligence watching over us
38
32%
Agnostic - I'm on the fence; you really can't say either way at this time
29
25%
Atheist - I don't believe there is a higher intelligence watching over us
29
25%
 
Total votes: 118

User avatar
Peter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 26 May 2011 08:02
Location: New Zealand

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Peter » 07 Jun 2012 06:40

He has a simple grasp of this reality - thanks for the link
Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3642
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Summerlander » 07 Jun 2012 12:31

Brilliant link, Rebecca!

The fact that he mentioned the Fritzl case helped to illustrate his point about God not answering to praying beautifully. The woman in Austria was raped by her own father for over two decades and perennially gave birth to his offspring and endured a miscarriage. As if the incestuous sexual abuse wasn't enough, he'd physically assault her.

Where was God in her time of need?

"It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us... waking and sleeping... who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime... THOUGHT CRIME(!)... just for what we think(!)... who can judge us while we sleep, for things that might occur to us in our dreams - who can create us sick (as apparently we are) and then order us on pain of eternal torture to be well again. To demand this, to wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave. It is a wonderful thing that we now have enough information, enough intelligence, and, I hope, enough intellectual and moral courage to say that this ghastly proposition is founded on a lie, and to celebrate that fact."

"I think it will one day be admitted with shame that it might have been in error to say that AIDS is bad as a disease, but not quite as bad as condoms are bad - or not as immoral in the same way! I say it in the presence of his grace and I say it to his face: the preachings of his church are responsible for the death, suffering and misery of millions of his brother and sister Africans and he should apologise for it! He should show some shame!"

"If you want to get good people to do wicked things you need religion..."

"You are better off thinking for yourself"

- Christopher Hitchens

'Nuff said.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Jack Reacher
Posts: 490
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 05:03
Location: New Zealand

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Jack Reacher » 07 Jun 2012 22:46

Science is more of a process than a religion.
"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."

Ty8200
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 08:26

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Ty8200 » 08 Jun 2012 11:50

Okay, firstly, I agree with Rebecca about how science is a tool for human survival. That, I acknowledge and accept. Science has done wonderful things for human civilization, in the way we do everything, almost. I do think science plays a vital role in this world, to an extent. I meant science being a religion only to the extent that people believe what they're told without questioning the validity of so-called facts. Certain religions are the same in that respect. People are told there is a God, and they believe it. Like when science tells us anything, the greater part of the planet believes it. In that respect, science is like a religion that covers more people. Science is based on science, there is nothing wrong with it, to an extent.

As for these people still going on about "God", I figured I explained this rather clearly. (Before I begin, I'd like to tell you that I opted out of the YT video, after reading summerlander's post, figuring I'd hear another biased opinion. Besides that, I understand this man is a human, as I am, so he cannot say anything that would triumph over my belief.) As for religion, I don't like religion, I never have. I think this world would be better off without it. I personally don't believe in "God", who He is portrayed to be, but I believe that there is a god, one who we know nothing about, and one that no religion holds. These people keep trying to deny the existence of this "God" by saying He wasn't there when He was needed. How He doesn't ease the suffering of these people. What we fail to understand is, we, as humans, can only know what we learn as humans. We are not gods, nor will we ever be, as humans. We don't know how a god would think, act or feel. Or if a god has any, of what we call, "emotion", because as science explains it, "emotions" are simply released chemicals flowing though our bodies. Do you think a god would have a human body? I think not.

I think people harp on this idea, that, since "God doesn't help people, He doesn't exist" because it's the only way, the only chance they have of disproving His existence. (Note: I capitalize the "H's" out of respect for the religious people). Science relies on The Big Bang Theory to further try and disprove there was any conscious hand in the development of our universe by saying "there was a period of expansion and cooling... uh, yeah, accept it." If that is true, what caused this rapid expansion and cooling? Nothingness? Simply random? My only problem with science is that it tries to make sense out of things we could never hope to understand. I would go so far as to say it's arrogant. Science does well in the form of a tool for human survival, I'll admit that. I just find the "explanations" science gives us, as a way to think we know what's going on. A human nature, to need to be in control. That's all fine and OK, until people take it as fact (especially folks who aren't scientists) then mock others for believing in a god.
Reality is the sight, where reflection is the truth.
Water is the glass, where deception is the stone.
Reality is the cage, where limit is the lock.
Mind is the key, where only the blind can see.

Ty8200
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 08:26

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Ty8200 » 08 Jun 2012 12:04

Summerlander wrote:I understand what you are saying and I wouldn't laugh at you for your beliefs. But I am just trying to understand how can someone so readily accept something that was exposed to them as an unquestionable truth when the so-called evidence is not solid enough and is so scientifically dismissed.


Sorry, seemed to miss this post.

Another example of what I'm talking about. Science dismisses the existence of God, so He does not exist. Science exposes us to "unquestionable truths" everyday. People take them as facts, and stroll along. Another example of why science and religion aren't so different.
Reality is the sight, where reflection is the truth.
Water is the glass, where deception is the stone.
Reality is the cage, where limit is the lock.
Mind is the key, where only the blind can see.

Ty8200
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 08:26

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Ty8200 » 08 Jun 2012 12:20

Summerlander wrote:
"It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us... waking and sleeping... who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime... THOUGHT CRIME(!)... just for what we think(!)... who can judge us while we sleep, for things that might occur to us in our dreams - who can create us sick (as apparently we are) and then order us on pain of eternal torture to be well again. To demand this, to wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave. It is a wonderful thing that we now have enough information, enough intelligence, and, I hope, enough intellectual and moral courage to say that this ghastly proposition is founded on a lie, and to celebrate that fact."

"I think it will one day be admitted with shame that it might have been in error to say that AIDS is bad as a disease, but not quite as bad as condoms are bad - or not as immoral in the same way! I say it in the presence of his grace and I say it to his face: the preachings of his church are responsible for the death, suffering and misery of millions of his brother and sister Africans and he should apologise for it! He should show some shame!"

"If you want to get good people to do wicked things you need religion..."

"You are better off thinking for yourself"

- Christopher Hitchens

'Nuff said.


Don't you think having Christopher Hitchens speak for you is the same as not thinking for yourself?
Reality is the sight, where reflection is the truth.
Water is the glass, where deception is the stone.
Reality is the cage, where limit is the lock.
Mind is the key, where only the blind can see.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3642
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Summerlander » 08 Jun 2012 14:14

Hi, Ty8200,

The Big Theory is supported by the discovery of cosmic background radiation. This is explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe. There was definitely a big explosion which accounts for the local known universe. You must have missed the Big Bang theory discussion earlier.

Science is a method of observing and studying reality. Religion is not like that. It is a doctrine that people just accept without question. Science is all about questioning reality. Why is this? why is that?

God is a concept. Nothing more. You wouldn't have such concept if you had been taught, from an early stage in your life, that there is no creator and that everything is random. I believe the god concept stems from, and is a reflection of, our desire for power - to be on top of things - to be looked after, to feel safe etc. It is also the easiest way to explain things (which is not really explaining).

Think about this for a second: "God created the universe" ... pfft... the ultimate copout, if you ask me.

The word God is used to define the creator of everything, a supreme spiritual being who has power over nature and holds the highest moral ground. The "god" you speak of shouldn't be called "god" then, but something else. You still seem to allude to this mighty thing (whatever you want to call it) as though is is conscious and thinks and sees and hears everything! If He is not a person, does he somehow have a brain, eyes and ears to perceive everything? Where is your evidence of such a thing because so far, science has only been able to demonstrate cause and effect and that the universe in motion is most likely random or a deterministic one. Quantum theory even suggests a probabilistic framework at a fundamental level. If you have discovered something that nobody else has, and this can be proved, please do share!! :?

