Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[psyche]

It certainly does seem like the more science uncovers, the easier it becomes to deny the existence of God.

As far as I know a lot of modern scientists these days still believe they are uncovering the underlying mechanics of how God may have created the universe and nature. They probably just have many varying ideas of what God is or might actually be.

[brucewillis2]

I'm still waiting to see your (psyche) take on God, but I won't hold my breath for anything more than vitriol.

I'm still waiting for this also. what or who is GOD in the eyes of a religious person? I'd like to hear an intelligent response to this.

I have always been fascinated as to how someone could believe in some all powerful being/power that controls/created the universe.

We're not in the dark ages now yet people still believe in this almighty power that created us. We pray to it, it listens, it supports us after death.

Personally I'm thinking of getting into worshiping Norse gods because Thor and Odin kicked ass.

[psyche]

...

Did you think about any of those philosophical questions I posted yesterday at all? Or did you just ignore them?

[psyche]

Who the fuck is deleting my posts, piss off

if you're going to delete my posts just fucking ban instead of being a useless coward

[Ngati_Grim]

Personally I'm thinking of getting into worshiping Norse gods because Thor and Odin kicked ass.

That's quite apt, being Thursday and all :asian:

[robbyx]

Serious question....say theres a man, and this man has lead an absolutely blameless life, never done anything wrong, never sinned, never coveted his neighbour's ass etc.

He has also saved many peoples lives and worked tirelessly to help the homeless, the poor, the needy etc...all the while never having a thought for himself...or lustful,vain, greedy, hateful thoughts etc...

In fact he is probably the kindest, most selfless, thoughful human being that ever lived and no one has ever dedicated their lives to the advancement and improvement of human existence more than this guy.

But....he refuses to acknowledge Gods existence....he doesnt hate God or have anything against him, he just doesnt have an opinion one way or the other....

Will he still get into heaven or at least be given a chance ?

[brucewillis2]

good question. I say he goes to heaven.

[krasher]

You can't not believe in God and believe in heaven.
It's against the rules. It's like dividing by zero.

Srsly though. Do you believe in heaven?

[winter]

I have asked a christian person that very question, and No, no he will not go to heaven, I also asked him the opposite, a violent greedy man, who rapes, steals and hates everything BUT believes in god ..and apparently he will go to heaven as long as he asks for forgiveness :/

BTW bruce, Norse gods for the win xD I consider myself a semi-odinist

[brucewillis2]

You can't not believe in God and believe in heaven.
It's against the rules. It's like dividing by zero.

Srsly though. Do you believe in heaven?

nah man - just jokes, of course I don't believe in god nor heaven. We all just fade and die so live hard while you can.

I went to a religious secondary school back in the days. before that I went to sunday school, church etc. It wasn't until one day I was kneeling in church and I looked down the long isle of people all praying when I suddenly clicked as to what a fucking sham religion is. Sitting in this cold church, singing some hymn, praying, listening to some stupid story, then singing another hymn. I did this twice a week in the morning for years. Such a waste of time.

[brucewillis2]

I have asked a christian person that very question, and No, no he will not go to heaven, I also asked him the opposite, a violent greedy man, who rapes, steals and hates everything BUT believes in god ..and apparently he will go to heaven as long as he asks for forgiveness :/

what a crock. so they think the guy who is all good won't go to heaven. Man those religious types are assholes. Let the good guy in I say.

this is a goody Blackadder.

Edmund: Well, well, let's take Hell: You know, Hell isn't as bad as it's
        cracked up to be.

Graveney: What?

Edmund: No, no, no, no. No, you see, the thing about Heaven, is
        that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go
        on in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot
        plants...

Graveney: Ew...

Edmund: Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for people who like the other
        sorts of things: adultery, pillage, torture -- those areas.

Graveney: Really?

Edmund: Mm! Give your lands to the Crown, and once you're dead, you'll
        have the time of your life!

[Chilli]

I found this interesting.

"The.... understanding of faith has many contextual applications. However, one of the most prominent definitions is found in Epistle to the Hebrews 11:1 which states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."[1]

To me meaning it all comes down to faith! No one can prove God or whoever doesn't exists or that he does in fact exists.

