Religon & twisting words

[mysticwarrior]

So buffachino, your also back from nowhere?

 

[restin]

It's when people don't stop to question logic that it becomes religious.

Exactly, as soon as people stop their aspiration for anything they want/need (be it happiness,enlightenment,knowledge) it becomes a dogma, people become lazy and stupid. There is nothing wrong in Christianity, as long as you seek (e.g. God or happiness). The whole danger of Fundamentalism is, that it only is and does not, there is no motion in Fundamentalism. Does anyone know Faust? Yes, that's what it is.

PS buffachino, I liked morpheus more than arnie :wink:

 

[GOD]

Welcom back Buffa .

"I liked morpheus more than arnie"

Me to .

 

[IJesusChrist]

I think it's foolish to think about it at all. I gave up on contemplating a god, a heaven, an afterlife a while ago.

Alot of wasted brain space that concludes nothing, ever.

My thoughts are always:

If there is a god, it is far, FAR to complex to understand with 100 billion neurons.

 

[ophiuchus]

isn't just as narrow minded to think that you know all there is to know about reality by worshiphing scientists and denying all religion?

-yes that is narrow minded, and that's not what any of us "athiests" are saying. i guarantee you that 9/10 people on psychonaut have a spirituality that does not and never will conform to to any organised religious belief, and just because we feel a sense of intrigue by studying the micro and the macro of the universe, is that a reason to condemn us?

"I mean i've seen many "free thinking" atheists that act just as retarded as their religious counterparts, they're just like funny-mirror images of each other they both look alike but other is just upside down..."

-true, those people are idiots, literally. they are the kind of sheep that believe anything they hear, and somebody happened to convince them that there is no god and spirituality is futile. of course that step is only a part in the entire process of self discovery and personalizing the experience of spirituality and what it means to you, i know, i myself have been in this phase, and i think many others as well.

"To my experience our methods of and tools of probing the world around us is just too limited to rule anything out completely. I think that both spirituality and science have their own place in the world and one cannot replace the other: spiruality is to feed your soul, chemical fertilizers are to feed the masses!
and here's some free thinking of propably the worlds most famous modern scientist:
I want to know God's thoughts... all the rest are details.
--Albert Einstein"

-this is the kind of thinking that will get you somewhere. you have alot more in common with us "athiests" than you might think... we also doubt the accuracy of sciences tools, but because the technology involved will always advance further and further, there is no reason to shun science, after all its been through, and all it's given us, there's no reason not to show our appreciation in and of it... am i wrong?[/i]

 

[tryptonaut]

i was in church today and was listening to the cermon. i started to think to myself.. how do we know if this is what the bible is actually teaching? (iv been thinking about this for the past year) with all the different dinominations/religions/proof and what-not, it all comes down to whos story is more correct?

That's exactly what it is. Stories. Stories that have no thread other than that there is one god. Or wait - maybe he has a son who is god as well. And the holy ghost. And you can also pray to the mother mary who was human, but is the mother of the son of god. Who is god.
Stories from times when people were taught to show their love for god by slaying the heathens and enslaving the heathens' wives and kids. Or slay their kids as well - I'm sure you'll find both in the old testament. Then there's the new testament where it says that the old testament is the word of god, but it's somehow not right in most cases. Go figure...

 

[Psychostain]

is that a reason to condemn us?
[/i]

i didn't want to condemn anyone. i just wanted to say something when it felt this was turning into a good old flame war: "you'r stupid - no you'r stupid!"
And i really know how to spell "atheist" it was just a typo

ps.
my own, possibly childish, belief is that a psychedelic trance is like a peek to the other side. it's just hard to absorb because it's not meant for human brain. call me stupid if you must. that's how it feels to me.

 

[ophiuchus]

i don't mean to put down your system of beliefs at all, i actually agree with alot of what you're saying, im just trying to convey that it shouldn't be considered narrow-minded to have strong "faith", i guess you could say, in science and it's theories, as long as one realizes that it is a theory and treats it as such, and therefore doesn't limit themselves to science alone. it's undeniable, i think, that spirituality has it's place in the world, just as long as we're not strictly talking about religion... im not on the offensive, i just want to add some clarity to this topic from my side of the fence[/i]

 

[tryptonaut]

(...) as long as one realizes that it is a theory and treats it as such, and therefore doesn't limit themselves to science alone

That's where you are wrong. Science is trying to find out new stuff. It's nothing I have to believe in. Sometimes scientists might be a little narrow minded because they are stuck in their old theories, but real science always tries to explore and ditch old theories in favor of new ones.
There is no "science alone". When I discover new worlds with entheogens, I come up with theories what they mean and how and where the substance got me. That is science. Searching for new stuff and integrating it into your knowledge, without old ballast that cannot be re-written.

And yes, Evolution (for example) is just a theory. But it's a theory that is founded in everything we know today. You got proof that it's wrong? Scientists will ditch the theory and develop a new one based on the new data.
But, staying with that example, Adam & Eve or Noah's ark are not theories. They're stories, fairytales with no other foundation as that people have told these stories for thousands of years and some believed in them.

There is no "let us have our theory and you have yours". Religious stories are not theories, they have no foundation at all.

I have nothing against people who want to believe in old fairytales - but as soon as they start bothering me with these stories, or try to make me look bad or un-moral because I don't believe in the same shit, then I'm getting angry.

 

[restin]

Comparing religion and science is just stupid, sorry

 

[tryptonaut]

Comparing religion and science is just stupid, sorry

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm sick of the argumentation from religious groups who want their beliefs seen as a "counterbelief to science". There is no counterbelief to science, because science is nothing to believe in, science is sane human thinking, trying to apply rules and logic to things. Anything "counter-science" is just, well, nothing.

 

[restin]

Yapp. Science is trying to find out why things exist how they do. I personally believe ( :wink: ) that rules are not a way to explain the world. Nonetheless, science has reached to explain some stuff, medicine is just a part of it. Trypo, you say logic, but how long does logic exist...not so long, on a scale of human history.

Religion....doesn't try to explain, why you feel high if you smoke dope...it is a philosophy. It tries to give humans a certain reason,finality, "what for" but not "why"*. Therefore these two talk about very different things. And yeah, religions are not about "believing" either. It is a philosophy. It is not about God. It is about life.




*Genesis....is not an attempt to explain our *real* origin

And by the way, Darwin was wrong.

 

[????????]

Darwin was wrong.

about?

 

[restin]

Survival of the fittest on one hand. On the other hand, science is nowadays moving away from Darwin. There are quite some errors in his calculations, if I remember right.

 

[Forkbender]

Science and Religion. So much has been said.
In my view the ideal-types of both are great, but in practice it is twisted and turned into something horrifying. In religion this is obvious when you see someone preaching doom and gloom from the pulpit, giving people a bad feeling about themselves instead of inspiring them to experience life with complete acceptance. In science you see it in the pretty general idea that only the senses and a certain idea about logic and reasoning are correct. Senses can be developed, as any psychonaut can affirm, logic is a closed system that can be debated as a whole and reasoning is too often too blind because it only follows one type of logic at a time.

 

[????????]

There are quite some errors in his calculations, if I remember right.

well yes, as everything, but the core of his studies is quite correct.

Survival of the fittest

what do you mean by it? if you're using it as a synonym for natural selection, what's wrong with that?

 

[ophiuchus]

(...) as long as one realizes that it is a theory and treats it as such, and therefore doesn't limit themselves to science alone

That's where you are wrong. Science is trying to find out new stuff. It's nothing I have to believe in. Sometimes scientists might be a little narrow minded because they are stuck in their old theories, but real science always tries to explore and ditch old theories in favor of new ones.
There is no "science alone". When I discover new worlds with entheogens, I come up with theories what they mean and how and where the substance got me. That is science. Searching for new stuff and integrating it into your knowledge, without old ballast that cannot be re-written.

And yes, Evolution (for example) is just a theory. But it's a theory that is founded in everything we know today. You got proof that it's wrong? Scientists will ditch the theory and develop a new one based on the new data.
But, staying with that example, Adam & Eve or Noah's ark are not theories. They're stories, fairytales with no other foundation as that people have told these stories for thousands of years and some believed in them.

There is no "let us have our theory and you have yours". Religious stories are not theories, they have no foundation at all.

I have nothing against people who want to believe in old fairytales - but as soon as they start bothering me with these stories, or try to make me look bad or un-moral because I don't believe in the same shit, then I'm getting angry.

how am i wrong? im saying virtually the exact same thing as you...

im just saying as long as one doesn't treat theory as "god", then you're more or less good to go. it's still beneficial to have, not faith, (that was for lack of a better word) but i suppose, um, whatever the opposite is of what christians who dont believe in evolution have, for science. (hope that makes sense)

and when i say 'science alone' i mean in the choices of: A. science B. spirituality, you cant just pick science, you have to pick C., which naturally, is both A. and B.

everything you say, after those points i adressed, is exactly what im trying to convey, (i think) you just mis-interpreted me?

 

[restin]

restin wrote:
There are quite some errors in his calculations, if I remember right.


well yes, as everything, but the core of his studies is quite correct.

restin wrote:
Survival of the fittest


what do you mean by it? if you're using it as a synonym for natural selection, what's wrong with that?

What do you mean? If you mean that the core is that we evolved from apes - probably yes.

Survival of the fittest...it is also often used in social darwinism, that the main drive of humans and animals is to survive. And this is wrong.

 

[Brugmansia]

Survival of the fittest...it is also often used in social darwinism, that the main drive of humans and animals is to survive. And this is wrong.

I disagree, the fittest were originally the men with the strongest physical strength. They could protect women and kids so a woman would combine their genes with a man who could protect the domain of her kids.

Nowadays, nothing has changed, the same game within another system. Physical strength has been replaced by money. Women now recognise a rich man as one who can protect the domain of her forthcoming kids. The body is no longer the leading recognised label for the fittest. More like an individual who possess a domain for safe cultivation and comfort through money.

It's still the same natural behaviour of the human mind, but it's now controlled through other seen objects.

Just for the record, evolution theory says nothing about how life is developed. Don't confuse the evolution theory with micro biology.

The evolution theory is about the universal behaviour of the human mind when it possess life. The beginning of the construct is totally build on the already existing presence of life.

 

[restin]

The women take only the rich? Wrong! This is simply not so. If you only made experience with women who loved your money- then I am sorry for you.

If only the strongest would survive evolution, mankind would have evolved completely differently. It would evolved, as Adolf Hitler dreamed it to be: strong, powerful and everyone the same.

If survival of the fittest exists, how do you explain the circle of life? Why are there still herbivores if their only reason to exist is to supply carnivores wit energy? Why are there producers that are eaten? Why isn't every plant poisonous? Why is there still diversity in nature?

Nature does not follow simple rules as survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is a human rule, not a natural one.

This is a rule that was invented by capitalists that say that people are naturally greedy and we therefore need all to be greedy and do the best to gain most money.