The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[action]

throw away the bible and any other religious book, and start anew with a religion 2.0 that is based on science.

I think, that is what's going to tip us from being a basic civilisation to a more advanced state.

I can certainly imagine a super intelligent, highly advanced alien race having some concept of the nature of god. I can also imagine how this knowledge will make them refrain from going into war with each other, almost instantly, thus highly benefitting advancment

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

How about this, the universe itself is God and we're all part of it/him.  Is that theoretically palletable?  Most religions say God is everywhere and in everything sooo..

 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, action said:

your premise is wrong. you define god as defined in the bible. Why limiting yourself, already?

Why not start from the most basic (god is some kind of energy), and go from there?

Because there is no evidence suggesting some supernatural energy exists.

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, action said:

throw away the bible and any other religious book, and start anew with a religion 2.0 that is based on science.

I think, that is what's going to tip us from being a basic civilisation to a more advanced state.

I can certainly imagine a super intelligent, highly advanced alien race having some concept of the nature of god. I can also imagine how this knowledge will make them refrain from going into war with each other, almost instantly, thus highly benefitting advancment

So I was right?  Yay!  To think I came to that conclusion on acid

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Because there is no evidence suggesting some supernatural energy exists.

slippery slope.

there was also no evidence of the earth being a sphere

there was no evidence for bacteria

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

throw away the bible and any other religious book, and start anew with a religion 2.0 that is based on science.

I think, that is what's going to tip us from being a basic civilisation to a more advanced state.

I can certainly imagine a super intelligent, highly advanced alien race having some concept of the nature of god. I can also imagine how this knowledge will make them refrain from going into war with each other, almost instantly, thus highly benefitting advancment

There is no denying you are very good at imagining things. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

slippery slope.

there was also no evidence of the earth being a sphere

there was no evidence for bacteria

Of course there was evidence for the earth being round. People observed how ships would fall under the horizons as they moved farther and farther away.

Of course there was evidence for bacteria. We knew there were agents causing disease. We knew of other very small organisms that very just at the limit of visualization. Etc.

Now you are just rambling. Maybe think a bit more before posting?

[Rovim]

I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist and never existed. Religion is a lie and prevents science to progress more rapidly towards actual solutions to shit the world suffers from. Like what the fuck are they waiting for with stem cells? give scientists the proper amount of the shit for research. The only thing I believe in is evidence/science. Prove to me repeatedly something is real and I'll believe you. This way of thinking has served me well. I highly recommend it.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Rovim

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

22 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist and never existed. Religion is a lie and prevents science to progress more rapidly towards actual solutions to shit the world suffers from. Like what the fuck are they waiting for with stem cells? give scientists the proper amount of the shit for research. The only thing I believe in is evidence/science. Prove to me repeatedly something is real and I'll believe you. This way of thinking has served me well. I highly recommend it.

Religion can have that tendency, absolutely. Jesus Christ did say something about knowing the truth and the truth setting us free. A lot of religious folks don't really take that to heart as much as they should. But there absolutely is dogmatic, non evidence based beliefs among the non religious as well. It is a human fault to sometimes not change your mind based on new evidence, and instead digging in your heals deeper. 

[action]

there actually is a term for my viewpoint: pataphysics

pataphysics, is to science what "open G string tuning" is to rock music. A new, exciting framerwork from which we can propose new theories and unconventional theories 

I have this great book, that is entirely handwritten (it's in dutch so most of you wont understand what is written here) and provides some shocking and thought provoking theories on the world. Most of it is just mocking science, but here and there you'll find some interesting thought processes. Not saying this is how science should work, but it can help to broaden your view, so to speak. To think unconventionally, to try to go beyond the limits of our understanding.

[Rovim]

13 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Religion can have that tendency, absolutely. Jesus Christ did say something about knowing the truth and the truth setting us free. A lot of religious folks don't really take that to heart as much as they should. But there absolutely is dogmatic, non evidence based beliefs among the non religious as well. It is a human fault to sometimes not change your mind based on new evidence, and instead digging in your heals deeper. 

I'm not even sure Jesus existed. I honestly think religion as a whole is a lie but what are you gonna do, rob people of their right to believe in bullshit? also, I do understand the world benefited from religion indirectly, greatly, but when I think of all the bloodshed and the trouble it caused it makes the whole thing seem redundant now that we have better understanding of the world. It's a shame that most human beings seem to have the need to believe in something that is greater than themselves and can't seem to face the reality of their own mortality. There are some people that are not afraid of dying but most do and that's something religion "takes care of", makes it less scary I suppose but it's all based on a lie imo and I wish we would move forward from it but I don't see it happening anytime soon if ever.

Maybe when science progresses even further less people will believe in bullshit gods and stop getting in the way of progress and logical thinking.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

22 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I'm not even sure Jesus existed. I honestly think religion as a whole is a lie but what are you gonna do, rob people of their right to believe in bullshit? also, I do understand the world benefited from religion indirectly, greatly, but when I think of all the bloodshed and the trouble it caused it makes the whole thing seem redundant now that we have better understanding of the world. It's a shame that most human beings seem to have the need to believe in something that is greater than themselves and can't seem to face the reality of their own mortality. There are some people that are not afraid of dying but most do and that's something religion "takes care of", makes it less scary I suppose but it's all based on a lie imo and I wish we would move forward from it but I don't see it happening anytime soon if ever.

Maybe when science progresses even further less people will believe in bullshit gods and stop getting in the way of progress and logical thinking.

There is actually very solid evidence that Jesus, the man, existed at that time. Even the Bart Ehrman types will admit this. The real question is whether he was who he says he was, performed miracles, was resurrected, etc. 

I'm still saying the 100% pure fact based, empiricist types are a very small percentage of the population and always will be. People will always make "religious" beliefs out of something. If it isn't God, it will be an ideology, or something else. People can have Shibboleth's that don't even involve God.

[Rovim]

3 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

There is actually very solid evidence that Jesus, the man, existed at that time. Even the Bart Ehrman types will admit this. The real question is whether he was who he says he was, performed miracles, was resurrected, etc. 

I'm still saying the 100% pure fact based, empiricist types are a very small percentage of the population and always will be. People will always make "religious" beliefs out of something. If it isn't God, it will be an ideology, or something else. People can have Shibboleth's that don't even involve God.

What evidence? I'm seriously asking. I think it's possible he did exist but he sure as shit wasn't a zombie.

[action]

the issue wether jesus existed or not, is a distraction. it doesn't matter if it is 100 % proven that he existed. because then you have the unresolved issue wether he was the son of god or not. So why tire ourselves with this?

God could exist, yet at the same time jesus could have never existed. One does not exclude the other. 

But if god does exist, then he pretty much is the master of everything, and he "could" have sent jesus to earth if he was so inclined. He "could" have influenced the writers of the bible, to offer us humans some kind of... code that provides some insight in his thinking. But all of that is secondary: it is not needed for the existence of a god.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

23 minutes ago, Rovim said:

What evidence? I'm seriously asking. I think it's possible he did exist but he sure as shit wasn't a zombie.

You're misunderstanding me. The evidence that he did exist as a man is solid, but the evidence for the resurrection isn't as good as a typical historian would want.

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

You're misunderstanding me. The evidence that he did exist as a man is solid, but the evidence for the resurrection isn't as good as a typical historian would want.

No, I fully understood that you were talking about Jesus as a man, I was just questioning the evidence of that but I guess I can look it up myself.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

2 minutes ago, Rovim said:

No, I fully understood that you were talking about Jesus as a man, I was just questioning the evidence of that but I guess I can look it up myself.

Bart Ehrman, who actual denies that Jesus was the Messiah, argues that Jesus as a man existed based on the historical record. I would look into him for the most unbiased source you can find.

[DieselDaisy]

Quote

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

- Tacitus, Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44

[SoulMonster]

27 minutes ago, Rovim said:

No, I fully understood that you were talking about Jesus as a man, I was just questioning the evidence of that but I guess I can look it up myself.

A few different literary sources.

Not many serious historians reject the historical Jesus.

He was a do-no-gooder Jew believed by some of his friends to be the prophetized Messiah eventually executed by the Romans because they feared he and his ragtime band of followers would cause an uprising in a very volatile region. Sort of like the Manson Family except that they were more of the loony religious type and not the murdering type, although to the Roman authorities he was even more dangerous.

[janrichmond]

16 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It is a personal choice. But if your beliefs hurt others then I will certainly judge you based on that. Like if you hurt your children because you think your god would approve, or you refuse blood transfusion because you think your god is against it, or if you force women to not go outside alone without a male chaperone, and so on. We all have no problems with aspects of religion that are harmless, but we should all be opposed to those that aren't.

Yes i agree with you 100%. I would not be friends with people like that. 

[Ace Nova]

On 6/25/2019 at 1:22 AM, SoulMonster said:

Well, what you are describing is not likely at all. But I never said that things would spontaneously come together to create life.

 

I'm confused.  By saying that the first replicators formed spontaneously to create RNA, which later evolved/developed into DNA, which is the code/blueprint for all life on Earth, aren't you saying exactly that? 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

Quote

vipassana meditation

Shit, if sitting around doing fuck all led to enlightenment I'd be fuckin' Super Buddha by now

Quote

He was a do-no-gooder Jew believed by some of his friends to be the prophetized Messiah eventually executed by the Romans because they feared he and his ragtime band of followers would cause an uprising in a very volatile region. Sort of like the Manson Family except that they were more of the loony religious type and not the murdering type, although to the Roman authorities he was even more dangerous.

Shouldn't that be rag-tag band?  Because if it isn't we've been reading vastly different Bibles   I'm not sure Jesus was into the big band minstrel thing!

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I'm confused.  By saying that the first replicators formed spontaneously to create RNA, which later evolved/developed into DNA, which is the code/blueprint for all life on Earth, aren't you saying exactly that? 

I am saying that RNA can spontaneously form, but not that life can spontaneously form. 

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Shouldn't that be rag-tag band?  Because if it isn't we've been reading vastly different Bibles   I'm not sure Jesus was into the big band minstrel thing!

You know, I actually discovered that mistake right after posting but didn't want to edit it because I found it too funny 

[Ace Nova]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I am saying that RNA can spontaneously form, but not that life can spontaneously form. 

So the operating system of a computer can spontaneously form but not the computer itself.  Got it.  

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

So the operating system of a computer can spontaneously form but not the computer itself.  Got it.  

No, for a a few reasons:

- Simple RNA molecules aren't similar to the operating system of a computers.

- Simple RNA molecules can form spontaneously when the right conditions are met. 

- And yes, there is a limit on how complex stuff can form through spontaneous processes (random coming together). You can't toss the hardware parts of a computer up in the air and expected a working computer to fall down. Nor can you toss fatty acids, nucleic acids, peptides, lipids etc in the air and expect a living cell to land. 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

No, for a a few reasons:

- Simple RNA molecules aren't similar to the operating system of a computers.

- Simple RNA molecules can form spontaneously when the right conditions are met. 

- And yes, there is a limit on how complex stuff can form through spontaneous processes (random coming together). You can't toss the hardware parts of a computer up in the air and expected a working computer to fall down. Nor can you toss fatty acids, nucleic acids, peptides, lipids etc in the air and expect a living cell to land. 

A better analogy would have been the motherboard of a computer can spontaneously form while the computer itself can't.  The very first computers were very basic, type writers, adding machines, etc.  The components of those machines were extremely simple.  I'd venture to say (probably) simpler than an RNA molecule. 

So if you are saying "life" can't form spontaneously, how did it form?  Any way you look at it, if you say that RNA, which later laid the code for life, formed spontaneously, then you are saying that the origins of life formed spontaneously.  (Whether RNA formed life through evolution is irrelevant).