Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by colour
"proper" is in the eyes of the beholders.
Too much of anything can be detremental; too much intellectual and not enough mystical can be just as damaging as too much mystical and not enough intellectual.
The perfect social system in my own eyes would be zen with itself, that contradictions are not something to get your panties in a wad over.
that's all fine and dandy for those actually engaged in the research, but for those who merely see the results of that research and accept it as gospel it is still taken on faith. i have never seen a virus, but i accept that diseases may be caused by such critters and are not merely the result of maladjusted bodily humors. i do not fully understand the mechanics involved in the movements of our solar system, but i am willing to believe that the earth rotates around the sun and that the sun probably isn't carried across the sky in a flaming chariot each day. the point is that, for most of us, the "facts" of science are taken on faith and not the product of our direct experience. most of those who blindly follow the "religion" of science have no more personal experience of those "facts" than tose who blindly follow the dogma of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by colour
just because something is not proved doesn't mean it does not exist. this is also another basic tenet of logic. there is no more reason to blind disbelief than there is to blind belief. doubt may be the logical reaction to the outrageous claims of religious doctrine, but outright denial is a leap of faith.Quote:
atheism is pro-logic, pro-reason. we [mankind] have been given no evidence or proof of a higher 'authority.' if you can prove it that's fine. but you can never be called upon to prove a negative - that's a basic law of logic.
I've noticed that pure atheism seems to be the only religion whose dogma includes vehement denial that it is, in fact, a religion.Quote:
just because something is not proved doesn't mean it does not exist. this is also another basic tenet of logic. there is no more reason to blind disbelief than there is to blind belief. doubt may be the logical reaction to the outrageous claims of religious doctrine, but outright denial is a leap of faith.
Which introduces some strange factors. If your belief set is that what you believe is not belief, but something else, doesn't it make it that way, because the only place that it becomes real is within your own mind?
Its funny how many people that were taught religion when they were young end up at a similar conclusion... I laughed at SNS's comment cause I did the same thing, had a constant conversation in my head .... This makes no F*cking sense. I went to a christian, catholic, and episcopalian schools and all brought me to the same conclusion. any organized religion is bad because it has the inherent flaw of human beings. sorry to sound cynical but I find humans as inherently evil and not to be trusted on religious matters. my religion is based on being kind to others and quietly sitting on the fence and awaiting a move by god while everyone else is running around in circles trying to figure it out!
granny, i like this quote and hope you are right. This is usually my largest religious argument. It seems illogical to say the only way to the top of the mountain is something arbitrary like believing in Jesus when there are so many people that seem like better humans but just chose a different path to the top!Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Crow
Well... as reason itself is not a valid judge to choose which religion is the right one, this choice is purely a matter of belief, of "faith".
Reason and logic can not prove nor disprove the existence of God, for example. So nor religious nor atheists can use the reason or the logic to justify the "rightness" of its own choice, cause reason and logic does not prove anything in this case.
And the same goes to the believe that the science holds the "truth" about the universe. Science is based upon assumptions (axioms in math, postulates in physics, etc) that are assumed as being true, and from them, conclusions are drawn with the use of reason and logic. But the reason and logic can not be used to justify the truth of this assumptions, because they are just assumptions, and cannot be derived from anything more basic. Reason and logic are only relationships between things (propositions) assumed true.
And the fact that science supposedly "explains the observed world" does not logically imply that its assumptions are the only right ones, as there is no law that states that one event must have one and only one possible explanation that is "right". In fact, it does not even imply that the assumptions are valid at all. For example, the Ptolemaic epicicles explained very well the planets moviments (for the precision of that times, and even until as recently as the 16th century), even if its assumptions were wrong.
Also, the deep study of the science shows as it knows its own limitations.
The Godels theorem states that there is some propositions in math that CANT be proven true or false, no matter how much logic you use. So, there is a mathematical proof that are things that can NOT be proven or disproven mathematically. And the math is the most rigorous of the sciences... and if even math can not prove everything, why does the not-so-rigorous sciences should? Or how it could?
Thats why there are much scientists (including myself) that believes in other religions besides science. Science being called a "religion" only by the fact one needs to believe that its true, and not by the fact of science believing in supernatural entities or such.
Religion explains what science cannot. The lower the level of science you've got, the more stuff religion is going to have to cover.Quote:
Science attempts to reasonably and logically explain things that religion used to explain.
I was raised a Lutheran. My father was an army chaplain and went on to be the Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the US Army in the 80s. I once went to a catholic middle school. I accidentally went up for communion...very bad. Apparently, I wasn't good enough in the priest's view to receive the holy communion. No matter. All that was BS. Religions are just as prone to being dominated by the ego as any other institution and my religion is Love. Love has no doctrines to adhere to, its non judgmental, it requires no justification, it is free, it is not arrogant or condescending but only giving for giving is receiving. Thanks, Happy.
my religion:
I do believe in "a creator" maybe thats just the karma maybe thats a higher being called "god" or "allah" maybe thats just the energy and soul of the world around us
I kind pick up on any good thing advised by any religion or theory
simply have to agree with snsstealth that official religions have done more harm than good in history... different sides have killed each other in the name of the supposedly same higher being who sent Jesus, Moses and Muhammad, Noah and Abraham
if i am to pick something called a religion, i guess the most matching idea for me will be found here
don Miguel and don Jose Luis Ruiz
i suggest whoever is looking for further information, to listen to "the four agreements" audio, there is a book in the same name... this is what knocked me out of my atheism...
I once made a batch of those communion cookies at home. I like them.
I gave a look at this site and it seems the teachings of this men are very alike the teachings of Don Juan Matus (who was also a nagual and a toltec), as described in Carlos Castanedas books. If you like this subject, im sure you would love Castanedas books... if you didnt read them already... :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingimam