Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...

Ahnimus

Also what gave the indian chief the ability to pass on his knowledge, was his ability to explain it and accurately describe it. If he had just said there is something out there but I don't know what, it would have had no effect.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I agree with you Angelica. My point is that theory alone isn't enough to be considered fact. Religion by it's nature is neither a provable or disprovable theory. As a society we shouldn't use this kind of theory as any basis for policy. Unless the theory can be replicated and proven, I don't consider it a fundamental to modern life.

Interestingly, people invest more belief in theism than they do actual science. A few examples are Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Energy, Nikola Tesla's theories and Mel Winfield's theory of gravity. All those theories are well grounded in science and can be replicated to a certain extent. However, the majority of people consider those scientists "nuts". I personally find their work more intriguing than a religious belief.

I recently watched a production called "Lies in the Textbooks" which attempts to prove Evolution wrong, it attempts to prove the Grand Canyon was created instantly. But what it fails to do is provide any solid replicable evidence. It's mostly conjecture and philosophical belief. That doesn't stand-up against the "lies" in the textbook. As an example, one of the arguements was that since the surface level at the river's entry point to the canyon is lower than the surface level of the exit point, it could not have been created by the river, because river's do not travel uphill. This theory omits a very critical observation, the surface heights surrounding the grand canyon may have changed over the millions of years suggested by the official scientific theory. This theological hypothesis assumes that the earth around the grand canyon has never changed in millions of years.

It's quite simple to prove or disprove anything if you fail to follow the scientific method that has been constructed to accurately explain phenomenon. If we fail to explain something with science, that doesn't exactly leave the door open for radical hypothesis, but the door is always open to hypothesis with significant scientific structure. You can't prove or disprove a religious belief with our current knowledge, that renders the hypothesis inadmissable.

I agree, following the scientific method is of utmost importance in the science process and in discerning factual data. That said, every possible hypothesis still remains as a possibility until it's disproven. I think it's 100% fair, considering that is what unbiased thinking entails.

If you know quantum physics philosophy, you know that the point of view of the observer is intimately involved in the experiment--relatively speaking, and therefore affects the outcome of any experiement. At heightened levels of perception adherence to fine lines of objectivity is of great importance considering potential for distortion.

2% of the population is considered to be brain actualized. That means the majority of scientists are not. If we are looking through functioning fragmented by bias and what we don't acknowledge about ourself (what is unconscious), we continue to distort. Let's no longer agree to sully the fine lines of objectivity that are crucial in building our theoretical castles in the sky.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Also what gave the indian chief the ability to pass on his knowledge, was his ability to explain it and accurately describe it. If he had just said there is something out there but I don't know what, it would have had no effect.

His inability to explain, or the inability of others to understand him would not mean what he perceived did not exist.

Remember my history as a psychiatric patient? My one time "delusions of grandeur", and of healing myself not only came true, but in learning the theoretical information frameworks to create what "intuition"/Life showed me, I learned to see things other people just do not see. You've told your own stories of learning the fallacies of common thinking and having to single-handedly pass through the limits of conventional thought in order to be true to the pursuit of knowledge.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I agree, following the scientific method is of utmost importance in the science process and in discerning factual data. That said, every possible hypothesis still remains as a possibility until it's disproven. I think it's 100% fair, considering that is what unbiased thinking entails.

If you know quantum physics philosophy, you know that the point of view of the observer is intimately involved in the experiment--relatively speaking, and therefore affects the outcome of any experiement. At heightened levels of perception adherence to fine lines of objectivity is of great importance considering potential for distortion.

2% of the population is considered to be brain actualized. That means the majority of scientists are not. If we are looking through functioning fragmented by bias and what we don't acknowledge about ourself (what is unconscious), we continue to distort. Let's no longer agree to sully the fine lines of objectivity that are crucial in building our theoretical castles in the sky.

Not to mention politics and it's effects on the scientific community. See that's my problem, the bias in science. It's at times no different than the bias of an organized religion. However, the truth will eventually be reveiled.

I was very interested in the Holographic Universe theory. That may very well be truth and a lot of these hypothesis support the existance of an alternate realm of reality that may very well be home to a god of some sort. But I think, if someone is enlightened, so to speak, it is futile to try and convince others of their knowledge without replicable proof.

I've personally seen what looks like energy swirling around in thin air. But the more I concentrate on it, the less I can see it. I've lead myself to believe that what I was seeing is not energy, but a dysfunction of my senses and perception. Though I do constantly make the effort to think outside the box, the box ultimately wins.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Not to mention politics and it's effects on the scientific community. See that's my problem, the bias in science. It's at times no different than the bias of an organized religion. However, the truth will eventually be reveiled.

I was very interested in the Holographic Universe theory. That may very well be truth and a lot of these hypothesis support the existance of an alternate realm of reality that may very well be home to a god of some sort. But I think, if someone is enlightened, so to speak, it is futile to try and convince others of their knowledge without replicable proof.

I've personally seen what looks like energy swirling around in thin air. But the more I concentrate on it, the less I can see it. I've lead myself to believe that what I was seeing is not energy, but a dysfunction of my senses and perception. Though I do constantly make the effort to think outside the box, the box ultimately wins.

Keep up the effort--enhance and do everything to encourage it. The box will lose in the end. It's taken me 12 years to make peace with my biases. What it distinctly entails is being willing to own them at every moment. People love to draw attention to our flaws! Be glad. It's a good way to become conscious of what we are unconscious of. And the more opposing views you can harmonize with, the more your own view will increase through understanding you do not naturally possess with your own piece of the puzzle. It's fun to think of how completely repelling you were to me when we first talked out here.

As for the energy sightings, have you learned anything about peripheral vision? We've been trained to use only our 3% cone of vision and ignore the other 97% of our sight (with literal vision AND psychological vision!). Apparently in the past, we were evolutionarily willing to use our full vision. I've read that energy is more percipable in peripheral vision. You might be seeing what others don't see. Why would you question your own senses? Just because the "norm" doesn't see it doesn't mean it's not real. If you can't trust your own observations, whose can you trust? That is the key for overcoming the bias--trust the inner truth. Even court takes our personal experience as being a valid submission. Why would you question your own perception? Is there a correct way to see? I only notice the flashing light of my computer screen with my peripheral vision. But I'm told it objectively exists as flashing light despite the illusion of my direct sight not seeing it.

If you are advanced in thinking and in vision, you will not find lots of validation my friend. It's a road less travelled to be in a top some percentile.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

...I think, if someone is enlightened, so to speak, it is futile to try and convince others of their knowledge without replicable proof.

What they say is that if someone is enlightened, their mere presence raises the consciousness of the whole group. See shaman-from-what-the-bleep story. The normal unenlightened folk became able to perceive what they could not prior to the explanation of the shaman.

Think of the mind-bending books you have read that enabled you to understand universes you earlier were oblivious to.

All our knowledge is the product of enlightened thought. Thinking within the confines of dulled, biased thought entitles us to live under bias and stifled thought. Creating fresh, outside the box ideas takes true creation.

Pearl Jam and toast

hippiemom wrote:

That's convenient. I can't prove a negative (such as the non-existance of god or garden fairies), but I have to allow for the possibility of them until "proven" otherwise, which as you've just said is impossible.

Damn, I'm getting some great ideas for science fair projects based on this line of reasoning.

The Earth and it's immediate neighboring planets are all in fact suspended in a dark box with stars painted on the sides by an overweight man in his mid-forties named Gene. The sun is a heat lamp.

PROVE ME WRONG.

lucylespian

Collin wrote:

How does one calculate the probability of the existence of aliens or god?

Have a look at some pictures from the Hubble telescope and see just how big the Universe is and how many stars are in it. Then think that even if it's a billion/gazillillion to one probability that life exists elsewhere, then there must be scads of places. Then imagine an entity powerful enough to create and master all those stars etc, and decide which outcome is more likely.
All religion is ultimately narcissistic, thinking that a God is really interested in your petty endevours.

decides2dream

isn't this the subject of the thread? . . .

Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...



so then, honestly, i have no idea why all the 'god' discussion. clearly, 'god' has nothing to do with religion, especially today...and especially once it's "organized." 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.'

Ahnimus

decides2dream wrote:

isn't this the subject of the thread? . . .

Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...



so then, honestly, i have no idea why all the 'god' discussion. clearly, 'god' has nothing to do with religion, especially today...and especially once it's "organized." 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.'

No more insulting than saying ghosts, aliens and other paranormal don't exist.

decides2dream

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

decides2dream wrote:

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.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Scratchin a Letter

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...

redrock

catefrances wrote:

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...

angelica

decides2dream wrote:

... 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?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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. "

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

decides2dream

angelica wrote:

How so?

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.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

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.