No more insulting than saying ghosts, aliens and other paranormal don't exist.
well my point is/was...the thread is about 'why the thread-starter believes reilgion 'must' exist...not about whether god must exist. and quite honestly, given the sad state of religion in the world today, i don't even see god , aliens, or whatever else even fitting in the equation.
so yea...i guess it was my humorous attempt at bringing it back to the discussion of why one may or may not think religion is 'necessary' existing in this world or not. i mean, do we 'need' religion to have even a belief in a god/higher power/life source...etc......do we need religion to have spirituality? so then, do we truly 'need' religion?
now, i fully respect everyon'es right to believe, or disbelieve as they so desire...and i am not a fan of organized religion per se, although i know for some it brings great meaning to their lives...so yea....just trying to bring it back to the initial idea/question.
well my point is/was...the thread is about 'why the thread-starter believes reilgion 'must' exist...not about whether god must exist. and quite honestly, given the sad state of religion in the world today, i don't even see god , aliens, or whatever else even fitting in the equation.
so yea...i guess it was my humorous attempt at bringing it back to the discussion of why one may or may not think religion is 'necessary' existing in this world or not. i mean, do we 'need' religion to have even a belief in a god/higher power/life source...etc......do we need religion to have spirituality? so then, do we truly 'need' religion?
now, i fully respect everyon'es right to believe, or disbelieve as they so desire...and i am not a fan of organized religion per se, although i know for some it brings great meaning to their lives...so yea....just trying to bring it back to the initial idea/question.
I see, well, I don't think religion is needed. I think it's a paradigm we've created to answer questions. We've evolved though, we understand more about ourselves and the universe. I feel the problem is persisting in these paradigms and convincing ourselves of them.
Even the concept of spirituality is lacking. The way our minds work, all of our perceptions, feelings and so on are just paradigms. It's what we believe. So if you believe you feel things physically in your heart or your guy, you probably will. I believe my perception is in my brain, so if I feel something in my heart, it's a heart attack.
I can understand the heart/gut thing metaphorically though. But I mean, people say they speak to god, but do they really? I can talk to Albert Einstein in my head if I really wanted to. So, while everything is possible in that realm, everything is also fallable. E.g. God only exists if you believe in him. That probably ends when you die, I would assume. To say people need religion for a moral guideline, is to have very little faith in humans. I think the biggest problem with religion is it's claim to be perfect. Sure, even evolution is open to scrutiny, it could be proven wrong tomorrow, that's what's great about it. Religion, can't be proven wrong. It's a very flawed train of thought, a bad habit of thinking.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I can understand the heart/gut thing metaphorically though. But I mean, people say they speak to god, but do they really? I can talk to Albert Einstein in my head if I really wanted to. So, while everything is possible in that realm, everything is also fallable. E.g. God only exists if you believe in him. That probably ends when you die, I would assume. To say people need religion for a moral guideline, is to have very little faith in humans. I think the biggest problem with religion is it's claim to be perfect. Sure, even evolution is open to scrutiny, it could be proven wrong tomorrow, that's what's great about it. Religion, can't be proven wrong. It's a very flawed train of thought, a bad habit of thinking.
i think, and this is just my humble atheist opinion, when people talk to God they are really talking to their inner self, trying like the rest of us to make sense of the unknown. to get a grip on something. to help them work out what they are going to do.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nobody knows if there is an afterlife. nobody knows that if you fuck people over in life you will get your comeuppance. no matter what people tell you, there is no evidence. religion is a sense of security people create for themselves.
to the topic starter: good for you. its great that you have something to keep you sane and make you feel happy and secure. just dont preach to me about it. the point is, there are all these religions and sects, each saying something different.and they can't all be right. eventually this will be realised after one has died, and for that matter, what if i get to the end and it all means nothing? i don't want to waste my life conforming to something.
religion is wonderful.it should definitely remain part of the world, just keep it to yourself. dont tell people how to live their lives. because you never know, you may regret it...
i think, and this is just my humble atheist opinion, when people talk to God they are really talking to their inner self, trying like the rest of us to make sense of the unknown. to get a grip on something. to help them work out what they are going to do.
Your humble atheist opinion is as my humble atheist opinion.
If the original poster finds comfort in being part of an organised religious group who 'dictates' what path you need to follow and how far your spirituality can go, then that is fine for him. But when he says religion MUST remain a part of the world.. which religion? The teachings of some of these are exclusive of the others (eg. roman catholics). Whose God? Whose teachings should remain? What 'organisations' have made of simple teachings by whom ever you choose (ie, lead a good life, be kind, etc), is just something to 'reign in' people.
Religion (and not spirituality) is causing so many problems in the world, why this desperate need to keep it? Spirituality does not need religion...
... personally, so much discussion of god in a thread about why religion MUST exist, for me, is rather insulting to whatever entity one may or may not believe to be 'god.'
How so?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I see, well, I don't think religion is needed. I think it's a paradigm we've created to answer questions. We've evolved though, we understand more about ourselves and the universe. I feel the problem is persisting in these paradigms and convincing ourselves of them.
Even the concept of spirituality is lacking. The way our minds work, all of our perceptions, feelings and so on are just paradigms. It's what we believe. So if you believe you feel things physically in your heart or your guy, you probably will. I believe my perception is in my brain, so if I feel something in my heart, it's a heart attack.
... So, while everything is possible in that realm, everything is also fallable....
The science process is for investigating the unexplained. It is not for shooting down the unexplained before we fully understand.
Are you familiar with the science of psychoneuroimmunology?
"Research over the past twenty years has seen the development of Psychoneuroimmunology, which is based primarily upon the neuro sciences of the central nervous systems, the neuroendocrine system and the immune system and their inter-relationships. The central nervous system is a huge array of connections throughout the body incorporating sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. It allows the brain to send information throughout the body via chemicals generally referred to as information substances (IS). ...
...natural chemical messengers, called Neuropeptides, were at one time thought to be found in the brain alone. Pioneering research by neuropharmacologist, Candice Pert, revealed that these neuropeptides are present on both the cell walls of the brain and in the immune system. These information substances affect our emotions as well as our physiology. These cells of the body have their own receptors on the surface that act like satellite dishes. These receptors receive the chemical information substances being released by the brain and sometimes return messages at the appropriate times. "
I see the opposite of you: I see the danger is putting the cap on knowledge by shortening our vision. What your wildest dreams says exists, is not all that exists, just like what you know about the brain is not the total of all there is to know about the brain. If we choose for assumptions to dictate your path direction, that's purely subjective opinion. While it's valid as such, it it has little effect on what truly exists--visible or "invisible".
Religion and philosophy just do exist beyond science, like it or not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think it's a paradigm we've created to answer questions. .... I feel the problem is persisting in these paradigms and convincing ourselves of them.
In these two lines I completely agree with you. The danger is persisting in paradigms and convincing ourselves of them, when it is clearly a false premise. Or in answering questions we DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS FOR. This is what I see happening in this thread. It is known that we CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. Therefore anytime you try to point to why God may not, or cannot exist, you are doing an "unargument". It is automatically rendered invalid as an argument because it's a non-argument if it's purpose is to make an objective case against God. (which you cannot objectively do) If you bring logic and information in to support the unargument, you distort logic and information. When people continue doing so it indicates to me that they need to act out unconscious bias as real in order to learn the hard way to become aware of their biases.
I used to do the same thing, and wondered why I kept frustrating myself in arguments and looking silly. It took me a looooonnnnng while, but I've learned to either make a case for something, or to highlight/attempt to disprove what I see as flaws in a case someone else has made for something. From what I've seen, these are the only objectively valid options.
The underlying key is that in order to be objective, we must have vast respect for what we don't understand. And we must show it in thought/word/deed, or we hook ourelves into the revealing of our subjective biases to others. When we are condescending and implying others are wrong/crazy/imagining things, it is quite obvious by how our biases slip out. Subjective judgment is fine for opinion/belief. That's it. When we judge "truth" based on personal bias--by trying to prove a negative-- we're just getting too big for our intellectual britches by looking down upon what we don't understand. It's no different than when a religious person judges in ignorance.
Deep abiding respect for the unknown is the only way to go. Unless we want to self-sabotage.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
anyway, yes....much of 'organized religion' seems to talk a lot about God, etc.....but i personally find much of it would be disappoitning.
what's the line....? Marker in the Sand
"Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently"
so yes, i think much of organized religion is twisted, and that if God does exist, it would all be rather disappointing to him/her/whatever. and sure, sure..i am one of the first to say that most of the 'religious' are not like that, but bottomline....too much divisiveness in this world, in my own country.....whether rightly so or not, seems at the very least, put at the feet of religion. seems quite odd at the very least, for say the teachings of Jesus...and yet so many seem far too much to try and preach/control what others do...such as homosexual marriage, abortion, etc..instead of doing as Jesus taught, lead by example. it should be a CHOICE to believe/follow.
anyway, to me this thread isn't about does God exist...but why he/she believes religion needs to exist, and no, i don't see the need to argue over IF God exists, b/c for me that isn;t the question...but more...why the 'need' for religion? God, if he/she/it does or does not exist...still would/wouldn't with or without religion, and certainly spirituality too.....so to me, two seperate discussions. related sure, but unnecessary to relate in that sense.
bottomline, it was mostly said in humor. otherwise, i don't have more to add to the discussion, already shared my opinion on the subject.
i think, and this is just my humble atheist opinion, when people talk to God they are really talking to their inner self, trying like the rest of us to make sense of the unknown. to get a grip on something. to help them work out what they are going to do.
I agree with you.
I'd like to add that they are talking to the Higher Self. They don't just talk to themselves, they talk to a place inside, that is on a frequency of their most highest ideals and dreams. By raising their consciousness in such a way, one gets to a place where one bypasses limits, and boundaries of the physical world and can reach the very nature of Life, itself. This is in the same way that the drop of water can get outside itself and realize it is also "ocean". The "inner world" is not bound by the same rules of physical visible reality. You may notice this in your dreams--in the inner world, you can fly. You can travel backwards and forwards in time. Deceased loved ones may visit you. You can dematerialize and rematerialize wherever you like. You can increase the intensity of colour, etc. The inner world is not bound by typical science laws. In the inner world, you can instantly morph in time and speak with Jesus and Einstein, if you so desire.
We go in and out of different levels of awareness all day. Some people deliberately keep in high states of awareness and peace and exude that energy. The higher levels of consciousness are as natural as all the others. If someone has not experienced such levels of understanding, peace and perpetual love, it's because they have not experienced it, not because it does not exist.
One of my favourite quantum physicists, who was in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know", Fred Alan Wolf, studied these levels of consciousness. He is a highly reputed physicist. He has a book called "The Dreaming Universe". How the average person perceives our Universe is vastly different than some of our most cutting edge scientists know it to be. If a dreaming Universe or a Holographic Universe sounds odd to someone, that's about lack of experience and understanding of the same concepts that many others actively seek and embrace.
I also know some athiests who resonate with the highest ideals of life. I know athiests who work to raise their consciousness and to understand the higher levels of awareness. These same athiests seek to experience limitless horizons. They merely look at things a little bit differently than a religious person. I see that it's the same thing. I also see that when we magnetize ourselves to doubt, fear and negativity, and judgment of what we don't understand, well, we are operating at a lowered energy level.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
anyway, yes....much of 'organized religion' seems to talk a lot about God, etc.....but i personally find much of it would be disappoitning.
what's the line....? Marker in the Sand
"Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently"
so yes, i think much of organized religion is twisted, and that if God does exist, it would all be rather disappointing to him/her/whatever. and sure, sure..i am one of the first to say that most of the 'religious' are not like that, but bottomline....too much divisiveness in this world, in my own country.....whether rightly so or not, seems at the very least, put at the feet of religion. seems quite odd at the very least, for say the teachings of Jesus...and yet so many seem far too much to try and preach/control what others do...such as homosexual marriage, abortion, etc..instead of doing as Jesus taught, lead by example. it should be a CHOICE to believe/follow.
anyway, to me this thread isn't about does God exist...but why he/she believes religion needs to exist, and no, i don't see the need to argue over IF God exists, b/c for me that isn;t the question...but more...why the 'need' for religion? God, if he/she/it does or does not exist...still would/wouldn't with or without religion, and certainly spirituality too.....so to me, two seperate discussions. related sure, but unnecessary to relate in that sense.
bottomline, it was mostly said in humor. otherwise, i don't have more to add to the discussion, already shared my opinion on the subject.
Okay, I very much hear your opinion.
What seems relevent to one, might not be relevent to another. Fair enough.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
n 1961 Frank Drake, who conducted the very first SETI search, produced the now famous Drake Equation . This derives an estimate of the number of communicative civilisations N by multiplying together a number of factors which together determine the overall probability. It is important to note the word estimate because few of the factors are known with any degree of certainty. The trouble is that we are basing many of our estimates on the basis of a single example - us. However the situations is improving a little. For example other Solar Systems are now being discovered and the continuation of this work will eventually give us quite a good estimate of the number of suitable stars which have solar systems, this being one of the factors involved. The equation is :-
N = R * x f p x n e x f l x f i x f t x L
Where
N is the number of communicative civilizations.
This in the number of civilisations in our Galaxy, the Milky Way, whose radio emmissions are detectable.
R * is the rate of formation of suitable stars.
The rate of formations of stars with a sufficiently large zone around them in which the surface temperatures would allow the development of lifeforms and whose lifetime is sufficiently long so that they could then evolve into intelligent life. These, not surprisingly, tend to be like our own Sun, so are called Sun-like stars. This rate is approximatly 1 star per year.
f p the fraction of these stars with planets.
The fraction of Sun-like stars with planetary systems is not yet known precisely, but already around a dozen other planets have been found around such stars and so it is likely to be a minimum of 5%, probably nearer 10%. Lets say a probability of 1 in 10.
n e the number of suitable planets per planetary system.
These are those where the surface temperatures would allow liquid water to exist. This implies that it must be sufficiently large to be able to keep an atmosphere. For example both the Earth and the Moon are within the habitable zone of our Sun but the Moon has too little gravity to be able to keep an atmosphere so is lifeless. In our Solar System, Venus is too hot and Mars is now too cold but would have been warmer when active volcanoes gave it an atmosphere. Lets say a probability of 1.
f l the fraction of those planets where life develops.
Life may well not develop on all suitable planets, but there is no good reason to believe that it won't - it appeared here on Earth virtually as soon as conditions became suitable! Lets say a probability of 1.
f i the fraction of these where intelligent lifeforms evolve.
This is one of the major uncertainties! On Earth it took a further 3000 Million years before multicellular life appeared. This suggests that the transition from very simple lifeforms to more complex ones is not easy. So complex lifeforms capable of reason and the other attributes of intelligence could be quite rare. This is a real guess. Lets say a probability of 1 in 1000.
f t the fraction of these where technology develops.
Given that the planet has a benign period long enough to allow unhindered development this should be quite likely. Lets say a probability of 1 in 1.
L the "Lifetime" of communicating civilisations.
This estimate is a real problem. We have no idea how long our civilisation will last. Assuming that we learn how to protect our planet from stray asteroids or comets and can learn to live within the limitations of our Planet, we could survive for 100's of millions of years. So L could be very large.
What is the result?
Multiplying up the factors apart from L gives us the equation:-
N = L / 10,000
So you can see that the result depends critically on L. If we are conservative and give a lifetime of 100,000 years then we would expect perhaps 10 other civilisations to exist at the present time. But, optimistically, with a lifetime of 100,000,000 years, N could be 10,000. http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/seti/drake.html
That is known as the Drake Equation. Another individual since has determined, by expanding on this equation, that if N = 1 then the probability is 100%.
I couldn't find any logical equations for the probability of god. The only thing I could find was an individual that claims 50% probability is equivelant to total ignorance. In otherwords, if we have no knowledge of something it's 50% probable. He then claims that scriptures account for a 17% probability. So the probability of god in his eyes is 67%. However, the Sumer scriptures then act as evidence of Alien life and by his same logic, not counting the Drake Equation, the probability of Alien life is also 67%.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
To me, the only way we know something for certain, is by personal experience. I have experienced what is known as God.
Intellectually theorizing is a map, yet it can't replace the territory of experience.
Again, the bottom line in my mind is that apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does. Everything happens for a reason. Now whether we understand that reason is a whole other topic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To me, the only way we know something for certain, is by personal experience. I have experienced what is known as God.
Intellectually theorizing is a map, yet it can't replace the territory of experience.
Again, the bottom line in my mind is that apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does. Everything happens for a reason. Now whether we understand that reason is a whole other topic.
Well, the Russian government has acknowledged the existance of aliens as well as other governments. Hundreds of ex air-force, government and other military officials have come out and said aliens have contacted us, and we've killed them.
I found that evidence combined with photos and video evidence a much more solid indication of existance.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I feel religion is as natural for mankind as breathing. I choose to believe God. Whether anyone else does is his or her choice. But as far back as history goes, man has had some form of religion. Religion has had warped sects that have perverted it's usefulness, but the foundation of religion has had beneficial psychological impacts. It gives people hope, and what is so wrong with that? If those that choose to believe in something outer-worldly are wrong, all they have lost is a theory. But if they are correct, those without faith in God have far more to lose.
I feel religion is as natural for mankind as breathing. I choose to believe God. Whether anyone else does is his or her choice. But as far back as history goes, man has had some form of religion. Religion has had warped sects that have perverted it's usefulness, but the foundation of religion has had beneficial psychological impacts. It gives people hope, and what is so wrong with that? If those that choose to believe in something outer-worldly are wrong, all they have lost is a theory. But if they are correct, those without faith in God have far more to lose.
Religion has also driven people to do wrong.
See the Phelps, Muslim Extremists, Bush, etc..
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
To me, the only way we know something for certain, is by personal experience. I have experienced what is known as God.
Intellectually theorizing is a map, yet it can't replace the territory of experience.
Again, the bottom line in my mind is that apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does. Everything happens for a reason. Now whether we understand that reason is a whole other topic.
The territory of personal experience only applies to youself. Just because you have had a perception, does not mean that perception has a reproducible reality.
All religious visions, hearing, seeing God etc, are delusional. Jesus was a classic schizophrenia sufferer. I remember seeing a painting in a church in a village in Italy depicting a dying nun seeing St Gregory.
The artist had captured the appearance of a cancer death, and she was clearly in a lot of pain, in extremis, in the throes of dying.
Unsurprisingly, she had a vision/hallucination, which was highly relevant and real to her at the time, but of no relevance to anyone else at any other time.
Again, the bottom line in my mind is that apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does. Everything happens for a reason. Now whether we understand that reason is a whole other topic.
well with that line of thinking....there are plenty of horrific things that exist in the world today that i won't even begin to list and rather just allow the collective imaginations to think...and yea, then i can't agree with that line of thinking. i mean sure, normally i am of the mindset of 'everything happens for a reason'....to a certain extent anyway, but for many, many other things...it's a question of: it may exist, but perhaps it should not? not necessarily religion, but many of the ugly, base parts of humanity that has existed forever, but yea, doesn't mean we should condone or accept it. just another side of that line of thinking. there are very few things that i think of in absolutes and *musts*...and the fact that something/anything happens to exist, that alone is not good enough reason for me to even start to agree, or disagree necesaarily, that it should. and yea, my comprehension of said reason or not...would not demean me fighting against let's say, any evils that do exist, even if there is 'reason' for it....so that alone, simply not enough of a reason for me to agree/accept that as a rational for existance of religion, or anything else necessarily.
however, i am not even remotely suggesting religions should not exist. i am merely going against the idea that it *must*.....
well with that line of thinking....there are plenty of horrific things that exist in the world today that i won't even begin to list and rather just allow the collective imaginations to think...and yea, then i can't agree with that line of thinking. i mean sure, normally i am of the mindset of 'everything happens for a reason'....to a certain extent anyway, but for many, many other things...it's a question of: it may exist, but perhaps it should not? not necessarily religion, but many of the ugly, base parts of humanity that has existed forever, but yea, doesn't mean we should condone or accept it. just another side of that line of thinking. there are very few things that i think of in absolutes and *musts*...and the fact that something/anything happens to exist, that alone is not good enough reason for me to even start to agree, or disagree necesaarily, that it should. and yea, my comprehension of said reason or not...would not demean me fighting against let's say, any evils that do exist, even if there is 'reason' for it....so that alone, simply not enough of a reason for me to agree/accept that as a rational for existance of religion, or anything else necessarily.
however, i am not even remotely suggesting religions should not exist. i am merely going against the idea that it *must*.....
I understand.
I can see one not wanting to condone or accept religion. However it is still there, and apparently large amounts of people find a need for it independant of those who disagree. When the need it meets for people falls away, so will religion.
If you are saying could we theoretically evolve to not needing religion, I say yes. I forsee it happening. When people wake up to our full selves and who we really are, and our true connection to natural law and life, religion will be quite unnecessary.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, the Russian government has acknowledged the existance of aliens as well as other governments. Hundreds of ex air-force, government and other military officials have come out and said aliens have contacted us, and we've killed them.
I found that evidence combined with photos and video evidence a much more solid indication of existance.
I'm definitely open to aliens, and I definitely don't trust what the "powers that be" tell us.
I think if you personally met an alien, that would be all the proof you'd need.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I can see one not wanting to condone or accept religion. However it is still there, and apparently large amounts of people find a need for it independant of those who disagree. When the need it meets for people falls away, so will religion.
If you are saying could we theoretically evolve to not needing religion, I say yes. I forsee it happening. When people wake up to our full selves and who we really are, and our true connection to natural law and life, religion will be quite unnecessary.
well it is not even me suggesting the idea of acceptance or non-acceptance, i was merely flipping the coin per se on your post of 'apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does.' nothing more.
the fact that something does exist used as a rationale of why it MUST, is flimsy at best for me, and circular logic.
anyway, i say even today...we do not *need* religion, it theoretically has no *must* in it's existance. it is clearly a *want*, plain and simple. even within the arguement of a god existing or not existing, religion in and of itself is not necessary for that discussion...so yea, i still say there is no *must* in the existance of religion, it is desired, wanted, by humanity. however, we as a species continually mix up needs with wants, musts with desires.
well it is not even me suggesting the idea of acceptance or non-acceptance, i was merely flipping the coin per se on your post of 'apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does.' nothing more.
the fact that something does exist used as a rationale of why it MUST, is flimsy at best for me, and circular logic.
anyway, i say even today...we do not *need* religion, it theoretically has no *must* in it's existance. it is clearly a *want*, plain and simple. even within the arguement of a god existing or not existing, religion in and of itself is not necessary for that discussion...so yea, i still say there is no *must* in the existance of religion, it is desired, wanted, by humanity. however, we as a species continually mix up needs with wants, musts with desires.
I say if religion was not meeting some kind of human need, it would disappear. And I also say that it is here indicates that it is serving a purpose. If you disagree, I can live with that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I say if religion was not meeting some kind of human need, it would disappear. And I also say that it is here indicates that it is serving a purpose. If you disagree, I can live with that.
well, it's all semantics. i would say religion fills a human want, and yes...that indicates it serves a purpose. i don't think i ever insinuated that it doesn't. only point is, it is not a *must*.....it is a want, not a need. we would not die w/o religion...a want...whereas we would die without oxygen....a need. now one may argue quality of life, etc...sure...but that still differentiates between wants and needs. i may want many things that will improve my quality of life, my inner desires and wants....but is it absolutely necessary for my survival? no. adding to the quality of my life and being necessary for me to be able to continue to live, not the same thing. so yea...there is no *must*, no absolute need, for religion. desire/wants....very important and thus i certainly see the role in humanity and in many people's lives...but yes, i see no *must.* that's all.
The existence of God can't be proven, which is why it boils down to faith. WHich is why it's so controversial among believers/non-believers/different believers.
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
The existence of God can't be proven, which is why it boils down to faith. WHich is why it's so controversial among believers/non-believers/different believers.
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
As a person with a professional training and long experience working in mental health it is obvious. If you placed a description of Jesus' life into a psychiatry fellow's exam without a name attached, every candidate would come up with "schizophrenia" as a diagnosis.
It is the very intensity of belief that a psychotic person (in the correct sense of the word, rather than teh emotive sense most people use) has that would have motivated his followers.
Delusional beliefs and sensations such as voices, visions etc are TOTALLY real to the person experiencing them, just not to anyone else.
The only thing which prevents all religion form fitting the DSM-4 definition of delusion is the descriptor, "not in fitting with the persons cultural setting", but you only have to move into a different cultural setting to neutralise that even.
The existence of God can't be proven, which is why it boils down to faith. WHich is why it's so controversial among believers/non-believers/different believers.
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
but again, i can't prove it.
perhaps, but why assume one wants non-accountability? how about accountablity to yourself, to humanity at large, to the other life living on this earth here and NOW...not in some after-life...why does one 'need/want' accountability to a higher power to desire commitment, children, to help society, etc....? it doesn't have to be an 'all or none' approach.
just a thought.
and another thought...one could consider almost all those things just as *selfish*...well maybe not helping out society, altho if you think it'll score you some points with the 'big guy' perhaps. point is, it's quite an arbitrary list there and subjective as to what one considers 'selfish', or what makes one accountable and one not. one may not want my own children, but one may choose to help children already in the world today, etc. besides...i know plenty of people with commitment/marriage...children.....give plenty of $$$/time to society, etc....and yet, no *faith* in a higher being..they do so out of 'accountability' to themselves, the wolrld at large, etc. one does not need a *insert idea of deity here* to be accountable.
to equate beilief in a god with accountablity and then the flip-side of non-belief/faith with non-accountability is simplistic at best, and honestly, quite arrogant....and also rather insulting to the intelligence/giving nature of humanity...b/c it is to suggest without some form of divinity/faith, we would not care about others at all, and that clearly is not the case. inb fact, the opposite arguement could be made for many fighting/dying over their faith in a higher being...if we put it all in such simplistic terms, and what's so great/accountable about that?
btw - perhaps some of us, if we chose to believe...prefer to refer to *God* as HER. mother nature, goddess....etc.
At the end of the day, the equation is very much binary. God either exists or doesn't; God can't "kinda" exist.
I agree that we all have different paths; I was just making the general statement about total blatant selfish hedonism, folks who add nothing to society.
Comments
well my point is/was...the thread is about 'why the thread-starter believes reilgion 'must' exist...not about whether god must exist. and quite honestly, given the sad state of religion in the world today, i don't even see god , aliens, or whatever else even fitting in the equation.
so yea...i guess it was my humorous attempt at bringing it back to the discussion of why one may or may not think religion is 'necessary' existing in this world or not. i mean, do we 'need' religion to have even a belief in a god/higher power/life source...etc......do we need religion to have spirituality? so then, do we truly 'need' religion?
now, i fully respect everyon'es right to believe, or disbelieve as they so desire...and i am not a fan of organized religion per se, although i know for some it brings great meaning to their lives...so yea....just trying to bring it back to the initial idea/question.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I see, well, I don't think religion is needed. I think it's a paradigm we've created to answer questions. We've evolved though, we understand more about ourselves and the universe. I feel the problem is persisting in these paradigms and convincing ourselves of them.
Even the concept of spirituality is lacking. The way our minds work, all of our perceptions, feelings and so on are just paradigms. It's what we believe. So if you believe you feel things physically in your heart or your guy, you probably will. I believe my perception is in my brain, so if I feel something in my heart, it's a heart attack.
I can understand the heart/gut thing metaphorically though. But I mean, people say they speak to god, but do they really? I can talk to Albert Einstein in my head if I really wanted to. So, while everything is possible in that realm, everything is also fallable. E.g. God only exists if you believe in him. That probably ends when you die, I would assume. To say people need religion for a moral guideline, is to have very little faith in humans. I think the biggest problem with religion is it's claim to be perfect. Sure, even evolution is open to scrutiny, it could be proven wrong tomorrow, that's what's great about it. Religion, can't be proven wrong. It's a very flawed train of thought, a bad habit of thinking.
i think, and this is just my humble atheist opinion, when people talk to God they are really talking to their inner self, trying like the rest of us to make sense of the unknown. to get a grip on something. to help them work out what they are going to do.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
to the topic starter: good for you. its great that you have something to keep you sane and make you feel happy and secure. just dont preach to me about it. the point is, there are all these religions and sects, each saying something different.and they can't all be right. eventually this will be realised after one has died, and for that matter, what if i get to the end and it all means nothing? i don't want to waste my life conforming to something.
religion is wonderful.it should definitely remain part of the world, just keep it to yourself. dont tell people how to live their lives. because you never know, you may regret it...
Your humble atheist opinion is as my humble atheist opinion.
If the original poster finds comfort in being part of an organised religious group who 'dictates' what path you need to follow and how far your spirituality can go, then that is fine for him. But when he says religion MUST remain a part of the world.. which religion? The teachings of some of these are exclusive of the others (eg. roman catholics). Whose God? Whose teachings should remain? What 'organisations' have made of simple teachings by whom ever you choose (ie, lead a good life, be kind, etc), is just something to 'reign in' people.
Religion (and not spirituality) is causing so many problems in the world, why this desperate need to keep it? Spirituality does not need religion...
How so?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Are you familiar with the science of psychoneuroimmunology?
"Research over the past twenty years has seen the development of Psychoneuroimmunology, which is based primarily upon the neuro sciences of the central nervous systems, the neuroendocrine system and the immune system and their inter-relationships. The central nervous system is a huge array of connections throughout the body incorporating sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. It allows the brain to send information throughout the body via chemicals generally referred to as information substances (IS). ...
...natural chemical messengers, called Neuropeptides, were at one time thought to be found in the brain alone. Pioneering research by neuropharmacologist, Candice Pert, revealed that these neuropeptides are present on both the cell walls of the brain and in the immune system. These information substances affect our emotions as well as our physiology. These cells of the body have their own receptors on the surface that act like satellite dishes. These receptors receive the chemical information substances being released by the brain and sometimes return messages at the appropriate times. "
http://www.nfnlp.com/psychoneuroimmunology_quinlan.htm
http://whyfiles.org/026fear/physio1.html
Check out this information about science process:
http://natureinstitute.org/about/who/goldstein.htm
I see the opposite of you: I see the danger is putting the cap on knowledge by shortening our vision. What your wildest dreams says exists, is not all that exists, just like what you know about the brain is not the total of all there is to know about the brain. If we choose for assumptions to dictate your path direction, that's purely subjective opinion. While it's valid as such, it it has little effect on what truly exists--visible or "invisible".
Religion and philosophy just do exist beyond science, like it or not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In these two lines I completely agree with you. The danger is persisting in paradigms and convincing ourselves of them, when it is clearly a false premise. Or in answering questions we DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS FOR. This is what I see happening in this thread. It is known that we CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. Therefore anytime you try to point to why God may not, or cannot exist, you are doing an "unargument". It is automatically rendered invalid as an argument because it's a non-argument if it's purpose is to make an objective case against God. (which you cannot objectively do) If you bring logic and information in to support the unargument, you distort logic and information. When people continue doing so it indicates to me that they need to act out unconscious bias as real in order to learn the hard way to become aware of their biases.
I used to do the same thing, and wondered why I kept frustrating myself in arguments and looking silly. It took me a looooonnnnng while, but I've learned to either make a case for something, or to highlight/attempt to disprove what I see as flaws in a case someone else has made for something. From what I've seen, these are the only objectively valid options.
The underlying key is that in order to be objective, we must have vast respect for what we don't understand. And we must show it in thought/word/deed, or we hook ourelves into the revealing of our subjective biases to others. When we are condescending and implying others are wrong/crazy/imagining things, it is quite obvious by how our biases slip out. Subjective judgment is fine for opinion/belief. That's it. When we judge "truth" based on personal bias--by trying to prove a negative-- we're just getting too big for our intellectual britches by looking down upon what we don't understand. It's no different than when a religious person judges in ignorance.
Deep abiding respect for the unknown is the only way to go. Unless we want to self-sabotage.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
see this post:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3794828&postcount=152
anyway, yes....much of 'organized religion' seems to talk a lot about God, etc.....but i personally find much of it would be disappoitning.
what's the line....? Marker in the Sand
"Now you got both sides Claiming killing in Gods name
But God is nowhere,..... To be found, conveniently"
so yes, i think much of organized religion is twisted, and that if God does exist, it would all be rather disappointing to him/her/whatever. and sure, sure..i am one of the first to say that most of the 'religious' are not like that, but bottomline....too much divisiveness in this world, in my own country.....whether rightly so or not, seems at the very least, put at the feet of religion. seems quite odd at the very least, for say the teachings of Jesus...and yet so many seem far too much to try and preach/control what others do...such as homosexual marriage, abortion, etc..instead of doing as Jesus taught, lead by example. it should be a CHOICE to believe/follow.
anyway, to me this thread isn't about does God exist...but why he/she believes religion needs to exist, and no, i don't see the need to argue over IF God exists, b/c for me that isn;t the question...but more...why the 'need' for religion? God, if he/she/it does or does not exist...still would/wouldn't with or without religion, and certainly spirituality too.....so to me, two seperate discussions. related sure, but unnecessary to relate in that sense.
bottomline, it was mostly said in humor. otherwise, i don't have more to add to the discussion, already shared my opinion on the subject.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I agree with you.
I'd like to add that they are talking to the Higher Self. They don't just talk to themselves, they talk to a place inside, that is on a frequency of their most highest ideals and dreams. By raising their consciousness in such a way, one gets to a place where one bypasses limits, and boundaries of the physical world and can reach the very nature of Life, itself. This is in the same way that the drop of water can get outside itself and realize it is also "ocean". The "inner world" is not bound by the same rules of physical visible reality. You may notice this in your dreams--in the inner world, you can fly. You can travel backwards and forwards in time. Deceased loved ones may visit you. You can dematerialize and rematerialize wherever you like. You can increase the intensity of colour, etc. The inner world is not bound by typical science laws. In the inner world, you can instantly morph in time and speak with Jesus and Einstein, if you so desire.
We go in and out of different levels of awareness all day. Some people deliberately keep in high states of awareness and peace and exude that energy. The higher levels of consciousness are as natural as all the others. If someone has not experienced such levels of understanding, peace and perpetual love, it's because they have not experienced it, not because it does not exist.
One of my favourite quantum physicists, who was in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know", Fred Alan Wolf, studied these levels of consciousness. He is a highly reputed physicist. He has a book called "The Dreaming Universe". How the average person perceives our Universe is vastly different than some of our most cutting edge scientists know it to be. If a dreaming Universe or a Holographic Universe sounds odd to someone, that's about lack of experience and understanding of the same concepts that many others actively seek and embrace.
I also know some athiests who resonate with the highest ideals of life. I know athiests who work to raise their consciousness and to understand the higher levels of awareness. These same athiests seek to experience limitless horizons. They merely look at things a little bit differently than a religious person. I see that it's the same thing. I also see that when we magnetize ourselves to doubt, fear and negativity, and judgment of what we don't understand, well, we are operating at a lowered energy level.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What seems relevent to one, might not be relevent to another. Fair enough.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That is known as the Drake Equation. Another individual since has determined, by expanding on this equation, that if N = 1 then the probability is 100%.
I couldn't find any logical equations for the probability of god. The only thing I could find was an individual that claims 50% probability is equivelant to total ignorance. In otherwords, if we have no knowledge of something it's 50% probable. He then claims that scriptures account for a 17% probability. So the probability of god in his eyes is 67%. However, the Sumer scriptures then act as evidence of Alien life and by his same logic, not counting the Drake Equation, the probability of Alien life is also 67%.
Intellectually theorizing is a map, yet it can't replace the territory of experience.
Again, the bottom line in my mind is that apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does. Everything happens for a reason. Now whether we understand that reason is a whole other topic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, the Russian government has acknowledged the existance of aliens as well as other governments. Hundreds of ex air-force, government and other military officials have come out and said aliens have contacted us, and we've killed them.
I found that evidence combined with photos and video evidence a much more solid indication of existance.
Religion has also driven people to do wrong.
See the Phelps, Muslim Extremists, Bush, etc..
The territory of personal experience only applies to youself. Just because you have had a perception, does not mean that perception has a reproducible reality.
All religious visions, hearing, seeing God etc, are delusional. Jesus was a classic schizophrenia sufferer. I remember seeing a painting in a church in a village in Italy depicting a dying nun seeing St Gregory.
The artist had captured the appearance of a cancer death, and she was clearly in a lot of pain, in extremis, in the throes of dying.
Unsurprisingly, she had a vision/hallucination, which was highly relevant and real to her at the time, but of no relevance to anyone else at any other time.
well with that line of thinking....there are plenty of horrific things that exist in the world today that i won't even begin to list and rather just allow the collective imaginations to think...and yea, then i can't agree with that line of thinking. i mean sure, normally i am of the mindset of 'everything happens for a reason'....to a certain extent anyway, but for many, many other things...it's a question of: it may exist, but perhaps it should not? not necessarily religion, but many of the ugly, base parts of humanity that has existed forever, but yea, doesn't mean we should condone or accept it. just another side of that line of thinking. there are very few things that i think of in absolutes and *musts*...and the fact that something/anything happens to exist, that alone is not good enough reason for me to even start to agree, or disagree necesaarily, that it should. and yea, my comprehension of said reason or not...would not demean me fighting against let's say, any evils that do exist, even if there is 'reason' for it....so that alone, simply not enough of a reason for me to agree/accept that as a rational for existance of religion, or anything else necessarily.
however, i am not even remotely suggesting religions should not exist. i am merely going against the idea that it *must*.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
How do you know this?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I can see one not wanting to condone or accept religion. However it is still there, and apparently large amounts of people find a need for it independant of those who disagree. When the need it meets for people falls away, so will religion.
If you are saying could we theoretically evolve to not needing religion, I say yes. I forsee it happening. When people wake up to our full selves and who we really are, and our true connection to natural law and life, religion will be quite unnecessary.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think if you personally met an alien, that would be all the proof you'd need.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well it is not even me suggesting the idea of acceptance or non-acceptance, i was merely flipping the coin per se on your post of 'apparently religion must exist in the world at this present time, for the simple reason that it does.' nothing more.
the fact that something does exist used as a rationale of why it MUST, is flimsy at best for me, and circular logic.
anyway, i say even today...we do not *need* religion, it theoretically has no *must* in it's existance. it is clearly a *want*, plain and simple. even within the arguement of a god existing or not existing, religion in and of itself is not necessary for that discussion...so yea, i still say there is no *must* in the existance of religion, it is desired, wanted, by humanity. however, we as a species continually mix up needs with wants, musts with desires.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I say if religion was not meeting some kind of human need, it would disappear. And I also say that it is here indicates that it is serving a purpose. If you disagree, I can live with that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well, it's all semantics. i would say religion fills a human want, and yes...that indicates it serves a purpose. i don't think i ever insinuated that it doesn't. only point is, it is not a *must*.....it is a want, not a need. we would not die w/o religion...a want...whereas we would die without oxygen....a need. now one may argue quality of life, etc...sure...but that still differentiates between wants and needs. i may want many things that will improve my quality of life, my inner desires and wants....but is it absolutely necessary for my survival? no. adding to the quality of my life and being necessary for me to be able to continue to live, not the same thing. so yea...there is no *must*, no absolute need, for religion. desire/wants....very important and thus i certainly see the role in humanity and in many people's lives...but yes, i see no *must.* that's all.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I also think that non-belief in God (Allah, the God of Abraham, the Yamcumber, or however you wish to refer to Him) is comforting for those who don't want to be accountable for anything. I don't want commitment, I don't want kids, I don't want to help anyone or do anything good for society, I just want to travel and do things, it's all about me and what I want to do = non-belief.
but again, i can't prove it.
whoa....very nice fanch.....
As a person with a professional training and long experience working in mental health it is obvious. If you placed a description of Jesus' life into a psychiatry fellow's exam without a name attached, every candidate would come up with "schizophrenia" as a diagnosis.
It is the very intensity of belief that a psychotic person (in the correct sense of the word, rather than teh emotive sense most people use) has that would have motivated his followers.
Delusional beliefs and sensations such as voices, visions etc are TOTALLY real to the person experiencing them, just not to anyone else.
The only thing which prevents all religion form fitting the DSM-4 definition of delusion is the descriptor, "not in fitting with the persons cultural setting", but you only have to move into a different cultural setting to neutralise that even.
perhaps, but why assume one wants non-accountability? how about accountablity to yourself, to humanity at large, to the other life living on this earth here and NOW...not in some after-life...why does one 'need/want' accountability to a higher power to desire commitment, children, to help society, etc....? it doesn't have to be an 'all or none' approach.
just a thought.
and another thought...one could consider almost all those things just as *selfish*...well maybe not helping out society, altho if you think it'll score you some points with the 'big guy' perhaps.
to equate beilief in a god with accountablity and then the flip-side of non-belief/faith with non-accountability is simplistic at best, and honestly, quite arrogant....and also rather insulting to the intelligence/giving nature of humanity...b/c it is to suggest without some form of divinity/faith, we would not care about others at all, and that clearly is not the case. inb fact, the opposite arguement could be made for many fighting/dying over their faith in a higher being...if we put it all in such simplistic terms, and what's so great/accountable about that?
btw - perhaps some of us, if we chose to believe...prefer to refer to *God* as HER.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I agree that we all have different paths; I was just making the general statement about total blatant selfish hedonism, folks who add nothing to society.