The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[action]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"the scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century"

The absence of the scientific method in old times didn't hinder the egyptians from building the pyramids.

science is just a load of self-indulgent, smoking-room trivial way for elitist people to mock the people in the streets

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, action said:

The absence of the scientific method in old times didn't hinder the egyptians from building the pyramids.

No, they had whips.  

[DieselDaisy]

Science bored me tremendously at school. Jacked it in as soon as I could (GCSE) and switched to the humanities. 

[spunko12345]

2 hours ago, action said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The absence of the scientific method in old times didn't hinder the egyptians from building the pyramids.

It would have been scientific though. This slab balances on this one. That means this one fits perfectly on that one. Oh that one didn't work and made the shape all wrong, ok we'll try this one here and see how that works. That's basically how science works. Trial and error, proving and disproving.

I know that a wonky pyramid is no less real than the ones that now exist I'm just talking about the method. If the aim is the pyramids that we have now then they must have been made following a logical sequence which is science.

 

 

 

 

 

Unless the aliens did do it.

[spunko12345]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Science bored me tremendously at school. Jacked it in as soon as I could (GCSE) and switched to the humanities. 

I preferred the humanities in school aswell I found they came easier to me. It doesn't change how the universe works though.

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

It would have been scientific though. This slab balances on this one. That means this one fits perfectly on that one. Oh that one didn't work and made the shape all wrong, ok we'll try this one here and see how that works. That's basically how science works. Trial and error, proving and disproving.

I know that a wonky pyramid is no less real than the ones that now exist I'm just talking about the method. If the aim is the pyramids that we have now then they must have been made following a logical sequence which is science.

 

 

 

 

 

Unless the aliens did do it.

I don’t get why the pyramids are such a big deal.  It’s a big lump at the bottom with lots of little lumps on top so it doesn’t fall over. It’s basically exactly what a proper building looks like if it falls down.  

[spunko12345]

19 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I don’t get why the pyramids are such a big deal.  It’s a big lump at the bottom with lots of little lumps on top so it doesn’t fall over. It’s basically exactly what a proper building looks like if it falls down.  

And spoken with some authority, as a big lump that has fallen over plenty of times 😂

[action]

there is an overwhelming consensus in science, that the universe is incredibly finetuned. So much, in fact, that mere natural processes can not explain this. In the same way, that a video game does not pop up into existence at once, neither can the universe. 

To argue that the universe is finetuned, is a result of coincidence, and that we just happen to live in a universe that has the right conditions, is lazy and a-scientific reasoning. This is not a scientific argument, because you can not test it, and it can't be used to make further predictions about the universe. Also, it is based on the anthropic principle but neither is this a scientific argument. Mankind did not exist in the beginning of the universe, so to use that argument to explain the finetuning of the universe is disjointed and irrelevant.

More probably is, that the universe is finetuned, because it is finetuned. By whom, or what, remains a subject of scientific research.

[SoulMonster]

On 27.12.2019 at 1:44 PM, action said:

there is an overwhelming consensus in science, that the universe is incredibly finetuned. So much, in fact, that mere natural processes can not explain this. In the same way, that a video game does not pop up into existence at once, neither can the universe. 

What a remarkable collection of nonsense. There is NOT an overwhelming consensus in science that the Universe is "tuned" at all. What might be in consensus is the notion that small changes to the fundamental parameters of physics would have resulted in a very different Universe. Secondly, there are no scientific theories, whether "natural" or not, explaining how these parameters came to be. It is an observation that they are what they are, and it follows that we have the Universe we have as a consequence, but we have no means to study their origin. As for the Universe popping into existence at once, well, the Universe (likely) came to be as the result of the Big Bang which didn't happen at once but through a fairly well-understood process. What we don't know is what happened to create the initial singularity (if it even existed), but as far as I understand there is no scientific consensus that the singularity just "popped" into existence, either. It is obvious you have a desire to make it sound like only a god could be the explanation, but you don't really understand what you are talking about.

Personally, I kind of like the model where time itself came into existence as the Big Bang started, and hence it is meaningless to try to explain how the singularity came into existence since there was no time before it for which it could have actually come into existence. Basically, it has existed since time began.

[action]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What a remarkable collection of nonsense. There is NOT an overwhelming consensus in science that the Universe is "tuned" at all. What might be in consensus is the notion that small changes to the fundamental parameters of physics would have resulted in a very different Universe. Secondly, there are no scientific theories, whether "natural" or not, explaining how these parameters came to be. It is an observation that they are what they are, and it follows that we have the Universe we have as a consequence, but we have no means to study their origin. As for the Universe popping into existence at once, well, the Universe (likely) came to be as the result of the Big Bang which didn't happen at once but through a fairly well-understood process. What we don't know is what happened to create the initial singularity (if it even existed), but as far as I understand there is no scientific consensus that the singularity just "popped" into existence, either. It is obvious you have a desire to make it sound like only a god could be the explanation, but you don't really understand what you are talking about.

Personally, I kind of like the model where time itself came into existence as the Big Bang started, and hence it is meaningless to try to explain how the singularity came into existence since there was no time before it for which it could have actually come into existence. Basically, it has existed since time began.

I think you need to look into, and accept, the intricate balance between the values of all the forces in the universe.

You really go out of your way to deny this, even going as far as to say "What might be in consensus is the notion that small changes to the fundamental parameters of physics would have resulted in a very different Universe." It is utter nonsense to use the word "might": it is an absolute fact that small difference in most of these values would result in a vastly different universe, not to mention it being unsupportive for life. I'm not sure why you use that word. Why are you afraid to admit that? I'll tell you, because you are afraid for the consequences; you are highly avoiding of anything that could make a creator a possibility.

I for my part, admit that most of my reasoning is based on philosophy rather than science, but I start with scientific facts (the observation that the values of the fundamental forces are delicately interwoven and interdependent). Hey, I have to use philosophy, science is incapable to provide further explanation as you rightly remarked. That you shroud even the most basic science fundamentals with doubt (see your use of the word maybe), is intellectual dishonesty fed by an irrational fear of a creator.

Edited December 30, 2019 by action

[action]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

the vatican is the vatican. personally I'm discarding it completely. it's of no importance to me.

the problem has been settled in the 16th century, when luther called out catholicism.

 

[Ace Nova]

10 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

The Vatican is one of the most beautiful places on Earth.  Go there and see for yourself.  Only simple minded people would consider an artist's rendition of Jesus rising from hell as "Luciferian".  lol

 

 

[action]

jews, muslims and christians all use parts of the same bible.

catholicism, protestantism, islam, judaism... they are basically just schools of interpretation of the same book.

[Len Cnut]

3 hours ago, action said:

jews, muslims and christians all use parts of the same bible.

catholicism, protestantism, islam, judaism... they are basically just schools of interpretation of the same book.

Its the jews they fuckin' owe it all too.  The same group, ironically, that is most maligned amongst the others.  Christianity and Islam are to Judaism what Eric Clapton is to the blues

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Its the jews they fuckin' owe it all too.  The same group, ironically, that is most maligned amongst the others.  Christianity and Islam are to Judaism what Eric Clapton is to the blues

Or Led Zeppelin.

 

[Dazey]

So we've been helping our daughter with her school work since the lock-down started and her school has been putting exercises up on the web portal to keep her going day by day.

Anyway we got to this Wednesday's work plan and found this.

  

So we thought, y'know, it's only a silly story so what's the harm eh?

"Evie, do you know the story of Noah's Ark?"

"Yes Daddy, there was a man named Noah and there was a big flood where god killed all the other people for being bad."

"Okayyyyyy, so why were they ALL bad?" 

"Because god said so!"

"Okay so let's move on to the maths exercises shall we?"  

I mean seriously? Who wants their kids learning this shit?  

Edited April 23, 2020 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I mean seriously? Who wants their kids learning this shit?  

The Christians. The Christians do. They rely on the brainwashing of children to spread a set of beliefs that if presented to adults, would be quickly rejected.

Edited April 23, 2020 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

On 23/04/2020 at 2:06 PM, Dazey said:

So we've been helping our daughter with her school work since the lock-down started and her school has been putting exercises up on the web portal to keep her going day by day.

Anyway we got to this Wednesday's work plan and found this.

  

So we thought, y'know, it's only a silly story so what's the harm eh?

"Evie, do you know the story of Noah's Ark?"

"Yes Daddy, there was a man named Noah and there was a big flood where god killed all the other people for being bad."

"Okayyyyyy, so why were they ALL bad?" 

"Because god said so!"

"Okay so let's move on to the maths exercises shall we?"  

I mean seriously? Who wants their kids learning this shit?  

Is the correct answer to this question not 'they were lecherous and alcoholic and doing each other up the arse and God though, nah, I ain't havin' that'.  Don't explain that to little Evie though, don't sit there explaining to her that God don't like arse bandits, or even what an arse bandit is

Edited May 18, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

Let's see if we can move the discussion over here.

How can religious people reconcile a belief in a "good god" (if that's what they believe) with COVID-19? Why don't they stop in their tracks and go, "uhm, something doesn't make sense here." If there is a god it obviously isn't good in any normal sense of the word. Not only has it created a world where suffering is guaranteed, it also makes no apparent efforts to stop it.

(Disclaimer to @action: This was a broad, sweeping statement but I did specific that I was only talking about theists who believe in a "good god", this could encompass catholics, but also other christian cults, and of course muslims and jews and any other person who fits the description, If you don't happen to believe that your god is good, then don't consider yourself a recipient of the post).

[action]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Let's see if we can move the discussion over here.

How can religious people reconcile a belief in a "good god" (if that's what they believe) with COVID-19? Why don't they stop in their tracks and go, "uhm, something doesn't make sense here." If there is a god it obviously isn't good in any normal sense of the word. Not only has it created a world where suffering is guaranteed, it also makes no apparent efforts to stop it.

(Disclaimer to @action: This was a broad, sweeping statement but I did specific that I was only talking about theists who believe in a "good god", this could encompass catholics, but also other christian cults, and of course muslims and jews and any other person who fits the description, If you don't happen to believe that your god is good, then don't consider yourself a recipient of the post).

the definition of "good" is entirely human made.

As for covid 19, this virus, with all its victims that it has made (including innocent children and elder people) isnt more "bad" or "good" than for example lightning. It is a natural phenomenon, a natural process that happens to be inconvenient to certain humans with the wrong blood cells.

Is the virus bad? For that to answer positively, you'd have to accept that a virus has a brain and has a concept of morality. Which, you'll agree with, certainly isn't the case.

A virus, being some sort of living thing (though I'm aware this isn't entirely correct), needs other living organisms in order to survive. When it kills people, it is only doing what it needs to do, to survive.

And even if we accept that a virus is bad, how is this virus worse than humans who farm millions of chickens, pigs and cows, kills them in cruel ways, to serve our indulgent needs? Aren't we as bad as viruses, if not worse?

What does god have to do with all of this? It's humans who cruelly kill animals, not god. It's covid 19 that kills innocent children, not god.

__________

next point. why is there bad things on earth, why does god allow it? Well, if everything was perfect on earth, there would be no need for earth to begin with. It would be equal with the afterlife (which I happen to believe in) where the grass is green and the girls are pretty. I view earth as a selection process to weed out the filth, and keep the good ones. You won't find hitler in the afterlife. Why won't we find him? Because he has failed the selection. But, if everything was perfect on earth, how could there be a selection in the first place?

I'm sure, all the innocent people that got killed, have a pretty great time above. Hitler, not so much.

[action]

when the doctor puts a needle in your arm to inject medicine, is he bad for hurting you? No, he is curing you, he has a purpose.

the bad things on earth are the needle.

The afterlife is the medicine / purpose.

An innocent child that gets killed, will experience a short moment of horror and pain. But then, it will enjoy afterlife.

As for it's remaining loved ones who remain in sorrow: they are put to the test. In every person's life, there comes a time where you will be tested. Everyone will lose a loved one or experience disease, no one can escape it. It is all a test of your morality.

[action]

there are three options:

if there is a god, we can assume there also is an afterlife: suffering will be rewarded with eternal life in the afterlife. God is not bad for allowing suffering, because it's all good above.

if there is a god, but not a perfect afterlife (the piontless suffering scenario), then you can indeed argue that god isn't good and that we should question our beliefs. But there is nothing that points in this direction. There is absolutely nothing that points to this scenario.

if there is no god, then suffering on earth isn't his doing either. Then suffering is just a result of natural processes. But then, there is no morality either. Morality is entirely man - made (god does not exist in this option) and therefore illusionary.

Edited May 27, 2020 by action

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, action said:

the definition of "good" is entirely human made.

As for covid 19, this virus, with all its victims that it has made (including innocent children and elder people) isnt more "bad" or "good" than for example lightning. It is a natural phenomenon, a natural process that happens to be inconvenient to certain humans with the wrong blood cells.

Is the virus bad? For that to answer positively, you'd have to accept that a virus has a brain and has a concept of morality. Which, you'll agree with, certainly isn't the case.

A virus, being some sort of living thing (though I'm aware this isn't entirely correct), needs other living organisms in order to survive. When it kills people, it is only doing what it needs to do, to survive.

And even if we accept that a virus is bad, how is this virus worse than humans who farm millions of chickens, pigs and cows, kills them in cruel ways, to serve our indulgent needs? Aren't we as bad as viruses, if not worse?

What does god have to do with all of this? It's humans who cruelly kill animals, not god. It's covid 19 that kills innocent children, not god.

__________

next point. why is there bad things on earth, why does god allow it? Well, if everything was perfect on earth, there would be no need for earth to begin with. It would be equal with the afterlife (which I happen to believe in) where the grass is green and the girls are pretty. I view earth as a selection process to weed out the filth, and keep the good ones. You won't find hitler in the afterlife. Why won't we find him? Because he has failed the selection. But, if everything was perfect on earth, how could there be a selection in the first place?

I'm sure, all the innocent people that got killed, have a pretty great time above. Hitler, not so much.

So much to unravel here, so little time.

Yes, it is a definition use by humans, it is we that say god is good,but obvious he isn't. What is the nonsense about different blood cells having a differentiating outcome from COVID-19? No one has said the virus is bad, try to reel in your ramblings. A virus is not defined to be living, FYI. What god has to do with it? According to monotheistic religions god has created this world with all that are in it. He has created SARS-CoV-2 and all other pathogens, all genetic mutations that affects us, and all natural phenomena that hurts us.

Yo view earth as a selection process to weed out the filth? Wow. But why did your god create filth to begin with? 

[SoulMonster]

31 minutes ago, action said:

when the doctor puts a needle in your arm to inject medicine, is he bad for hurting you? No, he is curing you, he has a purpose.

the bad things on earth are the needle.

The afterlife is the medicine / purpose.

An innocent child that gets killed, will experience a short moment of horror and pain. But then, it will enjoy afterlife.

As for it's remaining loved ones who remain in sorrow: they are put to the test. In every person's life, there comes a time where you will be tested. Everyone will lose a loved one or experience disease, no one can escape it. It is all a test of your morality.

Why does god test our morality? He created us. We are supposedly his creation. If he had done a good job at the beginning he wouldn't need to test our morality.

And why allow a child to go through years of pain for then to finally allow her to die and join the afterlife. What good comes out of this prolonged period of suffering to the child and to their parents?

You are basically describing a sadist. A god who made us imperfect and then teases and taunts us through meaningless tests. Yo are definitely not describing a good god. So I suppose my original post was not intended for you after all.

[SoulMonster]

20 minutes ago, action said:

there are three options:

if there is a god, we can assume there also is an afterlife: suffering will be rewarded with eternal life in the afterlife. God is not bad for allowing suffering, because it's all good above.

if there is a god, but not a perfect afterlife (the piontless suffering scenario), then you can indeed argue that god isn't good and that we should question our beliefs. But there is nothing that points in this direction. There is absolutely nothing that points to this scenario.

if there is no god, then suffering on earth isn't his doing either. Then suffering is just a result of natural processes. But then, there is no morality either. Morality is entirely man - made (god does not exist in this option) and therefore illusionary.

There is no reason why an omnipotent and benevolent god should allow a second of suffering to happen. The world we live in is precarious, indifferent, dangerous, unfair. There is no reason to have created it this way, and vague theories that this will somehow be accounted for in an afterlife just comes across as desperate and empty.

A perfect god would have just put perfect humans in the afterlife immediately without letting they suffer an existence in a world that is entirely indifferent to their pain and suffering. A perfect god would never allow all the pain and misery to take place, and allow innocent people from going through terrible sorrows and pain. A perfect god would have created a perfect world.

And you are wrong in claiming there would be no mortality with god.