Hedonist, your post made me think -- I fear that as the planet becomes more and more populated, that religions will evolve, and as more and more religions are created, they will always butt heads. But I think a lot of people are abandoning religion for spirituality.
I wish we could all be impartial to all religion until age 20 or something, that way, we can believe in specifically what we want and what we learn and perceive, and not become a product of what is taught to us or fed to us. How many people are the very religion of their parents/family, and locale? And if some werent railroaded into specific religions, maybe (big maybe), some wouldnt be so offended by opponents of their religion, and possibly they might not lash out in the name of their "God." Maybe each persons religion should be their own, not a collective?
I initially read the first part of your post as "there will always be butt heads". Ha! I'd say your and my versions are true.
And the last part, JP - YES (all caps!). While I understand there's comfort and strength to be found in the shared form, it really IS - though not necessarily needs to be - one's own. It's personal, intimate. And ever-evolving.
My sister and I went to Hebrew school every weekend when we were children. In retrospect, I can separate the types of lessons taught and still accept the morals associated with them (and I must give a shitload of credit to my parents for usually being standup examples of those morals). Though I'm agnostic, I will say that if there IS a god, I hope it would be a peaceful one, not one who induces fear, not one who would want anyone harmed or killed in their name.
I don't mean to attack your beliefs Inlet, but time doesn't exist, it's an illusion. Most scientists refer to it as Space-Time now because they are having a hard time letting go of the illusion. There is simply existence, which started with the big bang and space expanding. If something exist, you can prove it by manipulating it, you cannot manipulate time, because it's just a unit of measurement. But you can't effect it.
I'd argue it does exist and think most would back me. If time doesn't exist life doesn't exist.
Eh, o.k. i tried.
Haha, eh, you didn't try all that hard. :P To even have this debate, you'd have to begin with a solid metaphysical definition of "exists". Time certainly "exists" at the macroscopic scale. It can certainly be manipulated (again, depending how you define that) according to general relativity.
The debate around space-time, mass, quantum gravity, and, ultimately, cosmology -- all of which are intertwined -- is still quite healthy. To even begin to say that time doesn't "exist" you have to get down to the planck scale, which is at the absolute bleeding edge of modern theoretical physics.
Haha, eh, you didn't try all that hard. :P To even have this debate, you'd have to begin with a solid metaphysical definition of "exists". Time certainly "exists" at the macroscopic scale. It can certainly be manipulated (again, depending how you define that) according to general relativity.
The debate around space-time, mass, quantum gravity, and, ultimately, cosmology -- all of which are intertwined -- is still quite healthy. To even begin to say that time doesn't "exist" you have to get down to the planck scale, which is at the absolute bleeding edge of modern theoretical physics.
+1.
Yeah, Moto is right on here.
"time" is a physical quality of the universe.
The conceptual notion of time with regards to the calendar can be thought of as an abstraction if you wish (but it is tied to the physical realities of motion of heavenly bodies) but "time" in the PHYSICS sense of the word is VERY real and as Moto says it CAN be "manipulated" in the sense that -- in some way as yet poorly understood (arguably "understood" by general relatively, but i would argue quite poorly, except an understanding of the math alone) -- time is a "thing" that along with "space" is intricately related to how we perceive all matter. Matter, gravity, space, and time are all caught up in some weird interconnection. The assumption by most physicists is that "time" is actually a "dimension" along with "space" (hence "space-time") that is the intrinsic nature of the "space fabric" around us. I am to the point now of thinking it is probably more appropriate to consider time as a by-product of gravity itself, which in my understanding (albeit not a conventional one, for sure) is related to the expansion\contraction of the very fabric of space it self.
So, in *my* cosmology
space= a real "thing", to be considered "the ether", the weird interlay fabric that is some half-breed of energy-matter
matter=originates IN space, arguably FROM space (since we now observe particles popping in and out of existence from the "void" ie from raw "space" itself)
gravity=the effects of space shrinking back in to singularities "inside" of massive bodies (this is, of course, highly contested -- considered outright "nutty" by "modern" physics, but i think we will get there, eventually) [or in the inertial form, from "pushing" "against" space\ether]
time=some sort of effect of gravity (itself an effect, per above)
we KNOW for a fact that time and gravity are related. time, gravity, and speed, are related, actually. And i think the reason speed relates directly to time is because of how i described gravity above. If time is dependent on gravity which is related to the in-seeping (large body singluarities pulling it in) or out-flowing (ie. big bang, universe expansion) of "space", it would stand to reason that traveling extremely fast with or against this space flow would alter your experience of time.
Of course, i'm a crack pot, and general relativity says it all has to do with "simple" space-time curvature ... which i find to be a completely indefensible notion that makes no sense in 3-dimensional terms. How does a massive object warp space-time OUT from itself uniformly in all directions, and why? So our cosmology is that planets displace space and sort of exist outside of it, or at least in super-low density areas of it? I don't buy that, and it contradicts our even simpler notion of newtonian gravity which pulls IN. Why would a displacement of space outward cause a rushing of matter inward? To me it makes much more sense if there is a "source" inside planets, a singularity, which causes mater to conglomorate around it, and is strong enough (just like the singularites that Einstein's equations predict MUST exist, but we have not yet found) to actually pull SPACE in as well.
[end long insane rant]
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Religion is as much of a weakness as science. Why can't both be good? Why is it the non-believers must trash religion to make themselves feel good? Insecurity much?
how is science a weakness? the very basis of science is in itself a learning process, ever evolving. how is that a weakness?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Religion is as much of a weakness as science. Why can't both be good? Why is it the non-believers must trash religion to make themselves feel good? Insecurity much?
how is science a weakness? the very basis of science is in itself a learning process, ever evolving. how is that a weakness?
Yeah, j don't get his science is a weakness, especially when held up against religion. Makes no sense to me. Also, I find it a bit strange that you (inlet) seem to think that atheists are running around attacking religion as though believers are completely innocent of attacking others, including atheists. I've personally been told at least 5 times by very religious people that I was going to go to hell, and have also had many people try to convert me and convince me that I'm on the path towards losing my soul. That feels like crashing my beliefs. It's really annoying, but j take it in stride. Also, atheists don't go around the world trying to convert people, and by doing so try to destroy other cultures (and in some cases have succeeded). Anyway, I'm not actually trying to trash talk here. Oy to point out that this victim card that is more often being thrown down by christians is rather hypocrital. Plus, atheists pose no threat even if someone does find something offensive, so I'm not sure what the problem is... with all due respect.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,411
Religion is as much of a weakness as science. Why can't both be good? Why is it the non-believers must trash religion to make themselves feel good? Insecurity much?
how is science a weakness? the very basis of science is in itself a learning process, ever evolving. how is that a weakness?
Yeah, j don't get his science is a weakness, especially when held up against religion. Makes no sense to me. Also, I find it a bit strange that you (inlet) seem to think that atheists are running around attacking religion as though believers are completely innocent of attacking others, including atheists. I've personally been told at least 5 times by very religious people that I was going to go to hell, and have also had many people try to convert me and convince me that I'm on the path towards losing my soul. That feels like crashing my beliefs. It's really annoying, but j take it in stride. Also, atheists don't go around the world trying to convert people, and by doing so try to destroy other cultures (and in some cases have succeeded). Anyway, I'm not actually trying to trash talk here. Oy to point out that this victim card that is more often being thrown down by christians is rather hypocrital. Plus, atheists pose no threat even if someone does find something offensive, so I'm not sure what the problem is... with all due respect.
Kurt Vonnegut gave a great talk on atheism, in a church no less. It was great. I can't imagine a person of faith having a problem with it but, aughh!, I can't find it. Anyone know that talk, where it is, a link?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
will religion one day disappear .....................i bloody hope so just look at the Muslims going nuts cos of a silly film christ imagine wot would have happened to the Monty python team after the great amazingly funny film THE LIFE OF BRIAN
Comments
And the last part, JP - YES (all caps!). While I understand there's comfort and strength to be found in the shared form, it really IS - though not necessarily needs to be - one's own. It's personal, intimate. And ever-evolving.
My sister and I went to Hebrew school every weekend when we were children. In retrospect, I can separate the types of lessons taught and still accept the morals associated with them (and I must give a shitload of credit to my parents for usually being standup examples of those morals). Though I'm agnostic, I will say that if there IS a god, I hope it would be a peaceful one, not one who induces fear, not one who would want anyone harmed or killed in their name.
Adding a little color around what binauraljam is claiming:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in ... :int=1&-C=
The debate around space-time, mass, quantum gravity, and, ultimately, cosmology -- all of which are intertwined -- is still quite healthy. To even begin to say that time doesn't "exist" you have to get down to the planck scale, which is at the absolute bleeding edge of modern theoretical physics.
+1.
Yeah, Moto is right on here.
"time" is a physical quality of the universe.
The conceptual notion of time with regards to the calendar can be thought of as an abstraction if you wish (but it is tied to the physical realities of motion of heavenly bodies) but "time" in the PHYSICS sense of the word is VERY real and as Moto says it CAN be "manipulated" in the sense that -- in some way as yet poorly understood (arguably "understood" by general relatively, but i would argue quite poorly, except an understanding of the math alone) -- time is a "thing" that along with "space" is intricately related to how we perceive all matter. Matter, gravity, space, and time are all caught up in some weird interconnection. The assumption by most physicists is that "time" is actually a "dimension" along with "space" (hence "space-time") that is the intrinsic nature of the "space fabric" around us. I am to the point now of thinking it is probably more appropriate to consider time as a by-product of gravity itself, which in my understanding (albeit not a conventional one, for sure) is related to the expansion\contraction of the very fabric of space it self.
So, in *my* cosmology
space= a real "thing", to be considered "the ether", the weird interlay fabric that is some half-breed of energy-matter
matter=originates IN space, arguably FROM space (since we now observe particles popping in and out of existence from the "void" ie from raw "space" itself)
gravity=the effects of space shrinking back in to singularities "inside" of massive bodies (this is, of course, highly contested -- considered outright "nutty" by "modern" physics, but i think we will get there, eventually) [or in the inertial form, from "pushing" "against" space\ether]
time=some sort of effect of gravity (itself an effect, per above)
we KNOW for a fact that time and gravity are related. time, gravity, and speed, are related, actually. And i think the reason speed relates directly to time is because of how i described gravity above. If time is dependent on gravity which is related to the in-seeping (large body singluarities pulling it in) or out-flowing (ie. big bang, universe expansion) of "space", it would stand to reason that traveling extremely fast with or against this space flow would alter your experience of time.
Of course, i'm a crack pot, and general relativity says it all has to do with "simple" space-time curvature ... which i find to be a completely indefensible notion that makes no sense in 3-dimensional terms. How does a massive object warp space-time OUT from itself uniformly in all directions, and why? So our cosmology is that planets displace space and sort of exist outside of it, or at least in super-low density areas of it? I don't buy that, and it contradicts our even simpler notion of newtonian gravity which pulls IN. Why would a displacement of space outward cause a rushing of matter inward? To me it makes much more sense if there is a "source" inside planets, a singularity, which causes mater to conglomorate around it, and is strong enough (just like the singularites that Einstein's equations predict MUST exist, but we have not yet found) to actually pull SPACE in as well.
[end long insane rant]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think you were channeling Michiu Kaku on that one.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how is science a weakness? the very basis of science is in itself a learning process, ever evolving. how is that a weakness?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Kurt Vonnegut gave a great talk on atheism, in a church no less. It was great. I can't imagine a person of faith having a problem with it but, aughh!, I can't find it. Anyone know that talk, where it is, a link?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
work it out your self http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA
and then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo
so yea get rid of religion all it does is cause trouble :corn: :thumbup: