RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it....

RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/17/2016 12:23:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire We are frequently told that man invented gods to explain the processes of nature – we are frequently told no such thing. Animism predates religion – Surely you jest sir, or just make up up guff, have you per chanced helped yourself to the cheap Chardonnay that inhabits my fridge, in ever depleting quantities gods. And by that I mean remnants from a once mighty civilization, possibly cats from outer space, the king of the lizard people, just not buster the dog, invented man, in his current format. And that is a story told thousands of times before the beginning of recorded time – oral tradition – wicked whaps oot his magnificent member and winks naughtily at the ladies I'll have a couple of puffs or snorts of whatever Wicked is using. I just hope he is not main-lining. I don't think my veins could take that. [8\|]

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/17/2016 1:33:59 PM)
No, he's with me. The 'gods' were in fact aliens and very possibly from Niribu. The Sumerians tell us as much. So we all have a very distinct choice. Which ancient civilization in which to believe and in which ancient texts to believe. I personally and very 'religiously' - stick to the oldest texts...Sumerian. Now I am going out for a few godly good, very cold, god damn Coronas and praise the gods of money, women, pool, beer maybe in that order and religiously...say my prayers. ( Oh...and no fucking lime...pleeease)

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/17/2016 6:37:12 PM)
quote: It seems to me that views on life and consciousness can arise from reflection without any reference to the teachings of a particular faith. Ah well, that is doable, one need not rely on any given religion's explanation or version of creation, however one cannot avoid religion altogether as science simply does not provide any answers regarding the how and why of life and consciousness and thus we are left to fall back on our opinion, many of which, such as mine for example, will have a religious element. In fact, for me the answer is entirely religious, or perhaps I should say spiritual.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/17/2016 7:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: It seems to me that views on life and consciousness can arise from reflection without any reference to the teachings of a particular faith. Ah well, that is doable, one need not rely on any given religion's explanation or version of creation, however one cannot avoid religion altogether as science simply does not provide any answers regarding the how and why of life and consciousness and thus we are left to fall back on our opinion, many of which, such as mine for example, will have a religious element. In fact, for me the answer is entirely religious, or perhaps I should say spiritual. Well one can be spiritual without religion or faith. One can rely upon what science does know and continue through research, to reduce what science doesn't know...also without faith or religion.

FieryOpal -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/18/2016 6:58:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Animism, which predates organized religion, is the belief that there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual, between matter and spirit. But it is important to realize that such a statement would be incomprehensible to an animist. ... Animism is not a form of theism.... Since we can only speculate on the unprovable and/or the incomprehensible, I wonder if I may be so bold as to offer this concept as food for thought. What if consciousness - having the conscious awareness of being alive, and of then becoming animated - is akin to awakening from a dreamlike state. Of course, this still begs the question of where did unconsciousness/non-awareness originate? "I slept and dreamt that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy." - Rabindranath Tagore

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/18/2016 8:40:02 AM)
quote: Well one can be spiritual without religion or faith. I'm afraid I do not see a distinction. Spirituality involves faith in such a thing as spirit to begin with.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/18/2016 3:05:03 PM)
Here is another of your science Gods...will you consider THIS....Two of the most accomplished renowned physicists seem to be indicating the impossible should be a possibility....Or do you know more than both put together? Butch

blnymph -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/18/2016 5:14:56 PM)
In that article I read not about two, just one, and in his quotes about half a dozen maybe's and a lot of "what we need ..." before finding proof for his theories, meaning - easy to guess: more funding for him.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/18/2016 5:26:38 PM)
I had given him another example in a previous post. The point is not is he correct... Only that there are many possibilities deriving from something from nothing at the beginning . Otherwise there could be an infinity of possibilities and until we know much more there are no absolutes of anything. That we are a computer simulation or created from a universal intelligence cannot be excluded... We just do not know enough. Vince was denying the possibility of a universal intelligence because he sees no proof in existing science... I say he could be right... But he could also be wrong and he should not exclude any possibility no matter how outlandish it may seem.1 Butch

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/18/2016 8:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub something from nothing at the beginning A temporal context is already inherent in the concept of a beginning. Time is the context in which beginnings and endings occur. To ascribe a beginning to time itself commits a category error, and speculation about what happened "before" time began exemplifies a state of confusion rarely encountered outside a mental hospital. The notion of a "beginning" is a rat hole into which we cannot profitably dive. K.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 11:49:35 AM)
quote: The notion of a "beginning" is a rat hole into which we cannot profitably dive. Kirata I always enjoy your threads... they are well thought out and interesting. I'm afraid I like others have drifted a bit in my responses I appreciate your tolerance. I don't disagree with the above as a practical matter, at this time anyway. But...a but always...I believe besides the common definition of science there are four human desires in its application. One is to improve the quality and comfort of our lives. The second is to provide an income. The third is to defend or conquer. But the most ingrained and desirable is to know our place in the universe. This means to strive to understand where we come from and to find our origins we must know the origins of the universe... So the rat hole remains our greatest mystery and will always be the gold ring of science as well as philosophy and religion. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 11:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Here is another of your science Gods...will you consider THIS....Two of the most accomplished renowned physicists seem to be indicating the impossible should be a possibility....Or do you know more than both put together? Butch Hey, Butch . . . I find string theory interesting and promising but as far as I know its theorists have been unsuccessful so far in supporting it. Maybe Kirata knows of some evidence that I missed. I really don't much like taking science news from Pat Roberson's Christian news source. Looking further into the link provided I see this: In reaching this conclusion Michio Kaku used a new technology created in 2005 that allowed him to analyze the behavior of matter at the subatomic scale, relying on a "primitive semi-tachyon radio." Tachyons, of course, are all those hypothetical particles able to move at superluminal speeds, ie, are theoretical particles able to "take off" the matter of the universe or the vacuum contact with it, thus leaving the matter in its purest form, totally free from the influences of the world around them. I have to tell you I don't find a very persuasive argument in a theory built on "hypothetical" particles. I have watched a few of Kaku's youtube talks. He is not a stranger to me. Anything more than a "woo master?" Science brooks no gods or authorities in the quest for knowledge. Nothing is sacred or beyond skepticism, nor is anyone.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 12:09:59 PM)
Vince my friend ALL science discoveries start out as theories and unproven... name one field of science that is closed and all to be discovered has been. All my comments have not been to prove the existence of any one thing or theory...but only to get you to realize no possibility can be excluded by existing knowledge until we answer the mysteries of the universe. Right now your ideas... my ideas... could be just as valid as anyone's. It would be unwise to take science as we know it today and claim any possibility is impossible. Yes we can say we believe it improbable based on our knowledge but we would be fools to think we know anything for sure. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 1:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Vince my friend ALL science discoveries start out as theories and unproven... name one field of science that is closed and all to be discovered has been. All my comments have not been to prove the existence of any one thing or theory...but only to get you to realize no possibility can be excluded by existing knowledge until we answer the mysteries of the universe. Right now your ideas... my ideas... could be just as valid as anyone's. It would be unwise to take science as we know it today and claim any possibility is impossible. Yes we can say we believe it improbable based on our knowledge but we would be fools to think we know anything for sure. Butch Butch, of course I understand that no possibilities can be definitively excluded based on existing knowledge. Where we differ however is that theories are fantastical speculations unless they are based on some sliver of existing knowledge. Otherwise they are merely pale gods of the gaps (in our knowledge) It is ridiculous to use hypotheticals as bases for advancing more complex hypotheticals. You can't get from here to there if here is nowhere.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 3:31:17 PM)
quote: You can't get from here to there if here is nowhere. But everywhere is somewhere.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 4:38:30 PM)
OK but I do believe the examples I used have fairly good credentials... Using their knowledge they may come to conclusions that differ from yours... Simply because they differ does not make them wrong. I would challenge you to find two other theoretical physicists with more respect in the science community. That makes their hypothetical's at least worth serious consideration. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 5:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub OK but I do believe the examples I used have fairly good credentials... Using their knowledge they may come to conclusions that differ from yours... Simply because they differ does not make them wrong. I would challenge you to find two other theoretical physicists with more respect in the science community. That makes their hypothetical's at least worth serious consideration. Butch You will never understand, I fear. Credentials don't mean shit in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. My conclusions don't mean shit. What matters in science? When a theoretical or experimental scientist proposes a new model (what you call a theory) it is his obligation to publish his model for peer review and either (1) perform an investigation to support his hypothesis or (2) propose predictions from his model that can be tested. His proposals are then subject to criticisms by his peers and/or they can try to replicate his work, or test the predictions. I mentioned this before: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is a mathematical model of the curvature of space around an astronomical mass. His model is an elaboration of Newtonian gravity. (Well actually, it is more than that) It is a mathematical model. Look it up. But the mathematics are not enough. And, Einstein's credentials did not mean shit. Einstein proposed several predictions from his model of General Relativity. One prediction was that Mercury would transit the sun in some unexpected fashion (I forget the details but you can look it up) Sure as hell, this predicted motion was observed during an eclipse of the sun. Theory > prediction > experiment or observation > replication. I am happy to share my understandings of science but I don't wish to keep going around and around again over the issues of credentials or authority, which are mainstays in religion (god > burning bush > stone tablets > Moses > yatta, yatta) In the doing of science credentials and authority don't mean shit. And hypotheticals don't mean shit unless they are supported by the processes (more or less) that I described above. Hypotheticals are not science. Enough with hypotheticals already. Vince

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 6:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Theory > prediction > experiment or observation > replication. hypotheticals don't mean shit unless they are supported by the processes (more or less) that I described above You have claimed that... The evolutionary emergence of consciousness springs from the self-organizing organic structures... The emergence is due to the structures not to the materials Given that a scientific explanation is one supported by the process described in the quote block, what replicated experiments have scientifically established that "consciousness springs from self-organizing structures" and is specifically "due to the structures"? You have also claimed that... there are scientific explanations for the emergence of life Given that a scientific explanation is one supported by the process described in the quote block, what replicated experiments have scientifically established how life emerged? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML hypotheticals don't mean shit But to present hypotheticals as established scientific facts does mean something. See if you can figure out what that is. K. References: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4914905 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4916535

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 7:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub to strive to understand where we come from and to find our origins we must know the origins of the universe... Well, that question would never arise if we weren't conscious, so I think the question resolves to understanding consciousness itself, and it's not at all clear to me why the origin of the Universe would necessarily have any bearing on it. K.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/19/2016 7:07:51 PM)
Do not fear kinkroids...life has been created. Dr Craig Venter, a multi-millionaire pioneer in genetics, and his team have managed to make a completely new "synthetic" life form from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive. The man-made single cell "creature", which is a modified version of one of the simplest bacteria on earth, proves that the technology works. HERE I religiously keep faith in science.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125