I find it interesting also that on the U.S. dollar bill they have 'In god we trust'. Are they meaning in their 'faith' of all things being well or in the actually religious side of things? Maybe both, the fence sitters.

[robbyx]

You can't not believe in God and believe in heaven.
It's against the rules. It's like dividing by zero.

Srsly though. Do you believe in heaven?

It doesnt matter if this hypothetical guy believes or not, if the bible is correct and god does exist, then he will be judged regardless....and im just wondering if he would be sent to hell, or if theres a special place for him somewhere or if he gets the chance to accept God etc.

[brucewillis2]

interesting... so for religion it is enough to believe in something for it to be real. Of course science can't dispute something like god because how can you prove something doesn't exist when it only resides in faith. As long as there is faith there is 'a god'.

Personally I think its more like 'hope' not 'faith'. people who follow religion 'hope' that their prayers will be answered, and after spending there lives serving something that only exists as faith 'hope' that they done enough to heaven.

Which religion is choc full of nutters, the one where they raise their hands up and fall over when pushed by the priest? Those guys are complete basket cases.

[krasher]

It doesnt matter if this hypothetical guy believes or not, if the bible is correct and god does exist, then he will be judged regardless....and im just wondering if he would be sent to hell, or if theres a special place for him somewhere or if he gets the chance to accept God etc.

Good question. Here is an elusive answer.

Some theologians say that if the gates to hell are locked it is from the inside and that hell is really eternal separation from God stuck in ones own company.

Bruce....I understand why you say that (about the basket cases), and I would say the same ,except that I have experienced a power that was not from earth which I cannot yet explain with science.  Not all 'priests' push, and not all people that 'fall over' are even touched - by a human. Sure say I am nuts, but I am only reporting what I have seen with my own eyes and experienced myself. And please, I am no nut. I understand the mind and body as I have spent the last 6 years studying it and what I have seen is not explained by science - the power of suggestion etc etc bla bla.

[Spigalau]

Krasher - Priests can drop a stinky...

[Chaos]

nah man - just jokes, of course I don't believe in god nor heaven. We all just fade and die so live hard while you can.

There you have it folks, the great Bruce Willis has spoken! There is no such as God, religious people are all insane and there is nothing after death except to 'fade and die' - because brucewillis says so! So enjoy your short life while you can, because it's the only life you will get for the rest of eternal existence! Because brucewillis said so!

We might aswell stop trying to make scientific discoveries, philosophers have nothing to philosophize about anymore, and we don't need to wonder about the mysteries of life because brucewillis already has all the answers! Magnificent.

 

It wasn't until one day I was kneeling in church and I looked down the long isle of people all praying when I suddenly clicked as to what a fucking sham religion is.

You realise that by saying 'religion is a sham' you aren't just talking about one small part of religion, Christianity, you are generalising to include EVERY SINGLE RELIGION and religious person in the world, in which makes up the majority of the world and cultures, you're not just saying 'churches are a sham' you're saying that the entire bible and every single thing in it is a sham, Jesus is a sham, the monks practicising buddhism and meditative contemplation are all a sham, Hinduism is a sham, anyone that ever contemplates, wonders or seeks to connect with the harmony and beauty of nature and the cosmos are all a sham. What about the Balinese that perform their religious ceremonial Ramayana Monkey Chant ritual, are they all shams too?

The Hindu Sadhu's who devote their entire life to quiet contemplation of God? They're a sham too? While you are probably wasting your life getting drunk and shitfaced, stuffing your face with burgers fries and coke, and watching mind-numbingly idiotic TV shows to fill the gaps in your other meaningless life, and you have the nerve to sit there and say these people are a sham?

Are you beginning to understand how completely and utterly ridiculous it is to bundle every single cultural belief and religion under one umbrella just because you disagree with the church?

Did you think about any of those philosophical questions that I asked you yesterday, or did you completely ignore them?

"The.... understanding of faith has many contextual applications. However, one of the most prominent definitions is found in Epistle to the Hebrews 11:1 which states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."[1]

To me meaning it all comes down to faith! No one can prove God or whoever doesn't exists or that he does in fact exists.

Most of us already knew that I think. That's essentially what faith means.

It doesnt matter if this hypothetical guy believes or not, if the bible is correct and god does exist, then he will be judged regardless....and im just wondering if he would be sent to hell, or if theres a special place for him somewhere or if he gets the chance to accept God etc.

Bit of an odd question, but if God exists then i'm sure God would not judge him just for not believing. If not, then God would not be something worth believing in. As long as this hypothetical person hasn't done anything significantly evil in his life he should be okay

Good question. Here is an elusive answer.

Some theologians say that if the gates to hell are locked it is from the inside and that hell is really eternal separation from God stuck in ones own company.

Yeah, I think that might be what Jewish people believe aswell. That Hell is not a 'place' but rather a state of complete non-existence and seperation from God, the true and final death of the soul. Sounds like a fitting punishment to me.

[Chaos]

In reply to Ngati's earlier post,

Einstein hated quantum mechanics. He liked to think of the universe being probabilistic and nothing changed but was always fundamentally the same. He could never really accept that particular concept of quantum theory.

Max Planck though, the founder of quantum theory, on the other hand was quite religious.

I'm sure Einstein probably made a lot of contradictory statements throughout his life, I think that's somewhat understandable for what was probably one of the most intelligent men in recent history -  I already knew that he didn't believe in a personal God (that plans our daily lives and performs miracles ect.), but he still believed in God and couldn't conceive of a universe that existed without God.

I think when Einstein was talking about God, it might have been more of a metaphor than anything. Definately not the exact same idea of God that Judeo-Christians believe in, but it's going back to the thing I posted a while back about we all approach the same thing, just in different ways.

God does play dice, it seems, yes. Neils Bohr, whom was another scientist working on quantum mechanics at the time that Einstein made the comment 'God does not play dice' said to Einstein, 'Stop telling God what to do with his dice!" But he spent the better part of his last few years trying to dismiss the unpredictability of quantum mechanics with his grand Theory of Everything that he thought would be the equivalent of 'reading the mind of God.'

"I'm not interested in this phenomenon or that phenomenon. I want to know how God created this world...I want to know his thoughts; the rest are details,"

 It's fair to say he may have lost the plot just a little bit in his remaining years, but he also came up with the theory of relativity and E=mc2 aswell as numerous other scientific discoveries so he is someone to be respected even if he was unable to accept the discovery of quantum theory.

He also stood up and applauded, and said 'This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation I have ever witnessed!' when George Lemaitre explained his theory of the 'primeval atom' (Big Bang) to him, and admitted the mistakes he had made with his own theories.

Awesome guy.

pic, Neils Bohr and Einstein discussing quantum mechanics:



I don't quite understand quantum mechanics and quantum theory just yet, it's a bit complex for me.

It certainly does seem like the more science uncovers, the easier it becomes to deny the existence of God.

As far as I know a lot of modern scientists these days still believe they are uncovering the underlying mechanics of how God may have created the universe and nature. They probably just have many varying ideas of what God is or might actually be.

There is an interesting concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) which was proposed by the evolutionary biologist,  and is respected by a number of other scientists, Stephen Gould:

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[46] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[46] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[46]

In his view, "Science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."[46] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[46]

Also in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a similar stance. Its publication Science and Creationism stated that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."[47]

[Chaos]

Has anyone seen a film called Waking Life?



It's pretty cool and I highly recommend it to people in this thread; there's no conventional plot or narrative - it's just a stream of philosophical ponderings and ideas about the nature of reality, life, dreams, death, society, religion, politics and so forth, some of it's just people talking rubbish but a lot of it is really interesting even if it might sound kind of boring me describing it. And it's all done in this really trippy rotoscoped animation.

If you are a fan of Linklater's films (Dazed and Confused, a Scanner Darkly ect.) then you will probably love this film.

one of my favorite quotes:

"I had a friend once, who told me that the worst mistake you can make... is to think you are alive. When really, you are asleep in life's waiting room. The trick is, to combine your waking, rational abilities with the infinite possibilties of your dreams - because if you can do that, you can do anything."

[Retardobot]

Hey Grim, sorry to burst your bubble, but it looks like reincarnation is alive and kicking.

[Chaos]

Hey Grim, sorry to burst your bubble, but it looks like reincarnation is alive and kicking.

If you're not interested in this discussion or anything about it, why do you bother to even read this thread? Just so you can have an excuse to make smartass replies? Can you not think of anything better or meaningful to do with your life then trying being a waste of space and trying to ridicule others?

anyway.... another film I saw a while ago that I highly recommend, which is just absolutely crazy, but amazingly beautiful and surreal, is Baraka (a word that means 'blessing' in many different languages') This film completely changed the way I look at the earth, it's inhabitants and religious practices and rituals. It's jaw-droppingly stunning and everyone should see this movie atleast once in their life.

Again there's no plot or narrative, it doesn't tell you who any of the people are or what they are doing - it leaves that to your imagination, it just moves through beautifully captured scenes of real people from all the world, gazing into their cultures like you would have never experienced. There's a few slightly disturbing scenes though, one of which is a brief scene that goes through the Nazi Auschwitz extermination camps, and another of an indian body burning (of the deceased) ritual which is quite graphic. But apart from these, the rest of the film is just stunning.

There's also some interesting underlying messages about technology vs. nature.

If you can get this in High Definiton, even better! If anyone wants links to download it from Rapidshare, PM me.

some screenshots from some of my favorite scenes:

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Ngati_Grim]

Oh noes, I be wrong again!!!! :asian::asian:

[Das]

Ngati, here is the reply I made to your post if you can be bothered reading. There was a whole crapload of other stuff I wrote but this is the only post I saved to notepad :/



From what I was reading, Einstein vehemently disliked quantum mechanics. He liked to think of the universe being probabilistic and nothing changed but was always fundamentally the same. He could never really accept that particular concept of quantum theory.

Max Planck on the otherhand, the founder of quantum theory, was quite religious.

I'm sure Einstein probably made a lot of contradictory statements throughout his life, I think that's somewhat understandable for what was probably one of the most intelligent scientists in recent history (for example, there was that quote where he had some harsh things to say about religion, but I think he might have actually had an admiration for the core concept of religions) -  I already knew that he didn't believe in a personal God (that plans our daily lives and performs miracles ect.), but he still believed in God and couldn't conceive of a universe that existed without one.

I think when Einstein was talking about God, it might have been more of a metaphor than anything. Definately not the exact same idea of God that Judeo-Christians believe in, but it's going back to the thing I posted a while back about we all approach the same thing, just in different ways.

'God does play dice', it seems, yes. Neils Bohr, whom was apparently another scientist working on quantum mechanics at the time that Einstein made the comment 'God does not play dice' said to Einstein, 'Stop telling God what to do with his dice!" But he spent the better part of his last few years trying to dismiss the unpredictability of quantum mechanics with his grand Theory of Everything (something scientists are still working on today) that he thought would be the equivalent of 'reading the mind of God.'

"I'm not interested in this phenomenon or that phenomenon. I want to know how God created this world...I want to know his thoughts; the rest are details,"

 It's fair to say he may have lost the plot just a little bit in his remaining years, but he also came up with the theory of relativity and E=mc2 aswell as numerous other scientific discoveries so he is someone to be respected even if he was unable to accept the discovery of quantum theory.

He also stood up and applauded, and said 'This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation I have ever witnessed!' when George Lemaitre explained his theory of the 'primeval atom' (Big Bang) to him, and admitted the mistakes he had made with some of his own theories.

Awesome guy.

pic, Neils Bohr and Einstein discussing quantum mechanics:



I don't quite understand quantum mechanics and quantum theory, it's a bit complex for me.

Krasher - Priests can drop a stinky...

What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?

It certainly does seem like the more science uncovers, the easier it becomes to deny the existence of God.

As far as I know a lot of modern scientists these days still believe they are uncovering the underlying mechanics of how God may have created the universe and nature. They probably just have many varying ideas of what God is or might actually be.

There is an interesting concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) which was proposed by the evolutionary biologist, Stephen Gould:

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[46] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[46] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[46]

In his view, "Science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."[46] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[46]

Also in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a similar stance. Its publication Science and Creationism stated that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."[47]

[philo-sofa]

Psyche.... was just removed?

[Chilli]

Psyche.... was just removed?

He imploded. Was just time.