Why is it that God or intelligence behind what happens in nature is not scientifically mentioned? Because it is not evident, that's why! Not because science is the enemy. Not because it rejects god because the idea of it may sound absurd to some scientists (and I believe you are putting all your eggs in one basket there as you seem to make an attempt to tarnish the best and most productive method that we have)! The truth is that science cannot comment or give validity to that which is not evident in anyway!

On your Christopher Hitchens comment there. Quoting someone, even if it's verbatim, is not having someone think for me. To insinuate that is very prejudgemental and narrow-minded on your part. Quoting happens all the time in coursework, dissertations, books, and even in scientific theory (scientists of today may quote Einestein for instance). It is not a crime to quote others even if that means that it's going to help you express your views.

After all, people can resonate with one another. Commenting on a link that somebody else has posted and agreeing with it does not make someone incapable of thinking for themselves - unless, of course, in your mind, that is your best attempt at undermining me because you don't like my views?

At the end of the day, we are all born empty-minded. In the course of our lives we are exposed to many ideas and concepts. Today, I'm old enough to have formed my opinions (whether they are original or not). I'm an artist and I also write music. Sometimes I find that somebody else has already come up with what I thought was mine. But hey, who cares!

It's not my fault that zillions of people were born before me and that some joe has got there first! LOL! To be fair, most of the things we do, have, in all likelihood, been done before. :o

It would have been narcissistic of me to state that my ideas and beliefs are original but I never claimed anything to be mine or coming from my head anyway. I am merely stating here what I agree with after assessing and thinking about what has been exposed to me. I could also state that I have added to what Sam Harris has said on the subject but in fairness, my adding has probably been thought about by somebody else in the limelight already.

Thinking for yourself boils down to questioning the nature of things instead of blindly accepting them. And it goes without saying that people are better off thinking for themselves. If what you come up with turns out to be truly original and your ideas are revolutionary, then you have earned the "genius" label and whatever else people may choose to call you.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

Ty8200
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 08:26

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Ty8200 » 09 Jun 2012 02:50

Summerlander wrote:The Big Theory is supported by the discovery of cosmic background radiation. This is explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe. There was definitely a big explosion which accounts for the local known universe. You must have missed the Big Bang theory discussion earlier.

Science is a method of observing and studying reality. Religion is not like that. It is a doctrine that people just accept without question. Science is all about questioning reality. Why is this? why is that?

God is a concept. Nothing more. You wouldn't have such concept if you had been taught, from an early stage in your life, that there is no creator and that everything is random. I believe the god concept stems from, and is a reflection of, our desire for power - to be on top of things - to be looked after, to feel safe etc. It is also the easiest way to explain things (which is not really explaining).

Think about this for a second: "God created the universe" ... pfft... the ultimate copout, if you ask me.

The word God is used to define the creator of everything, a supreme spiritual being who has power over nature and holds the highest moral ground. The "god" you speak of shouldn't be called "god" then, but something else. You still seem to allude to this mighty thing (whatever you want to call it) as though is is conscious and thinks and sees and hears everything! If He is not a person, does he somehow have a brain, eyes and ears to perceive everything? Where is your evidence of such a thing because so far, science has only been able to demonstrate cause and effect and that the universe in motion is most likely random or a deterministic one. Quantum theory even suggests a probabilistic framework at a fundamental level. If you have discovered something that nobody else has, and this can be proved, please do share!! :?



Hello, SL

I get where you're coming from. But you still seem to miss my point. Perhaps I should have called the god I believe something else. As I mentioned, I don't believe the religious definition of God. And as I mentioned, I don't believe this god would have human perception. You said

"You still seem to allude to this mighty thing (whatever you want to call it) as though is is conscious and thinks and sees and hears everything! If He is not a person, does he somehow have a brain, eyes and ears to perceive everything?".

If you go back and read my post, I said pretty much the opposite of what you're saying I said. I said I don't believe he has a human brain, human consciousness, human feelings or ears, eyes and any human connection whatsoever. A connection to the Big Bang... Perhaps. You see, the thing is, I'm not trying to tell you this "almighty being" created the universe, I'm simply holding it open to possibility. I think that's the freest way to think. I don't submit to science, no matter how much so-called evidence they have, because there's always a possibility of it being flawed, like anything. Somewhat off topic, The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. Even scientist don't say that this Big Bang even happened, as you do. They created the model to explain what might have happened. It may be the most scientifically accepted model to date, but it doesn't make it true. There are many flaws with this theory that even scientist admit to. So it seems you're putting all of your eggs into the science basket :)
Reality is the sight, where reflection is the truth.
Water is the glass, where deception is the stone.
Reality is the cage, where limit is the lock.
Mind is the key, where only the blind can see.

User avatar
Peter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 26 May 2011 08:02
Location: New Zealand

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Peter » 09 Jun 2012 03:23

The one thing that I like about science compared to religion is they admit they are trying to fill gaps with best understanding at the time and when they are wrong they are happy to admit this as they then move forward in understanding instead of getting all bent and twisted trying to defend something.
Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3642
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: What are your religious views?

Postby Summerlander » 10 Jun 2012 00:36

Bingo, Peter. Not only does science try to fill in the gaps and admits to not having the answer to everything, it has helped civilisation massively. Science has many theories which it doesn't cling to but tries instead to test their validity and applicability. To date, the Big Bang THEORY (as I mentioned before, Ty8200) is the best and most accepted explanation we have and the cosmic background radiation fits the theory perfectly. Until something else is discovered that will contradict the Big Bang idea, I think it is safe for any scientist and layman to say that is probably how it happened.

Sciestists are quite prepared to admit that their whole standard model of particle physics is wrong if they fail to find the missing piece of the puzzle: the Higgs boson - without it, the universe is like a cart running without wheels.

Still, this does not mean that magic is at work to maintain reality. It just means that there is something more to discover and they will find it. Although quantum theory is not fully understood and implies that reality on a quantum scale follows rules that defy the way we are used to look at things, it has helped us technologically. Although not fully understood yet, it works.

For example, the mass of a proton and the values of the three constants of nature (Newton's gravitational constant, the speed of light, and Planck's constant) could have been used to calculate the mass of a white dwarf star by any scientist without them having to look at the stars. As Brian Cox pointed out, one can imagine an underground civilisation who has never been to the surface of the planet but has enough knowledge of physics to calculate the maximum mass of a giant sphere of gas such as a white dwarf. We can also imagine that, one day, one of their scientists travels above ground for the first time, looks up and confirms their scientific predictions (derived from logic and mathematics) were right: amongst the myriad dying stars in the sky there is not a single one that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit in mass.

This sort of thing happens all the time in the scientific community. They calculate things that are later proved to be right through experiments and observations. Isn't it funny though, that religious people rely more on scientific mistakes to discredit the whole method and never mention what science has uncovered? Of course there is human error (whoopty do! :shock: ) but it is quickly rectified in these circles these days and there is always room for the potential productivity of error (of course, some individuals don't seem to grasp this concept ever)! :cry:

I've always been taught that we learn from our mistakes. Science does make mistakes, but, those mistakes have helped it to thrive and because of it, we are ever more prolific. Not to stereotype religious people, but some of them are off the mark when they say that if scientists make mistakes then the method is not reliable (it's making progress so how the hell is it not reliable?!!) or it is false (this proposition is even more absurd).

What has religion ever taught apart from stories founded on what people want to hear - well, at least the more religiously inclined. LOL! From where I stand, there is more beauty in a universe that has evolved as rich and as intriguing as it is without the need of a God then a world where we are made to feel guilty by what we do or say and which was supposedly created by a spiritual being with magical powers.

They love to perpetuate the so-called mystery of God and it is not surprising that some of their intentions are to do the opposite of what science is trying to do: to meet the questions with real logical answers (not the pathetic "God made the universe" - it's like saying "Santa got me presents" for goodness sakes!)

Then you get the ones who try to suppress scientific reasoning because somehow the intellectual jargon threatens their faith deep down...

As you rightly said, Peter: "...getting all bent and twisted trying to defend something." - But apparently me quoting you means I can't think for myself! :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest