Non responsive.
Does science make belief in God obsolete?
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Quote from Gringinho:
To date there is no philosophy that can unify everything we see and know in the universe - as well as inner thoughts, fantasies etc. There are some attempts to "unify everything" coming out of String theory and the Anthropic principle. I'm not sure they'll succeed, though. But we are getting somewhere - with rapidly progressing science, not thousands of year old religion.
It seems you are setting up "religion" as a kind of straw man, something easy to take down with broad-sweeping statements. You then set up "rapidly progressing science" as an idol of preference. Logical indeed, but falacious nonetheless.
There is a unifying philosophy of everything we "see" and percieve in this "universe". It does not exist, relative to reality, and consists of imaginary thoughts in the mind of Christ that reflect the antithesis of his reality. This means that what appears to be separate and independent and autonomous...is actually unified, regardless of appearances.
Jesus
Quote from Gringinho:
You might try to redefine the concept of religion to include every knowledge in the universe though ... hehe. Like you said - in the deist mind - everything comes from the "religious source".
I've defined religion as the practice of distinquishing truth from illusion. I have a deist mind because it is equal to God. Inside this mind is an illusion. It is called "the universe" and is measured by "science". I am the truth. "The universe" is false. That is recognized by a religious persuit of the truth.
Jesus
Hi, Jesus
My statement of there being attempts to unify all sciences and explain "everything" - like String theory or the Anthropic principle - was not trying to use the informal fallacy of simplifying views on religion. I do not think that String theory is any easier than any religion to comprehend nor refute; on the contrary - and I do not think that neither religion nor String theory can explain "everything" to my satisfaction. I have a curious mind and like to learn as much as I can - some form of "personal enlightenment", I guess one could call it. I'm neither a Buddhist nor a Taoist, although I do like how some religious strains approach learning etc.
You seemingly have a Panentheistic approach and view. I do not hold any theism for being true - I'm no religious person and never will be. I did learn about religion, and I also study about various theisms when I am pondering some philosophical questions I have. But being informed and learning about theisms do not constitute me believing or accepting them.
To me, the sciences are seemingly coming together to explain more and more of what is happening in the world - and the possibilities in any universe. I try to learn and understand aspects of biochemistry, physics, cosmology, philosophy, psychology etc. I find that more worthwhile than accepting religion, so for me the sciences makes religion obsolete when it comes to choosing how to live.
I also distinguish strongly between morals, ethics and personal integrity. I have absolutely no morals - and philosophically link it purely to religion and external opinions/beliefs.
Jesus,
I also think that you can define religion just how you like - you are certainly free to do so. But as long as we are talking about the various schools of religion, we sort of need to not misrepresent what they are standing for. You might have your own personal religion and beliefs which you have built throughout your life. I would never force my views on anyone, and I hope you don't have the necessity of doing so either. I would probably literally kick your ass if you tried that on me.
Oh, one more thing - seeing as many (most? all?) your posts have been made in the "Politics & Religion" forum ... are you ZZZzzzzzzz' evil twin brother? What is your purpose on Elitetrader.com?
User "I am..."/Jesus: what is your purpose on Elitetrader.com and which other user are you anonymously hiding behind? Because obviously a user does not come to Elitetrader.com for the sole purpose of discussing religion ... and you know the ET policy on duplicate users.
I call you a scam and a cowardly fraud, Jesus. Who is the true fool who fathered this lone bastardly being that you are?
I call you a scam and a cowardly fraud, Jesus. Who is the true fool who fathered this lone bastardly being that you are?
Quote from Gringinho:
Jesus,
I also think that you can define religion just how you like - you are certainly free to do so. But as long as we are talking about the various schools of religion, we sort of need to not misrepresent what they are standing for. You might have your own personal religion and beliefs which you have built throughout your life. I would never force my views on anyone, and I hope you don't have the necessity of doing so either. I would probably literally kick your ass if you tried that on me.
Oh, one more thing - seeing as many (most? all?) your posts have been made in the "Politics & Religion" forum ... are you ZZZzzzzzzz' evil twin brother? What is your purpose on Elitetrader.com?
Yah, ZZZZzzzz is my brother.
This world is the redefinition of reality. I simply redefine the alledged definition. Since this is the antithesis, there is a kind of substitute here for everything. Most ubiquitously, there is a substitute for truth. It often goes by the name "religion". I simply look past the appearances and see through the charades.
Why does my name keep coming up in the R & P section of ET? Maybe I am answering "prayer".
Well, there is no copywrite on it so you are free to use it however. That's basically what going on in this universe: the free use of reality in whatever way appeals to private interpretation. That is what the world is...a fantasy. Jesus
Ok, so religion is stupid whatever you mean by the word "religion."
It is not for you Gringinho. Make science your religion if that is your wish. Life isn't really about religion or belief systems. Life is about actions which may be predicated on belief systems. This is just a long winded way of saying that actions speak louder than words.
It seems to me that you will favor the philosophy of pantheism. Albert Einstein was a strong adherent of it, and the philosophy / religion goes back at least to the ancient Greeks as far as I know.
In a nutshell it states that outside of the universe or nature there is nothing else. In other words, nature is God, and vice versa.
I'm curious are you having a bad day trading or otherwise?
Because on the one hand you state that you are very familiar with various logical systems -- yet you feel the need to engage in constant ad hominem attacks through ridicule with those that don't agree with your views.
Let me clarify something. I equate the word "religion" with truth which means that there can not be a contradiction between religion and science. If there is then one's view of religion is not correct or the science is faulty.
I thought you read the discussion that I had with Jem because you made a comment on the historical Jesus.
I realize now that wasn't really the case so I'm going to repost some quotes from before to prove to you that Nazism was really atheistic in origin, and I do buy your argument that the Nazis also dabbled in the occult -- to be more precise it was actually a form of devil worship as the quotes intimate. There is a lot more on this subject, but I am limited by this medium to be succinct.
The "Hitler Youth" sang this song:
We are the joyous Hitler Youth,
We have no need for Christian virtue.
Our leader is our savior;
The pope and rabbi shall
be gone. We shall be pagans once again.
Hitler told his people:
Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a false vision known as conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear.
Regarding the Bible's influence on culture, Hitler said, "The Ten Commandments have lost their vitality. Conscience is a Jewish invention; it is a blemish, like circumcision."
Herman Rauchning had been Hitlerâs personal confidante, but he abandoned Nazism and attempted to alert the free world to the scope and danger of the Nazi threat. He wrote:
It is against their own insoluble problem of being human that the dull and base in humanity are in revolt in anti-Semitism. Nevertheless Judaism, together with Hellenism and Christianity, is an inalienable component of our Christian Western Civilization â the eternal "call to Sinai," against which humanity again and again rebels.
[from: The Beast From the Abyss, by Hermann Rauchning]
Fascism according to the Meriam Webster dictionary is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Nazism was a particular form of fascism.
Consequently, it beats me how you can state that Israel is a fascist state when it has a democratic government with so many different parties, and some of these parties are actually working to overthrow the government such as the Arab alliance.
BernardRichards,
I know and understand fully that my statement that "religion is stupid" is pompous. It's just a something I feel and perceive many vocal religious followers as not the smartest cookies around, and I am no follower of any theisms - unlike Einstein and without any further comparison between him and me. I also completely renounce "the leap of faith" - so period - religion is not for me personally.
Religion has been the base for so much conflict, persecution and violence that has shown the worst parts of humans for thousands of years. To me - religion continues to be a source of endless "stupidity" - and in my view just plain stupid.
The state of Israel has many characteristics of what is known as a fascist regime - but being a direct autocracy is not one of them. They do tend to have corruption scandals and other crisis that make them form various coalition governments between what to outsiders seem like extremist parties - but that does not automatically make them an autocracy even though these governments or leaders are maybe not directly elected.
I think they have quite frequent elections, and may need to with the over-sexed or corrupt leaders that sometimes ride their positions for what it's all worth. That they fence in and refuses to recognize parts of the "population" as a sovereign state, or otherwise use militarized groups that harass, threaten and kill the "opposition" is just something they are used to dealing with in their own way. I don't think it will change anytime soon, with staunch block-heads on both sides of the table.
Their politics will probably be perceived as extremist by a large part of the world for a long time to come still.
They do fit the bill with regards to other characteristics of fascism:
* raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual
* stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition
* seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity - they admittedly do have very real enemies, though
* promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes
* have some elements that are usually seen as its integral parts of fascism like: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism
It just fits the bill in some respects with the similarity to what the common definition of fascism is. So - it begs further scrutiny when a state has several of the characteristics. To me - I don't care one way or another. They can be as apartheid as they want and blow eachother to bits. The region bears no significance to me - only they don't start involving me or mine.
I know and understand fully that my statement that "religion is stupid" is pompous. It's just a something I feel and perceive many vocal religious followers as not the smartest cookies around, and I am no follower of any theisms - unlike Einstein and without any further comparison between him and me. I also completely renounce "the leap of faith" - so period - religion is not for me personally.
Religion has been the base for so much conflict, persecution and violence that has shown the worst parts of humans for thousands of years. To me - religion continues to be a source of endless "stupidity" - and in my view just plain stupid.
The state of Israel has many characteristics of what is known as a fascist regime - but being a direct autocracy is not one of them. They do tend to have corruption scandals and other crisis that make them form various coalition governments between what to outsiders seem like extremist parties - but that does not automatically make them an autocracy even though these governments or leaders are maybe not directly elected.
I think they have quite frequent elections, and may need to with the over-sexed or corrupt leaders that sometimes ride their positions for what it's all worth. That they fence in and refuses to recognize parts of the "population" as a sovereign state, or otherwise use militarized groups that harass, threaten and kill the "opposition" is just something they are used to dealing with in their own way. I don't think it will change anytime soon, with staunch block-heads on both sides of the table.
Their politics will probably be perceived as extremist by a large part of the world for a long time to come still.
They do fit the bill with regards to other characteristics of fascism:
* raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual
* stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition
* seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity - they admittedly do have very real enemies, though
* promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes
* have some elements that are usually seen as its integral parts of fascism like: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism
It just fits the bill in some respects with the similarity to what the common definition of fascism is. So - it begs further scrutiny when a state has several of the characteristics. To me - I don't care one way or another. They can be as apartheid as they want and blow eachother to bits. The region bears no significance to me - only they don't start involving me or mine.
A feckless thought. It is only obvious to the simple minded. The educated usually do not make sweeping unsupported statements, and expect to be taken seriously.
Secondly, how much science and how much religious work did you do at the university level? And even if you had a lot of each, it would be one person's opinion. Statistics would say "sample size of one is irrelevant."
Sciences spends large amounts of time and energy patching its enormous number of gaping holes. In fact, the nature of science, is to constantly upgrade itself as we continuously find out how little we know, and how incomplete is the knowledge we currently have.
I would like to see how much easier you would find it learning intro to astronomy and biology, as compared to intro Greek and Hebrew.
Remind me not to go with you in a dark alley carrying cash Gringinho.
Seriously, are you telling us that you have no sense of right and wrong, and that you would do anything to further your goals no matter how nefarious they may be as viewed from the perspective of natural law?