The most dangerous religion in the world needs to be stamped out and now!

[SUBMAN1]

The most dangerous religion in the world has it all - terrorism, fanaticism, you name it, they are completely crazy and it must be stopped now. I'd jump into it, but I'm tired today, so I'll let this article do the talking for me:

-S



Imagine the media reaction if a prominent American Christian leader condoned vandalism at abortion clinics. Now imagine the reaction if he went beyond condoning vandalism and agreed to appear as a witness for the defense at the trial of those vandals.

Then imagine what would happen if he decided to export his religiously motivated crusade to another country.

Well, that’s exactly what just happened, except the religion wasn’t Christianity—it was environmentalism.

Last October, a group of Greenpeace members climbed a chimney at a power plant in Kent, England, and started to paint the words “Gordon Bin It.” The “Gordon” referred to was Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the “it” was a plan to build new coal-fired power plants at the site.

The group argued that they had a “lawful excuse” for their actions: They were trying to prevent even greater damage like “flooding from rising sea levels and damage to species” from man-made global warming.

They were charged with vandalism, and at the trial the star witness for the defense was James Hansen of NASA. That’s right, NASA, an agency of the United States government.

Twenty years ago, Hansen first sounded the alarm over man-made global warming. And as time has passed, his rhetoric has escalated. In June, he called for the CEOs of fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for “crimes against humanity and nature.”

These so-called crimes included spreading doubt about man-made global warming. In other words, disagreeing with Hansen.

At the trial, Hansen said that “somebody needs to stand up and take a leadership role” in the fight against global warming.

Avoiding “disintegration of the ice sheets [and minimizing] species extinction” requires “immediate action” he said—action that included getting rid of coal-firing plants like the one vandalized.

Hansen’s words apparently did the trick because the jury acquitted all six defendants.

Now, reasonable people can differ over the reality of man-made global warming, but it is difficult to see how what happened in Kent met the requirements of a “lawful excuse.” That standard, as the judge told the jurors, requires an “immediate need to protect property belonging to another.” Even the most enthusiastic proponents of man-made global warming acknowledge that their most dire scenarios are decades, if not centuries, away.

What happened in England is further proof of what author Michael Crichton meant when he called modern environmentalism “one of the most powerful religions in the Western World”—a religion that divides the world between “sinner” or “saved,” the “side of salvation” or the “side of doom.”

As if to confirm Crichton’s point, on the same day the Greenpeace members were acquitted, an English city council voted to impose “hefty fines” on people for using the wrong recycling bins.

So what we have here is an appeal to a “higher law”—made by a U.S. government official no less—calling for an inquisition of sorts, and zealous punishment of even the tiniest infraction.

And the media dares to call Christians “fanatics”?

Reasonable people can disagree about global warming or the role of religion in public life. But there’s no excuse—lawful or otherwise—for double standards. Especially with the newest of all religions, environmentalism.http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=9402

[Castout]

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents

[UnderseaLcpl]

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents


You have a point, but you're missing the bigger picture.

If I weren't a Christian, money would be my religion. Everything depends on it. As long as competition is free and the exchange of money that goes with it is paramount. As long as trade is free and the people are adequately represented there is only so much damage that wealthy elite can do.

If you believe that religions are less dangerous than money, I've got some Indulgences I'd like to sell you.;)

[Sailor Steve]

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents
All hype, no substance. It sounds like it came from the back of a chuch guidebook. The most dangerous religion is the one whose members try to force others to their way of thinking. This includes Atheists and Communists (both of whom I've had serious running discussions with, to my everlasting delight and regret), but it also includes Christians. It has been argued that more people have been killed in the name of one God or another than for any other cause. I don't know if that's true, but the evidence is strong enough to make a case.

You say people with no religion cannot stand on any principle. That is a nice catch-phrase, but I challenge you to prove it true. I have very strong principles, and they've mostly come about since I lost my religion. I'm not an athiest, but I am a skeptic, a doubter, and a questioner. And I question the principles of anyone who can preach with as much conviction as you just did.

The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil, but rather the love of money. I'll agree with you that far. Money is like power; it does seem to corrupt.

But what I call dangerous is anyone who is so convinced they're right that even the hint of being wrong can turn them violent. This is where religious wars come from, and that's what I call just plain wrong.

[Hylander_1314]

Religions are actually grand and lofty in ideals.

Religious followers, that's another story.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh, and I didn't mean to get off-topic. Subman1, I agree, fair is fair and vandalism is vandalism. Period.

[kurtz]

Religions are actually grand and lofty in ideals.


Are they?

[Skybird]

I cover Sailor Steve's six.

The claim that "no religion" equals "no principles" is hilarious. As one very strong example, I refer people to studying Confuzianism. It's social order strongly depends on principles and morals, but a religion it is certainly not.

Other examples come to mind, too.

[Bewolf]

I cover Sailor Steve's six.

The claim that "no religion" equals "no principles" is hilarious. As one very strong example, I refer people to studying Confuzianism. It's social order strongly depends on principles and morals, but a religion it is certainly not.

Other examples come to mind, too.
Agreed. It also depends on how you define religion. If religion is defined with the established god based religions, I strongly disagree. Religion is an ideology, just like communism, capitalism, social darwinism and humanism are ideologies you either believe in or not.

I consider myself an enlightend humanist. I do not believe in god, but in the good in ppl. I have very strong believes in morale and social behaviour. I do consider old fashioned religion dangrous. Not because of the values behind it, I respect these and share most of them, but because religion tends to make ppl blind and switch of their brains, just as any ideology does that is embraced too tightly. Ideologies are a safe heaven for those that do not want to be burdened with the contradicting realities of life, but prefer some clear guidelines how to act in the world.

That said, I yet have to find a christian who lives to the principles of Jesus Christ. Unluckily most folks I met and talked about it follow the rather hateful old testament. Eye for an eye and all this nonsense that causes most of the worlds evil.

[mrbeast]

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents

Ironically, Castout you appear display some of the very characteristics that make some people with a religon (theistic or secular) very dangerous. Besides some of your points don't make much sense.

Steve, I agree with much of what you say; Its a lack of moral uncertainty on the part of the follower that is dangerous; the belief in absolute truth or right without at any point questioning their belief system or contemplating the real posibility that they may be wrong, even when elements of their own philosophy sometimes contradict their actions; for example every major religon exhorts its followers not to kill yet this has not prevented countless people being killed in the name of those same religons.

This kind of thinking can be seen in the medieval Christian crusader, in the Islamic suicide bomber, in the Stalinist Commissar or the Nazi Einsatzgruppen to give just a few examples.

BTW Subman, nice to see you using a nice unbiased source for that article. :nope:

I think saying that environmentalism is the most dangerous religon in the world is taking the argument a tad too far, what Greenpeace has done on this occasion is pretty small fry. I don't doubt that there are extremists but how many people have Greenpeace killed so far?

[GlobalExplorer]

Nuts.

[conus00]

The most dangerous religion is having none.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle.

I usually do not react on any political/religion threads but this time I have to pipe in.
Your statement is offensive and borderline stupid.
Besides the fact that you just offended me by indirectly calling me a "person without principle" I disagree with you because WHO ARE YOU to make such a bold statement?
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

@Steve I agree with a vast majority of what you said.

[Morts]

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle.
umm..yeah...whatever makes you feel better

[Wolfehunter]

The most dangerous religion is having none.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 centsThats a load of horse manure. Jezzus you guys are nuts. Always picking on the athiest. Not all athiest practic values. Not all religious groups practice values either. Some people practice it and others don't. Has nothing to do with religion. Has to do with people. Thats all people make it happen or not. Not ghost, goblin, vampire, deities etc make values for us. Just plan old people aka mortals.:nope:

[Fish]

Ehhh...Castout? :rolleyes:

[GlobalExplorer]

The new religion of the industrial time is reason, it is about to sweep away the old cults as Monoteism once did with our pagan wood spirits. There is a violent backlash atm and the vatican tries to turn back the wheel with all their might but such forms of spiritualism that rely on things which are not there have no future.

Subman is on a course to cross the line and turn into a devious fanatic, maybe a fascist soon.

[CCIP]

The new religion of the industrial time is reason, it is about to sweep away the old cults as Monoteism once did with our pagan wood spirits. There is a violent backlash atm and the vatican tries to turn back the wheel with all their might but such forms of spiritualism that rely on things which are not there have no future.


Yes, but what about the fact that modernism (of the industrial time, as you say) along with its notions of reason itself is rapidly dying out in favour of what's increasingly a post-modern society anyway?

[SUBMAN1]

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents You have created some very good opposition to your post, but in actuality, it is the atheists refusing to see reality is what is listed below.

Atheists, no matter how intellectual they like to think of themselves (choke choke...), cannot ignore their hardwired brain. God wired it that way on purpose, but also gave you a choice. Problem is for atheists is how to release that portion of their soul without feeling empty? The religion of environmentalism is the result - fanatics they are. Crazy they are.

This goes along the lines of what you pointed out as well - money as a religion. Trying to fill the void. They would destroy the world to fill this void as well (and they are).

Athiests run around and have no idea how to fill that black part of their soul and in the end, you are seeing the fruits of that rage of craziness with terrorists acts and downright stupidity. Nice.

Welcome to our messed up world, courtesy of our atheists friends.

-S

[CCIP]

I think that void is called a brain. Yes, I agree, having an empty head and marching in line sure makes things a hell of a lot easier.

[SUBMAN1]

I think that void is called a brain. Yes, I agree, having an empty head and marching in line sure makes things a hell of a lot easier.Call it what you want that void (incorrectly obviously), but no one is marching in line last i checked.

-S

[CCIP]

I meant that as a metaphor to conforming to dogma against any critical faculty.

For the record, I'm far from atheist but I certainly have environmental(ist) leanings. What does that say? That I'm polytheistic? :88)

[Sailor Steve]

Call it what you want that void (incorrectly obviously), but no one is marching in line last i checked.

You have created some very good opposition to your post, but in actuality, it is the atheists refusing to see reality is what is listed below.
Accusing others of refusing to see something like "reality" while at the same time refusing to acknowledge any opinion but one's own is the first sign of "marching in line". Maybe you just can't see it.

Atheists, no matter how intellectual they like to think of themselves (choke choke...), cannot ignore their hardwired brain. God wired it that way on purpose, but also gave you a choice. Problem is for atheists is how to release that portion of their soul without feeling empty? The religion of environmentalism is the result - fanatics they are. Crazy they are.
As a Christian I used to adhere to the philosophy "Every one of us has a God-shaped hole in our hearts. As much as we try to fill it with other things, only God will fit." Today, as a questioner and a doubter, I find just as plausible the equal and opposite idea that as rational beings we fear the idea that nothing comes after death, and we create our own need for something greater.

I don't claim to know the answers, and I find myself losing more respect every day for those who do. They could be right, but so could the Muslims who would kill you and me for their faith, and so could the athiests. That absolute, unquestioning certainty to me speaks of an unwillingness to learn, to seek further, and to admit that one could be mistaken.

This goes along the lines of what you pointed out as well - money as a religion. Trying to fill the void. They would destroy the world to fill this void as well (and they are).
This brings up an interesting question: why do so many who profess Christianity do so much to avoid living the life that Jesus himself prescribed? So many of the modern Religious Right love to condemn anyone who disagrees with them, and yet they themselves serve Mammon more than God. They are centered around making enough and having the right toys, and changing the government to support their beliefs and goals, and spend very little time actually trying to bring others to Christ.

Athiests run around and have no idea how to fill that black part of their soul and in the end, you are seeing the fruits of that rage of craziness with terrorists acts and downright stupidity. Nice.

Welcome to our messed up world, courtesy of our atheists friends.
How very narrow of you to condemn the athiest with those words, when much of the craziness and most of the terrorist acts are commited by "faithful" of various orders. I see no more of that kind of activity commited by those who profess no belief than by those of various religions, including Evangelical Christians.

People are people, and there are good people and downright evil people coming from every walk of life, including yours.

And theirs. And mine.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why do religion and logic have to be so irreconcileable?


How can a religious person say that the things we discover through reason and science are not part of some divine plan that is utterly beyond our comprehension?
Would believeing that one could truly understand God not be supremely arrogant?

How can an atheist person explain infinity? Where do the questions stop? Can something really "cease to exist"? How does one explain that life is the only force of perpetual order in a universe dominated by entropy?

Wouldn't it be best for both parties to simply agree that they don't know? Religion certainly has had its' share of nut-jobs, but so has science.

I think the principle issue here is power, both political and social.
Both could easily exsist together given a modicum of tolerance and respect for personal freedom, and yet neither has been innocent of intolerance.

Religion calls the unfaithful heretics, atheists call the religious idiots. Not so different from any other power struggle no?

edit- Damn. Steve beat me to it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Athiests run around and have no idea how to fill that black part of their soul and in the end, you are seeing the fruits of that rage of craziness with terrorists acts and downright stupidity. Nice.

Welcome to our messed up world, courtesy of our atheists friends.


Please, if anyone here is to blame, it's not us Atheists.:roll: Look at all the crap religion has done to the world. I mean it's caused nine crusades, three inquisitions, the Holocaust, hundreds of terrorist attacks, the executions of dozens of science followers and enlightenment figures during the Middle Ages, and political assassinations.

Psalms 14:1 reads:

The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds vile; there is no one who does good.

Here are some corrupt and vile fools:

-Isaac Asimov
-Noam Chomsky
-Francis Crick
-Marie Curie
-Richard Dawkins
-Daniel Dennett
-Stephen Gould
-Massimo Pigliucci
-Steven Pinker
-Karl Popper
-Carl Sagan
-Michael Shermer
-James Watson
-E. O. Wilson

ALL these men and women either denied the existence of God throughout their lives or strongly doubted his existence, which would brand them as fools according to the Bible, and that's just one religious text on the matter. Ever looked at the Quran on Atheism?:-?

I find religion causes more problems than it solves. That is half the reason why I do not believe in God. The other reason is because the claims some of these religions make are just too wacky and are impossible, but the argument you get from religious folks then is always the convenient "God can do ANYTHING!" argument. The other is about who designed God, to which the religious will respond "God needs no designer; he is beyond time and space."

By that logic, it's just as possible that the universe has always existed, in which case there was no need for God to be added to the equation. I think with most people, they become religious because they want answers and a sense of place in the universe. But when you see the bigger picture of things, when you look at how large the universe is, you'll come to understand that Earth is very unimportant. Look at this image:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0611b.jpg

That is a remarkable picture made famous by the Hubble Telescope's deep space photographing expedition. Over 10,000 galaxies can be seen in this picture alone. Some are larger than our own Milky Way; others are tiny. I cannot understand why we feel we are such a big part of it all. Perhaps it's arrogance. Maybe it's ignorance. I think it's a bit of both.

[Frame57]

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents
All hype, no substance. It sounds like it came from the back of a chuch guidebook. The most dangerous religion is the one whose members try to force others to their way of thinking. This includes Atheists and Communists (both of whom I've had serious running discussions with, to my everlasting delight and regret), but it also includes Christians. It has been argued that more people have been killed in the name of one God or another than for any other cause. I don't know if that's true, but the evidence is strong enough to make a case.

You say people with no religion cannot stand on any principle. That is a nice catch-phrase, but I challenge you to prove it true. I have very strong principles, and they've mostly come about since I lost my religion. I'm not an athiest, but I am a skeptic, a doubter, and a questioner. And I question the principles of anyone who can preach with as much conviction as you just did.

The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil, but rather the love of money. I'll agree with you that far. Money is like power; it does seem to corrupt.

But what I call dangerous is anyone who is so convinced they're right that even the hint of being wrong can turn them violent. This is where religious wars come from, and that's what I call just plain wrong.A preacher without conviction is not a preacher...

[Sailor Steve]

A preacher without conviction is not a preacher...
Another nice catch-phrase, but what does that even mean? Are you saying that I have no convictions? I'm glad you know me so well. I'm not trying to preach anything; I just question people who claim to have all the answers but cause more regress than progress.

If we're going to bandy words, here's one from Joseph Joubert: "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

[Rilder]

Hellenic Pagan reportin' in.

[Morts]

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents You have created some very good opposition to your post, but in actuality, it is the atheists refusing to see reality is what is listed below.

Atheists, no matter how intellectual they like to think of themselves (choke choke...), cannot ignore their hardwired brain. God wired it that way on purpose, but also gave you a choice. Problem is for atheists is how to release that portion of their soul without feeling empty? The religion of environmentalism is the result - fanatics they are. Crazy they are.

This goes along the lines of what you pointed out as well - money as a religion. Trying to fill the void. They would destroy the world to fill this void as well (and they are).

Athiests run around and have no idea how to fill that black part of their soul and in the end, you are seeing the fruits of that rage of craziness with terrorists acts and downright stupidity. Nice.

Welcome to our messed up world, courtesy of our atheists friends.

-S
gee, check the news idiot..you will find many more problems caused by religious fanatics than atheists, "us" atheists dont think that there is any honor in dying for a god we dont belive in unlike some christians and muslims:damn:

[Frame57]

A preacher without conviction is not a preacher...
Another nice catch-phrase, but what does that even mean? Are you saying that I have no convictions? I'm glad you know me so well. I'm not trying to preach anything; I just question people who claim to have all the answers but cause more regress than progress.

If we're going to bandy words, here's one from Joseph Joubert: "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."
Being a tad snippy Steve? That was not implied in the least way toward you at all. It was in reponse to you questioning a preacher with conviction...I am saying that I would not listen to one who was not convicted in what he/she was preaching. Most forms of Christian religion are faith based, therefore require conviction especially of those who preach it. the end result of faith is to give hope. We all have an appontment with Digger O' Dell in the future and if one has hope that this is not the end of a pointless life, I think that is a good thing.

[joegrundman]

Hellenic Pagan reportin' in.

Someone at least is holding the candle of civilisation against these new-fangled oriental cults!

[Skybird]

Why do religion and logic have to be so irreconcileable?

Becasue you can'T have both. Believing in a relgion means your reason has to surrender, you do not wish to know - you blindly believe, untested, unchecked, unproven. You submit to simply believe in hear-say, and give up logic and reason. That si the deal.


How can a religious person say that the things we discover through reason and science are not part of some divine plan that is utterly beyond our comprehension?

What need is there to make that assumption? I myself can happily live without depending on finding the ultimate answer to some questions. I can accept to say "I don't know", without seeing a need to invent a joker that i use to raise the illusion to know where i do not know in fact.

And do we discover things and nature as they really are? I say we do not perceive things as they are,. but form our own, selfcreated image inside our mind. Our senses do just fire electric impulses along our nerves and into the brain - there it is where a rythm and intensity of electrical opulses get interporeted as forms, colurs, sounds, smells and tastes. Prove that things really are like your image in your mind! you can't.

You want to assume there is a plan behind it all? that is your assumption. Prove that as well. Evidence, please. Just believing - well, believe what you want. beoueving is not knowing.

And do not answer that I cannot prove that it is not like you say. You are the one trying to sell an invisible car here, not me. The burden of evidence is with you.


Would believeing that one could truly understand God not be supremely arrogant?

Isn't believing that one believes correctly and in the right god - arrogant as well? talking of an invisble car: you never have seen its form and colour, then, you even never drove in it since you do not know where the door is. But you want to advise me on buying it...?


How can an atheist person explain infinity? Where do the questions stop? Can something really "cease to exist"? How does one explain that life is the only force of perpetual order in a universe dominated by entropy?

Entropy is by far no conception undisputed in science. It is a theory, or even a paradigm if you want. Wether or not cosmos in infinite, or not (since it is said it is still expanding, it then could not be infinite at the same time according to our earthly logic), we do not know. It also is of not so much importance for us, since we nevertheless live our lives with all it's ups and downs right here where we are. wether the universe out there really exists, or is just a creation of our mind, we cannot say with all safety. but we can say that things are not like our senses seem to describe them for us. we construct and interpret what reality is to be. Heisenberg: What we see never is nature itself, but nature that is exposed to our way of asking questions about it. Niels Bohr, another giant in the world of physics, said something like that physics do not deal with reality, but with our ways and fashions to give an imagined form to what has no form or has a form we do not know and cannot perceive. In other words: we deal with our own crutches, and thinking models. We need them, because for the human psyche a life in total insecurity and without the assumption that we can influence our future life, is unbearable. we need the illusions to be the masters of our fate, and to have influence over our future, else we become mentally ill, and our psyche suffers. Our personality can break apart from that. Religion is such a crutch, so is parts of science. It's just that science are aware of that, while religion is not. responsible scientists never say they know the truth, and they will stress that all scientific "truth" is theory, is a paradigm which will live for some time, and then changes again. but religion always missionises by proclaiming eternal, never-changing truths - although these never were checked, questioned, critically exmained, analysed. It's "truths" are just to be believed, with reference to old books people had written long time ago, like little kids believe in the good fairy to take care of their teddy-bear.

Wouldn't it be best for both parties to simply agree that they don't know? Religion certainly has had its' share of nut-jobs, but so has science.

As I said, responsible scientists already will do that, and the evidence for them doing so is there, in print. the problem is theistic religions, they will listen to what you say, and then interrupt you and say, "yes, but I BELIEVE different." that is the point where all reason,logic and argument always comes to a sudden death. You cannot debate with religious believers, therefore, it is not in thei code of communication. They BELIEVE. Hell, even buddhism - originally not knowing any deities and gods - showed not to be invulnerabel to this deformation of human mind.


I think the principle issue here is power, both political and social.
Both could easily exsist together given a modicum of tolerance and respect for personal freedom, and yet neither has been innocent of intolerance.

the lion's share of guilt for being intolerant has to be accepted by theistic relgions, no doubt. And by that i mean not only the present, but all history of the past 3000 years.


Religion calls the unfaithful heretics, atheists call the religious idiots. Not so different from any other power struggle no?

It is different, because you claim respect and same eye level for believing stuff that you simply do not know, and cannot make object of analysis and examination. And that is just absurd, because you have nothing of value to offer to justify believing being seen as of same potency as logic and reason. religion is the realm of irrationality. Reason obviously is not. Both could not be more different.

Again, you want selling an invisible car being treated as of same value and respectability like selling a real, visible car that people actually drive with on the street. Guess where I prefer to buy my own car, then!

You want respect for believing? then give us evidence for the object of your belief, simply old-fashioned solid evidence worth the label of "evidence". but then you would not need to believe, but you would KNOW it! It's a hard world, isn't it. :lol:

"I believe man is nothing more than the highly developed form of a bicycle."

A differrence worth to be made, is between "believing", and "trust". believing is hear-say, and erratically making a systematic effort to take something unknown, unchecked and unquestioned as a known truth and then blidnly believe in that, mistaking it for real knowledge. But trust is an empirically justified confidence.



Do not put faith in traditions, even though they
have been accepted for long generations and
in many countries. Do not believe a thing because
many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on
the authority of one or another of the sages of
old, nor on the ground of statements as found
in the books. Never believe anything because
probability is in its favour. Do not believe in
that which you yourselves have imagined,
thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe
nothing merely on the authority of the teachers
or the priests. After examination, believe that
which you have tested for yourself and found
reasonable, which is in conformity with your
well being and that of others.

Kalamas-Sutra

[Biggles]

I think "religion" and "God" shouldn't necessary go into the same category.

While science may prove one thing or another, maybe something divine caused it to happen? Like the Big Bang theory. All that matter suddenly exploding causing this and that, badabing badaboom, universe is here. Religious people say it's God(s) that created it, while science clamed it was a natural thing caused by X and Y....well....I think that maybe it was something divine that caused the thing that caused X and Y etc...

Although I'm not religious, I rather like to argue for their cause. Although I can see ALOT of weird stuff in the Bible and in the Qur'an, (what I read from it anyway) I can always see why people believe it so. Also, a theory that I often point out, is that God(s) are simply too complicated for us to understand. Maybe there is a God/number of Gods, but really, how big are the chances that any of the worlds religions views are the exact correct one.

woah, bit messy text here, bear with me lads, I've had a bad day...

[Sailor Steve]

Being a tad snippy Steve? That was not implied in the least way toward you at all.
Snippy? No, not really. A little defensive maybe.

It was in reponse to you questioning a preacher with conviction...I am saying that I would not listen to one who was not convicted in what he/she was preaching.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but you wrote it as a direct reply to my comments, and without qualification, so I assumed it was aimed at me. 'S what I get for assumin'.

I agree that faith gives a lot of people hope, but rational atheists question whether that hope is based on anything real. I qualify 'rational', because I have know atheists who were as honest as anyone could be, and simply don't believe because they see no reason to, and I have met and seen atheists who were just what vocal public Christians like to claim they all are - a 'godless religion'. Ellen Johnson, publisher of American Atheist magazine, is one of those. To me her writings sound just like the ravings of the worst religious fanatic.

Most atheists, like most people of all stripes, are of the 'live and let live' variety, and it bothers me to see them dismissed or lumped in with the usual small rabble-rousing groups. But, as with all other groups, I firmly believe that 'Freedom of Religion', like all other freedoms, includes the freedom to disagree, or to not believe at all. Once again, Thomas Jefferson, referring to The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which he authored:
...a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821

[Hitman]

Why do religion and logic have to be so irreconcileable?

Becasue you can'T have both. Believing in a relgion means your reason has to surrender, you do not wish to know - you blindly believe, untested, unchecked, unproven. You submit to simply believe in hear-say, and give up logic and reason. That si the deal.


I protest againts that statement :down:

You are talking about the common majoritary forms of religion like christianism, jewish and islam, but those are not the only meanings of the concept "religion". A religion as I understand it is a form of relationship between man and God, where the man tries to accomodate his actions to what he considers is God's will. The problem comes when you try to determine what is God's will, and here we come to the revealed religions, to whose I'm a firm opposer. But you could equally consider as religion any form of cult and relationship with God whose rules or commandments are not revealed but instead deducted through logic and philosophy (ethics, moral).

For example, I'm Deist and hence beliece that an allmighty creator God exists, but I have arrived to that conclusion through reasoning and reading what philosophers like Locke, Hume or Montesquieu (All of them Deists) have argued. And my understanding of what God pretends from us is deducted from natural law (Since I studied laws I'm familiar with that disicipline) and moral. I consider that all a form of "religion", and yet my reasoning has never submitted to any dogma in the process of adopting it.

In my opinion you are confusing the concepts of faith and religion. Faith is where reasoning is meant to surrender and is incompatible with, as both are supposedly in different dimensions of the human -spiritual and intellectual-.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ Skybird

Predictably, you have a mountain of logical arguments against religion, so do I.
And you're right, I can't come up with any real evidence that isn't a series of dubious links between order in the natural world and the existence of a real divine structure.

But don't think I'd ever try to sell you an invisible car. I only ask that you let me enjoy mine:D

Personally, I have a real car and an invisible car, and I enjoy them both, if you take my meaning. :yep: If I choose to be a fool by doing so then I choose to be a fool. What harm is there to anyone in that?

Naturally, we agree that religions should not pursue forcible or even consistent conversion of others. Actually, we agree on a lot of things, but I'll keep my faith. Based on what may be entirely a series of coincidences and misperceptions on my part, it has served me well.

As with all things, I advocate lassiez-faire policy as far as it can be reasonably taken. And that means religous tolerance of atheism and other religions as well.
(note: NOT accomodation, though. We both know the dangers of that.)

So, do you still think religion and atheism are irreconcileable? Or at the least, do you think my views cannot co-exist with your own?

[Frame57]

Being a tad snippy Steve? That was not implied in the least way toward you at all.
Snippy? No, not really. A little defensive maybe.

It was in reponse to you questioning a preacher with conviction...I am saying that I would not listen to one who was not convicted in what he/she was preaching.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but you wrote it as a direct reply to my comments, and without qualification, so I assumed it was aimed at me. 'S what I get for assumin'.

I agree that faith gives a lot of people hope, but rational atheists question whether that hope is based on anything real. I qualify 'rational', because I have know atheists who were as honest as anyone could be, and simply don't believe because they see no reason to, and I have met and seen atheists who were just what vocal public Christians like to claim they all are - a 'godless religion'. Ellen Johnson, publisher of American Atheist magazine, is one of those. To me her writings sound just like the ravings of the worst religious fanatic.

Most atheists, like most people of all stripes, are of the 'live and let live' variety, and it bothers me to see them dismissed or lumped in with the usual small rabble-rousing groups. But, as with all other groups, I firmly believe that 'Freedom of Religion', like all other freedoms, includes the freedom to disagree, or to not believe at all. Once again, Thomas Jefferson, referring to The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which he authored:
...a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821I agree to a great extent with you. Atheist can and do have morals. However, there are those factions that present themselves as amoralists which i think give Atheists a bad rap by and large. The worse offender of this was Anton Lavey, who despised Christians and cited their alleged hypocrisy as the reason he started the Church of Satan. Which he himself denies exists...The premise for him was anything goes...quite simply he was an amoralist who used Christianity to invent a very clever religion to indulge immoral behavior and label it as a religion. Psychologically he was angered at Christianity not because of hypocrisy but because to him they represented a moral structure that he did not like nor did he want to abide by. They were the logical choice to target here in America. The man himself was a hypocrit in that he vaunted Satan to attract a certain demograph of people, but publically and often denied he existed. And no, I am not saying atheist are satanist here. But this represents a group who deny the existance of any deity and simply worship self and desires, to group them all together would indeed be misguided.

[Skybird]

So, do you still think religion and atheism are irreconcileable?
As I recall, you original formulation was "Why do religion and logic have to be so irreconcileable", and yes, I stick to it, reason and logic on the one side and religious belief on the other cannot be had both at the same time.

However, on your compariosn relgion and atheism, I commit myself to the motto formulated by Sailor steve: I have no problem with anyone who does not raise a problem to me. I do not care what kind of colour you have on the walls of your flat - as long as you do not come here and tell me I need to colour my walls the same way.

I also do not care for religions being around as long as they do not try to reform the society I live in according to their religious demands and teachings, but keep for themselves. Unfortunately, in case of certain Christian sects, this is not the case, which is obvious in the US with evangelicals and fundamentalists, and also happens in europe, just not on such an obvious scale. I am not American, but you get the general idea behind me linking this (once again):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

"Keep thy religion to thyself."

[Skybird]

Why do religion and logic have to be so irreconcileable?

Becasue you can'T have both. Believing in a relgion means your reason has to surrender, you do not wish to know -
you blindly believe, untested, unchecked, unproven. You submit to simply believe in hear-say, and give up logic and
reason. That si the deal.


I protest againts that statement

You are talking about the common majoritary forms of religion like christianism, jewish and islam, but those are not
the only meanings of the concept "religion". A religion as I understand it is a form of relationship between man and
God, where the man tries to accomodate his actions to what he considers is God's will. The problem comes when
you try to determine what is God's will, and here we come to the revealed religions, to whose I'm a firm opposer. But
you could equally consider as religion any form of cult and relationship with God whose rules or commandments are
not revealed but instead deducted through logic and philosophy (ethics, moral).

For example, I'm Deist and hence beliece that an allmighty creator God exists, but I have arrived to that conclusion
through reasoning and reading what philosophers like Locke, Hume or Montesquieu (All of them Deists) have
argued. And my understanding of what God pretends from us is deducted from natural law (Since I studied laws I'm
familiar with that disicipline) and moral. I consider that all a form of "religion", and yet my reasoning has never
submitted to any dogma in the process of adopting it.

In my opinion you are confusing the concepts of faith and religion. Faith is where reasoning is meant to surrender
and is incompatible with, as both are supposedly in different dimensions of the human -spiritual and
intellectual-.

You imply that a deity exists. That already is a belief that in no way you can prove, and not a reasonable conclusion or the result of a test by terms of logic and empiry. In other words: you believe.

Protest rejected. ;)

I personally separate spirituality from religion. Spirituality means, in the widest meaning of it, to be self-reflexive, to
realise that there is you and non-you, and to think about and be interested in the relation between both, and the
answers to the questions why we are here, where we come from, where we go, and how much time we have. In this sense, every man is "spiritual", even if he avoides the question by becoming a hedonist or materialist - then this may be his way of
dealing with these existential challenges: active ignorration, and destraction. religion, on the other hand, is an
institutionalised cult that claims to have the answers and in form of a dogma demands not to doubt them but to
believe them, and often a hierarchy of priests and clerics live not bad from regulating the teaching of these to the
people. So, the spiritual man tries to find the answers to his existential questions by his own effort and direct
experience, while religion replaces direct experience with hear-say and keeps you away from experiencing and
learning yourself: it turns you into a dogmatist instead.

Being spiritual and being religious are total contradictions - and according to this I have taught all people and
students I ever had in my meditation courses. I claim that it worked out well that way - many of them had left religions behind
in dissapointment over their dogmatism and "just believing", and then came to me. A mystical experience that you do not make yourself, is no mystical experience, and is of no worth for you. The enlightenment of somebody else is of as much worth for
you like watching somebody else drinking a glass of water when you yourself are thirsty. you are also not helped by reading how water feels, and oainting a precise picture of a glass of water also does not help ypu. you need to drink yourself, and when you are done - you will leave it behind and will not think of it anymore.

Aim for your own direct experience, if you feel you are on the search. But be warned, it canot be done, but the key mnay be not to do yourself so much, but just to let yourself, and not being obsessed with managing your spiritual fate. Other people's answers - including mine! - cannot be of any meaning for you - you are not them. Forget the old books. Ignore the religious dogmas. stop trying to put a second head onto your shoulders - use your own, its right there where it should be and works best. If you pay attention to all this glitter called relgion and practicing and God and belief, you lose time. And you do not know how much time you still have. Possible that your life is over in the next hour. there is only two things you can be certain of: that you will die, and that all that you have is the present moment. The present moment is the
gate to eternity. Whatever there is beside that, you will lose it sooner or later.

From my own rework of the TaoTeKing:

The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner Essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires, means to reach the invisible inside.
Acting with desires, means to stay by the limited outside.
The all-One and the all-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and in name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to true understanding.


Das Wesen, das begriffen werden kann,
Ist nicht das Wesen des Unbegreiflichen.
Die Vorstellung, die gedacht werden kann,
Ist nicht das Abbild des Ewigen.
Namenlos ist das Eine, ist inneres Wesen.
Mit Namen benannt ist die Vielheit, ist äußere Form.
Begehrdenlos lassen heißt das geheime Innere erfahren.
Begehrdenvoll tun heißt dem begrenzten Äußeren verfallen.
Eines und Vieles sind gleichen Ursprungs,
Ungleich nur in der Erscheinung und im Namen.
Ihr Gemeinsames ist das Wunder,
Das Geheimnis dieses Wunders
Ist das Tor allen Verständnisses.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree to a great extent with you. Atheist can and do have morals. However, there are those factions that present themselves as amoralists which i think give Atheists a bad rap by and large.
As is true of any group. I try to avoid extremism in any form, including the mild version of absolutism. If one is right the other has to be wrong, and being forced into the wrong choice worries me more than anything.

Of course I'm faced with the dilemma that that might be a form of absolutism in itself. Sometimes reason is more trouble than it's worth.

[Hitman]

You imply that a deity exists. That already is a belief that in no way you can prove, and not a reasonable conclusion or the result of a test by terms of logic and empiry. In other words: you believe.

Protest rejected. ;)


Nope, I can proof that a Deity exists with logic, like Deschartes and all philosophers I indicated did already. You can question the logic in the reasoning, but you never can say that there is a conceptual jump anywhere, forcing you to "blindly believe" in anything.

So, the spiritual man tries to find the answers to his existential questions by his own effort and direct
experience, while religion replaces direct experience with hear-say and keeps you away from experiencing and
learning yourself: it turns you into a dogmatist instead.


I agree with that only partially. As I said before, you still are confusing faith and religion.

[Skybird]

Nope, I can proof that a Deity exists with logic, like Deschartes and all philosophers I indicated did already.

When you refer to Descartes' ontologic evidence for God, I assume you are also familiar with Kant's and Mersenne's rejection of that attempt. Also Leibnitz argued that Descartes was basing on one basic wrong assumption from the very beginning: that god does exist he took as a given, and on that all his following thoughts are basing on. Descartes from the beginning moves inside a "Zirkelschluß" (circulus virtiosus), and his chain of thoughts thus result in a self-refering logical fallacy. Please - spare me Descartes. If you do not know the rejections by Kant, Mersenne and Leibnitz, there is material easily available on the web.

So, I stick to it, there is no evidence being given that a deity does exist.

You can question the logic in the reasoning, but you never can say that there is a conceptual jump anywhere, forcing you to "blindly believe" in anything.

I can, and I do, wether you like that or not. ;) Religions declare you a heretic if you start to critically analyse the dogma of theirs, for the dogma is what they demand you to believe, with the act of believing declared to be a virtue that is the stronger, the more you resist the temptation to check and analyse it and want to see evidence for the dogma's claims being true. That is the essence of religion. It is a cultic surrogate for direct experience, not a mystic experience itself.

I agree with that only partially. As I said before, you still are confusing faith and religion.

there is a danger that we mistake terms and labels here, so I have checked with the dictionary again, using faith as "Glaube, Gottvertrauen, religiöse Zuversicht", and trust as "Vertrauen" not limited to a purely religious context.

then faith IS part of religion, there is no religion without a faith. As I said before, I differ between sprituality and religion (which is not another form of differing between faith and religion, since spirituality and faith for me are two very different things as you can see from my description of spirituality in one earlier psoting), and even before that I said "a difference worth to be made, is between "believing", and "trust". Believing is hear-say, and erratically making a systematic effort to take something unknown, unchecked and unquestioned as a known truth and then blindly believe in that, mistaking it for real knowledge. But trust is an empirically justified confidence."

the important point to keep in mind about trust is "empirically justified".

When you claim there is a god or a deity, give me evidence for that. If you cannot, enjoy to drive in your invisible car - but not in my garden.

However, all this is nice and well and amusi9ng to kill some time, but it helps neither me nor you nor anyone else to live his life, in the present, and to exist in this precious moment that holds and e,mbraces all and evertyhing that ever was, is and will be. that is why such theological disputes and long volumes of written theology in true Zen tradition do not play a role, and are ignored. It would be of so incredibly much more use if you would be aware of your own breathing right now and understand what this present moment you live in really means. It's the most valuable gem there is - and it is the only one you can ever find, and will ever need. Theological debates - mean nothing.

So drink that damn water yourself, instead of just imagining to do so. If you don't, you'll die by dehydration - no matter how smart a clever Dick you are. Wether you know that it is made of H2O, or not, is unimportant.

P.S., you may be surprised, but I "believe" - if you forgive my little hijacking of that word, that life and world is not by random chance. I have good reason to do so. But that does not mean there is a need to conclude that there is a deity beside me and this world, which created both me and the world, and exsists separate, before, during and after it. Not at all.

[Digital_Trucker]

Sometimes reason is more trouble than it's worth.

Truer words were never said:up:

[Skybird]

Sometimes reason is more trouble than it's worth.

Truer words were never said:up:
Yes indeed. Or even think of religion...!

[Thomen]

Nope, I can proof that a Deity exists with logic, like Deschartes and all philosophers I indicated did already.
When you refer to Descartes' ontologic evidence for God, I assume you are also familiar with Kant's and Mersenne's rejection of that attempt. Also Leibnitz argued that Descartes was basing on one basic wrong assumption from the very beginning: that god does exist he took as a given, and on that all his following thoughts are basing on. Descartes from the beginning moves inside a "Zirkelschluß" (circulus virtiosus), and his chain of thoughts thus result in a self-refering logical fallacy. Please - spare me Descartes. If you do not know the rejections by Kant, Mersenne and Leibnitz, there is material easily available on the web.

So, I stick to it, there is no evidence being given that a deity does exist.

You can question the logic in the reasoning, but you never can say that there is a conceptual jump anywhere, forcing you to "blindly believe" in anything.
I can, and I do, wether you like that or not. ;) Religions declare you a heretic if you start to critically analyse the dogma of theirs, for the dogma is what they demand you to believe, with the act of believing declared to be a virtue that is the stronger, the more you resist the temptation to check and analyse it and want to see evidence for the dogma's claims being true. That is the essence of religion. It is a cultic surrogate for direct experience, not a mystic experience itself.

I agree with that only partially. As I said before, you still are confusing faith and religion.
there is a danger that we mistake terms and labels here, so I have checked with the dictionary again, using faith as "Glaube, Gottvertrauen, religiöse Zuversicht", and trust as "Vertrauen" not limited to a purely religious context.

then faith IS part of religion, there is no religion without a faith. As I said before, I differ between sprituality and religion (which is not another form of differing between faith and religion, since spirituality and faith for me are two very different things as you can see from my description of spirituality in one earlier psoting), and even before that I said "a difference worth to be made, is between "believing", and "trust". Believing is hear-say, and erratically making a systematic effort to take something unknown, unchecked and unquestioned as a known truth and then blindly believe in that, mistaking it for real knowledge. But trust is an empirically justified confidence."

the important point to keep in mind about trust is "empirically justified".

When you claim there is a god or a deity, give me evidence for that. If you cannot, enjoy to drive in your invisible car - but not in my garden.

However, all this is nice and well and amusi9ng to kill some time, but it helps neither me nor you nor anyone else to live his life, in the present, and to exist in this precious moment that holds and e,mbraces all and evertyhing that ever was, is and will be. that is why such theological disputes and long volumes of written theology in true Zen tradition do not play a role, and are ignored. It would be of so incredibly much more use if you would be aware of your own breathing right now and understand what this present moment you live in really means. It's the most valuable gem there is - and it is the only one you can ever find, and will ever need. Theological debates - mean nothing.

So drink that damn water yourself, instead of just imagining to do so. If you don't, you'll die by dehydration - no matter how smart a clever Dick you are. Wether you know that it is made of H2O, or not, is unimportant.

P.S., you may be surprised, but I "believe" - if you forgive my little hijacking of that word, that life and world is not by random chance. I have good reason to do so. But that does not mean there is a need to conclude that there is a deity beside me and this world, which created both me and the world, and exsists separate, before, during and after it. Not at all.

IMO, Science is a form of Religion. So is Atheism. It is all about believe, either based on deity or ideology, indoctrination or education.
Even in the 'informed scientific community', people will be punished and ostracized if they dispute a popular scientific theory (Global Warming, anyone?), similar as it is in Religion, except they wont be burned on a stick anymore.

[Stealth Hunter]

Science relies on evidence and doesn't even comment on the supernatural. Atheism goes against the basic principals of religion. Henceforth, neither is a religion, Thomen.;)

[Digital_Trucker]

Science relies on evidence and doesn't even comment on the supernatural.

Then why are scientists at the LHC looking for the "God particle"? Could it be because it is something that they "believe" to be there but have no proof of?:hmm:

[Stealth Hunter]

It's a codename for a mysterious and important hypothetical particle. It doesn't have anything to do with God. It's just a name...:-? The discovery of this particle, which is basically a component of everything that has mass, would allow us to understand and unravel the mysteries of the universe in ways you could not possibly imagine.

[Digital_Trucker]

It's a codename for a mysterious and important hypothetical particle. It doesn't have anything to do with God. It's just a name...:-?

I know what it is (or might be) and why they are looking for it. You missed the point.


The discovery of this particle, which is basically a component of everything that has mass, would allow us to understand and unravel the mysteries of the universe in ways you could not possibly imagine.

If as they "believe", it exists. Again, you missed the point. I don't need a lecture on what they hope to unravel, just trying to point out that science and religion aren't as different as you might believe.

[joegrundman]

I know what it is (or might be) and why they are looking for it. You missed the point.



you have created a point that isn't there

[Skybird]

IMO, Science is a form of Religion. So is Atheism. It is all about believe, either based on deity or ideology, indoctrination or education.

You throw a lot of things together into one box here. There are certainly stupid scientiists, or arrogant one with a huge ego, but I have already quoted two of the greatest names in physics of the löast cetnury, Heisenberg and Bohr, to show that science, responisbly conducted, knows damn well that subject and object cannot be kept clinically separate and that the the conclusions of scien ce are therefore everchnaging, and temporary - that is what makes them theori9es - instead of the penultimate truth. But there is certainly those types who want to drive home "their" findings with religion-like missionizing, and they are a great a zealot then as religious fanatics. Nevertheless, this is not the essence of science, it is an abuse of science.

Atheism a religion? there are two forms of atheisml the one form says it does not know and does not care wether or not deities exist. the other denies actively that deities exist, therefore some speak of atheism and anti-theism as two things. but one thing it is not: a religion like any of the three desert religions, or a cult with a dogma that is to be belived in in order to make you a member of it.

I think you refer to the fanatism to be seen in relgions at times, see fanatism in science and atheism as well - and then conclude that since all are fanatic at times, all three miust be forms of religion. But that is a deductive fallacy.

Even in the 'informed scientific community', people will be punished and ostracized if they dispute a popular scientific theory (Global Warming, anyone?), similar as it is in Religion, except they wont be burned on a stick anymore.
Let's löeave politics out of here, and the drives pro and contra global wamring have a lot to do with poltiical ideologies from both directions. Again I refer to the last paragraph above. If all things being conducted with varying forms of fanatism shall be religions because of that, then even me eating chocolate at times qualifies for a religion.

Agreed, there is no commonly accepted strict scientific definition of what religion means, but it is widely accepted to usuzally reserve the term for the meaning of relgious wordviews, and not for just anything being done with missionary enthusiasm. If we cannot agree on some basic understanding of terms, than we will use the same names but mean different things, and by that, nobody understands noone anymore and nobody knows what the other means. confussion, that is.

[Skybird]

Science relies on evidence and doesn't even comment on the supernatural.

Then why are scientists at the LHC looking for the "God particle"? Could it be because it is something that they "believe" to be there but have no proof of?:hmm:
They conduct usual scientific working method: they formed a hypothesis, and now testing it.

It is not the first time they try to find the finall, the ultimate, the all-dioscussions-ending value, variable, formula. hawking'S world formula: he meanwhile has given up on that. Descartes world machine, meaning a world where evertyhing is moving inside predefined paths. We also have seen the end of history by Fukojama. the idea of the final, world-explaining wave formula. The linear time arrow poijnting from the past to the future, having defined once and forever how the universe is ticking. Now they are trying to find the ultimate final particle. Well, I am sure they will find something. but it will stay final and ultimate only as long as they haven't found something new some time later.

A relgion here would insist on that its dogma Is the ultimnate truth, and that it cannot chnage since it is devine, and thus must not be examined and checked for correctness and altermnatives. where science thinks is theories and hypothesis, relgion deals in absolutes. It it turns hostile when one is touching them, for it's powerbasis is depending on its claims remaining unchecked, and people being held in a blindly submissive, obedient state. science is as much a relgion as scientology is psychology. Like scientology fights psychology so bitterly because it knows that no other disicipline can expose the real face of scientology's "revelations" with so much competence, so do religions usually not like science, for they know that they do not have the adequate tools to counter reason, logic, and empiry.

[Stealth Hunter]

It's a codename for a mysterious and important hypothetical particle. It doesn't have anything to do with God. It's just a name...:-?

I know what it is (or might be) and why they are looking for it. You missed the point.


The discovery of this particle, which is basically a component of everything that has mass, would allow us to understand and unravel the mysteries of the universe in ways you could not possibly imagine.

If as they "believe", it exists. Again, you missed the point. I don't need a lecture on what they hope to unravel, just trying to point out that science and religion aren't as different as you might believe.

They do not "believe" it exists. Mathematics shows it does exist. They are now trying to observe it.

[Skybird]

This is nice, from Aldous Huxley's "Island": the Raja's Notes on What's What. It is culture-free, so no matter your worldview and religion, you should be able to read it without feeling offended. :lol:

http://island.org/huxley/whatswhat.html

"I" affirms a separate and abiding me-substance; "am" denies the fact that all existence is relationship and change. "I am." Two tiny words, but what an enormity of untruth! The religiously-minded dualist calls homemade spirits from the vasty deep; the nondualist calls the vasty deep into his spirit or, to be more accurate, he finds that the vasty deep is already there

[Digital_Trucker]

Whatever.:D

[Sailor Steve]

IT'S TIME TO SAY SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT THE INTERNET! (That was me raising my voice to be heard above the din.:rotfl: )

Sometimes we are compelled to point out that we've been misunderstood, and that speech is easier to express that writing. I'd like to point out the opposite. If this was taking place in a room or at a convention we'd all be having our private arguments and no one would know what the others were talking about. There are now at least two, and maybe three different conversations going on at the same time in this thread, and I'm having no trouble keeping them separate or following all the lines of argument.

And they have for the most part been civil and reasoned. This is my idea of fun!:sunny:

[Hitman]

When you refer to Descartes' ontologic evidence for God, I assume you are also familiar with Kant's and Mersenne's rejection of that attempt. Also Leibnitz argued that Descartes was basing on one basic wrong assumption from the very beginning: that god does exist he took as a given, and on that all his following thoughts are basing on. Descartes from the beginning moves inside a "Zirkelschluß" (circulus virtiosus), and his chain of thoughts thus result in a self-refering logical fallacy. Please - spare me Descartes. If you do not know the rejections by Kant, Mersenne and Leibnitz, there is material easily available on the web.

So, I stick to it, there is no evidence being given that a deity does exist.


I'm familiar with Kant's critic of that reasoning, who interestingly renounced to provide a reasoning for his belief in God and instead started from there. Hence he went into history for his method, not for his conclusions.

For me Dechartes is one point in the whole reasoning, my main argument is in the doctrine of deism as a philosophy. See below.

When you claim there is a god or a deity, give me evidence for that. If you cannot, enjoy to drive in your invisible car - but not in my garden.


The brief version of deism:

If you are walking through a forest and see a wooden house, what does the logic tell you?

a) Oh, look, pieces of wood falling randomly from the trees have out of pure luck done this construction.

b) Look, someone built a house there (Matter organized intelligently with a purpose).

The whole universe and its order as opposed to random chaos is a good evidence of an intelligent will that organizes matter according to laws and principles that can be infered from empiric observation. Pretending the self-organization of matter into intelligent associations and purposes (As atheists do) is pure and simply ilogical.

Matter organized intelligently and purposedly = Intelligence with power to materialize his will

Nothing to do with faith or religion, but with logics.

However, all this is nice and well and amusi9ng to kill some time, but it helps neither me nor you nor anyone else to live his life, in the present, and to exist in this precious moment that holds and e,mbraces all and evertyhing that ever was, is and will be. that is why such theological disputes and long volumes of written theology in true Zen tradition do not play a role, and are ignored. It would be of so incredibly much more use if you would be aware of your own breathing right now and understand what this present moment you live in really means. It's the most valuable gem there is - and it is the only one you can ever find, and will ever need. Theological debates - mean nothing.


Ah yes, Zen is superior :roll:

The milenarian european tradition of philosophy from the Greeks to nowadays is just a waste of time when opposed to the milenarian culture of Zen. Philosophy does not add or help your life, it only serves to fill volumens of paper. (Yes I know you talked about theology, but I did talk about philosophy, it's not my fault if you switched concepts when replying)

Zen helps you appreciate the value of being here, breathing and understanding the present moment. Philosophy tries to explain it, which is something quite different and can't be compared.

In terms of benefit for you as human, both have their roles. An intelligent human will never pretend to live without questioning where he comes from, where he goes and wether there is a purpose in all of this.


Quote:
You can question the logic in the reasoning, but you never can say that there is a conceptual jump anywhere, forcing you to "blindly believe" in anything.

I can, and I do, wether you like that or not.

You could, you did. And by having done so, you steered away from the path of logic, which was exactly the way to provide the evidence you were asking for. Your critic is now worth zero, as you first requested evidence (logical) and now you refuse to accept logic as way to provide the evidence.

P.S., you may be surprised, but I "believe" - if you forgive my little hijacking of that word, that life and world is not by random chance. I have good reason to do so. But that does not mean there is a need to conclude that there is a deity beside me and this world, which created both me and the world, and exsists separate, before, during and after it. Not at all.

Random <> Voluntary

No intermediate concepts or grey areas :nope:

If the whole universe and existance is not random, then it is intentional.

You are then accepting the existence of an intelligence with power to act, i.e. a will. And then, who else does have that intentionality if it's not a God?

[Skybird]

If you are walking through a forest and see a wooden house, what does the logic tell you?

a) Oh, look, pieces of wood falling randomly from the trees have out of pure luck done this construction.

b) Look, someone built a house there (Matter organized intelligently with a purpose).

Nonsens. right in that situation, it is an act of witnessing or percpetion, and most peopel automazically will judge over what they see.Until here, logic has nothing to do with.

The whole universe and its order as opposed to random chaos is a good evidence of an intelligent will that organizes matter according to laws and principles that can be infered from empiric observation. Pretending the self-organization of matter into intelligent associations and purposes (As atheists do) is pure and simply ilogical.

Neither equals Atheism your extremely shortreaching definition here, nor, is their an argument in what you say. To see structure and order in n ature and nthe universe means nothing than that we have attributed this structure and order into our percpetions, or better the objects of perception that we witness. It is US adding meaning to the observation, and the maning we add to it decides on the attitude in which we meet the world in the future, and by that we already decide on out future percpetions - and those we miss.

However, you need to familiaruze yourself with the work of Maturana and Varela, also Prigogine. All of them are about self-emerging order and matter showing an inherent tendency to organise itself at levels of higher and higher complexity.

the metaphor that you used, if you want to interpret it like you indicated, also would allow another interpretation. It must not be a hint for a foreign deity having created the order that you assume you see and what you see must not be like you see it, it is just inside your head, you know. A bat for example sees something totally different than you, and for the snail slowly moving along both you and the woods and the house and your interpretation are totaly unimportant alltogether. Instead you can conclude that the way in which the treelines were planted and the house was build - you see your own systemtic effort of bringong your own idea of order into the place. In other words: you are the god having created it, the divine quality is youself. Since you are the one judging the objects of your percpetion, and by that reacting to that, you decide on their meaning. In other words: YOU are the ordering principle that you believe to perceive in the place and situation.

Self-realisation as well as insight into the world, and freedom is only to have at the cost of forgetting yourself, overlooking yourself, or in one word: self-transcendence. the more you keep object and subject, monitoring witness and the object of percpetion, separate (the dualistic view of thr world), the more you must conclude that you are separate from the event of you perceiving something, and the more you must conclude that there is another prjnciple, subject, whatever, adding meaning to what you see and that you believe you just discovered. but the more you forget this dualistic separating, and disappear in the process of perception, you must not udge and react anymore, and must not draw lines between subject and object. both fall into one, and the only thing remaining is the process of perception itself. and then YOU have turned out to be the god of the place and time . And that is what is meant by "mystical experience".

you think you see a god in the situation you described? I tell you this: what you see is an idea or a suspicion of what orginally always has been yours, but what you had lost, and keep yourself away from. seen that way, it is a hint, an invitation to win back what already is yours anyway.


Matter organized intelligently and purposedly = Intelligence with power to materialize his will
Nothing to do with faith or religion, but with logics.

Oh no, not at all.

However, all this is nice and well and amusi9ng to kill some time, but it helps neither me nor you nor anyone else to live his life, in the present, and to exist in this precious moment that holds and e,mbraces all and evertyhing that ever was, is and will be. that is why such theological disputes and long volumes of written theology in true Zen tradition do not play a role, and are ignored. It would be of so incredibly much more use if you would be aware of your own breathing right now and understand what this present moment you live in really means. It's the most valuable gem there is - and it is the only one you can ever find, and will ever need. Theological debates - mean nothing.


Ah yes, Zen is superior :roll:

Theological debates like this one just cause knots in your mind, and keep you away from direct experience. You win nothing by doing so, and it makes you insisting on conclusions that are direct result of dualistic thinking. You take that decision, you defend your philosophical chains of pearls - and voila, your mind is occupied by being entangled right in the middle of a fight. You do not see the world around you, then, but you judge what you see, evalaute wether it nis pro on contra your position, and you react in full auto-mode like a trained dog runsa fter the ball. The more you know about these things, the more a clergy you may become, but the less direct experience you have had, or will ever have. It keeps you away from direct experience. Mind is filled by shining light, so leave begind the shadows of your terms and conceptions. Free yourself from everything. thnat Zen is superior, no matter if meant irnically or real, is just a judgement. your judgement. I would recommend to stop judging alltogether. I also think this is the deeper meaning of Jesus' words "don't judge about others, so that you shall not be judged." Also:


[...] the old verse from the Bible “Love your next one like you love yourself!” suddenly gets a very different meaning than just a trivial demand. It does not mean: “Love your next as a separate person that you shall love as much as you love your own isolated ego”, but it means: “Love your next and recognize yourself in him, because there is no distinction between the two of you and because in reality you two are just one and the same!”


The milenarian european tradition of philosophy from the Greeks to nowadays is just a waste of time when opposed to the milenarian culture of Zen. Philosophy does not add or help your life, it only serves to fill volumens of paper. (Yes I know you talked about theology, but I did talk about philosophy, it's not my fault if you switched concepts when replying)

Hairsplitting, since in the context of this duscussion philosophy and theology very mjuch is oine and the same to me. I know the difference in terms, but read again: "in the context of this dicussion", they are not different.

Zen helps you appreciate the value of being here, breathing and understanding the present moment. Philosophy tries to explain it, which is something quite different and can't be compared.

Zen does not help in what you said, breathing, and nunderstanding. Zen is just three letters, a Z and an E and an N - and nothing more. If you want philosophical explanation on it, which already is against it's very essence, then just see this: doing one thing at a time, not two, and be with oyur mind at it, and not have your mind somewhere else while you are still here. I smaile tiem and again when people start wondering and disucssing why meditating people or monks may sit long time on a cushion, and they want to understand it, and what it does. actually, they just sit, and don't do a second thing at the same time. That's all. they could as well do the dish-washing, and if they think that is two different things, than they have not understood correctly what they are doing. An easy phrase i could also use is this: put your heart where your mind is.

Really, you are funny - and you are too clever. no wonder that you stray off into all your philosophical implications, then! Instead of getting more stuff into your head, you should get rid of the things that alreayd crowd that place! ;) See, you may become a well-versed scholar when doing in your way. If there is no hunger in you for more, than offering additional food necessarily will be rejected by you, and maybe you even live a happy life. So why offering it at all? However, if you are hungry, you will start searching for food all by yourself. In both cases I must not do anything, and must not start trying to press your buttons. I just keep on living my life, and when you meet me I say Hello, and when you leave I say Good-bye, and when you mimic what I do, then that is your thing, and if you get motivated for trying your own thing, that is fine, and if you do nothing and just leave, iwell, then have a good voyage. I just do my own thing, and that'S it. wether it serves as an example for others or not, is not important for me. And that is why I usually reply when I get entangled in a discussion like this, and give an answer when I am getting asked, but in principal I neither am interested in such a debate, nor do I consider it to be helpful for me or the other. I have given away almost all books I ever had about buddhism and chan when I was young. ;)


You could, you did. And by having done so, you steered away from the path of logic, which was exactly the way to provide the evidence you were asking for.

Hardly. To be honest, I did not think of "evidence" in the understanding of philospphy, where "evidence" is used as a label for conclusions of logic. that maning of course is possible, but i did not thought abiut that in the first. I just meant evidence in the commonly used practical every-day-understanding of the term. however, of course my demand can also be widened to a logical conlcuions that is convincing as well. It's just that I cannot see your logic to be so logical at all, nor convincing.


Your critic is now worth zero, as you first requested evidence (logical) and now you refuse to accept logic as way to provide the evidence.

You could as well say that while I drank the glass of water and while you imagined to do it yourself, my sensation of the water pouring down my throat and the thirst dissapearing is just an illusion for I do not need to confirm or falsify your imagination of what it feels like, and say that your image of what it should feel like, and my sensation of what it actually feels in reality are not the same.


No intermediate concepts or grey areas :nope:

If the whole universe and existance is not random, then it is intentional.

March on, tin soldier. You must not know about inherently embedded order, dissipative structures, and chaos. Just keep on marching.

You are then accepting the existence of an intelligence with power to act, i.e. a will.

Intelligence must note necessarily express itself in a will. nor is a state of order intelligence. like at several occasions, you take too many preassumptions as solid facts.

And then, who else does have that intentionality if it's not a God?
If it is not god, then only the cosmos itself is left, eh? ;) that includes you and me, btw.

Seen that way, I greet you as a divine colleague- spoken from Buddhy to Buddhy, so to say. ;)

[Hitman]

Neither equals Atheism your extremely shortreaching definition here, nor, is their an argument in what you say.

Oh, I already said that this was the brief version, only for the purpose of this cyberforum discussion. It is obvioulsy not my intention to try to write a whole essay via message boards :doh:

However, you need to familiaruze yourself with the work of Maturana and Varela, also Prigogine. All of them are about self-emerging order and matter showing an inherent tendency to organise itself at levels of higher and higher complexity.


A tendency by matter to organise itself must be explained, and not just observed. Organization is by definition a way of logically ordering anything, impossible to happen without an intelligence guiding the process.

the metaphor that you used, if you want to interpret it like you indicated, also would allow another interpretation. It must not be a hint for a foreign deity having created the order that you assume you see and what you see must not be like you see it, it is just inside your head, you know. A bat for example sees something totally different than you, and for the snail slowly moving along both you and the woods and the house and your interpretation are totaly unimportant alltogether. Instead you can conclude that the way in which the treelines were planted and the house was build - you see your own systemtic effort of bringong your own idea of order into the place.

What a ridiculous simplification of what was just a metaphor. Obviously a bat will not recognize a house as such, but not because of his different perception level, but instead because of his lack of enough intelligence to recognize the work. The example also works inversely: A human can recognize a bird's nest or a bat's nest because he can identify the intelligent work with matter for a purpose.

In other words: you are the god having created it, the divine quality is youself. Since you are the one judging the objects of your percpetion, and by that reacting to that, you decide on their meaning. In other words: YOU are the ordering principle that you believe to perceive in the place and situation.


Nope, you are just recognizing according to your intelligence level the results of the work of an intelligence that is in a different level. You can get a part of it, and another will go unnoticed, but you are not necessarily constructing anything. Instead, you are confrontating an observation with what previous observations and your intelligence have constructed as a logical system in your mind. Come on, I have also readed Schopenhauer :roll:

you think you see a god in the situation you described? I tell you this: what you see is an idea or a suspicion of what orginally always has been yours, but what you had lost, and keep yourself away from. seen that way, it is a hint, an invitation to win back what already is yours anyway.


Here is where the bit of Dechartes comes in: "I have not created myself, therefore someone else has", remember?
The very same fact that you exist -which is undisputable- and keep existing is because you are kept together by something external. Otherwise you would lack the ability to do so. You not only can't create yourself, but you also can't keep yourself existing.

You take that decision, you defend your philosophical chains of pearls - and voila, your mind is occupied by being entangled right in the middle of a fight. You do not see the world around you, then, but you judge what you see, evalaute wether it nis pro on contra your position, and you react in full auto-mode like a trained dog runsa fter the ball. The more you know about these things, the more a clergy you may become, but the less direct experience you have had, or will ever have. It keeps you away from direct experience. Mind is filled by shining light, so leave begind the shadows of your terms and conceptions. Free yourself from everything. thnat Zen is superior, no matter if meant irnically or real, is just a judgement. your judgement. I would recommend to stop judging alltogether

I did not make preconceived decission in order to later search the way to defend them. That's basically what Kant did, but I have tried to find answers differently, hence my adherence to deism as philosophy. I meditated and considered facts, then I recognized those who had reached similar conclusions and agreeded with them. Auto-mode? Ridiculous. This discussion started when I pointed out that not all forms of religion must imply dogma, and here we are many posts later after you reacted as usual with a wall of text and your caustic and condescendent superiority against us poor unillustrated inferior beings :lol: It is enough to make a simplification of any statement to see you inmediately jump and bite hard like a well trained Pit-Bull, not letting the prey go. Even if you stated some messages ago that this discussion lead nowhere. You are so predictable that accusing others to jump in auto-mode on anything is truly ironical.

Really, you are funny - and you are too clever. no wonder that you stray off into all your philosophical imp0lications, then! Instead of getting more stuff into your head, you should get rid of the things that alreayd crowd that place! ;) See, you only may become a well-versed scholar when doing in your way. If there is no hunger in your more, than offering additonal food necessarily will be rejected. So why offering it at all? However, if you are hungry, you will start searhcing for food all by yourself. In both cases I must not do anything, and must not start trying to press your buttons.

Nope, I don't think I'm clever. I just think that I use my intelligence as much as I can to draw my own conclussions and learn in any opportunity I have. From all this discussions I have had with you I have learned many things, and I am now richer in experiences and knowledge. What have you learned from me? Probably nothing. But is it because there is nothing in me that could interest you or because you think your are so superior and far ahead that you see me as inferior?

I just keep on living my life, and when you meet me I say Hello, and when you leave I say Good-bye.


Me too, but I would hope that if we ever meet in reality we could have some beers and a pleasent time. After all, I have always appreciated you and your huge culture and knowledge, even if disagreeing in many points. :up: My mind is open to learn from you or from anyone else. Is yours also?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Cheers to Hitman and Sky for maintaning a civil and fairly organized dialogue. :up:

[Frame57]

They like to shy away from the greatest scientist named Einstein who because of the mathmatical complexities of the universe also arrived at the conclusion that this is no accident...To explain this to the athesistic mind is like the Model A trying to explain Henry Ford.

[mrbeast]

They like to shy away from the greatest scientist named Einstein who because of the mathmatical complexities of the universe also arrived at the conclusion that this is no accident...To explain this to the athesistic mind is like the Model A trying to explain Henry Ford.

Really?

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Frame57, give you 3 guesses who wrote those very words ;)

[Skybird]

Whatever, Hitman. Do what you want, you neither need my blessing, nor must I be interested in or agree with your self-perception.

[CCIP]

They like to shy away from the greatest scientist named Einstein who because of the mathmatical complexities of the universe also arrived at the conclusion that this is no accident...To explain this to the athesistic mind is like the Model A trying to explain Henry Ford.
Really?

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Frame57, give you 3 guesses who wrote those very words ;)

:up:

I've personally been closely on the page with Einstein. I think the lines above do not suggest that Einstein was an atheist - but they certainly recognize that religious dogma is what it is. I don't think the above position is neccesarily an atheistic one - but it definitely has a pretty strong position on creed and dogma. One which I agree with.

[Sailor Steve]

Here is where the bit of Dechartes comes in: "I have not created myself, therefore someone else has", remember?
The very same fact that you exist -which is undisputable- and keep existing is because you are kept together by something external. Otherwise you would lack the ability to do so. You not only can't create yourself, but you also can't keep yourself existing.
A lot of this is outside of my experience and training, but this one point is where I disagree, and where I think Descartes got it wrong. Just because I didn't create myself and don't keep myself from ceasing to exist doesn't mean that I was necessarily created by a rational supreme being, or that your "something external" is anything more than random chance. It could be more, but that doesn't mean it is, or has to be.

I also question those who look at the beauty in nature and say "there must be someone who created this." I think the possibility must be accepted that we see beauty and order because we are a part of them, and may well be conditioned to do so by the mere fact that our minds find wonder in anything we don't understand.

I don't deny the possibility that the opposite is true, and that we are conditioned to see beauty and order by the fact that a creator did indeed make us that way, but I don't think the evidence justifies insisting on that being the case.

[mrbeast]

They like to shy away from the greatest scientist named Einstein who because of the mathmatical complexities of the universe also arrived at the conclusion that this is no accident...To explain this to the athesistic mind is like the Model A trying to explain Henry Ford.
Really?

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
Frame57, give you 3 guesses who wrote those very words ;)

:up:

I've personally been closely on the page with Einstein. I think the lines above do not suggest that Einstein was an atheist - but they certainly recognize that religious dogma is what it is. I don't think the above position is neccesarily an atheistic one - but it definitely has a pretty strong position on creed and dogma. One which I agree with.

Good points there CCIP.

I think Einstein took what you could describe as an Agnostic 'Deist' view of religon at best.

[mrbeast]

Steve, some excellent points there:up:

[Hitman]

Whatever, Hitman. Do what you want, you neither need my blessing, nor must I be interested in or agree with your self-perception

Nor do I pretend that. I just exposed my point of view and my reasons, open to critic and to learn from that critic, but it was never in my mind to try to convince you or get your blessings for anything. Instead I wanted to receive input from others and see if I wanted to modify something.

You are a bit touchy in these matters, you always seem feel as if people are trying to convince you of their ideas. Not my case, I do not pretend that.

The offer to share some beers if we ever meet is still on :up:

[Skybird]

Touchy i am? No, i just see there is a line that better is not to cross.

I had written a reply to your last one, a point by point reply, but then had to read your final paragraphs, and then saw immediately that I wasted my time and immediately lost interest in you for you accuse me of what I perceive in splendid detail in your own position, and you do not want to see that quite some preassumptions you make in advance - then are given by you as the result of a "logic" process that follows after them, basing on them. In german that is called a "Zirkelschluß", i think that is circular argument in English. Also, some of the logic you claim to implement, I see as heavily flawed and erratic, not because of the - necessarily faulty then - outcome, but of the faulty method that leads you to conclusions that are more highly subjective assessements, not logically binding outcomes. You make too many preassumtpions in advance, do not question them anymore - and then bend logic so that it cannot touch them, but instead falls into the predetermined and pre-desired place. that is in principle the same critizism that Kant had against Descartes' "evidence" for God existing.

However, I do not want to fight over this with you, and I have no more interest to continue this debate with you. I said I think you are "too clever", and I meant by that that you are "head-heavy" and allow yourself to get blinded by intellectualism that simply is going beyond it's useful range, and mistakes conclusions and theoretical explanation with immidiate reality and direct experience. I really think that is your weak point. I did not wish to offend you by saying that, it was meant as a good-meant hint. maybe it is because you are a laywer, as i believe I recall, and keeping the focus less on idealistic justice per se and more on the benefitting implementation of the existing and available set of rules to maximise the positive outcome that is possible under the terms of situational Realpolitik is your job. however, too many "logic conclusions" of yours in fact are beliefs, preassumptions, only, and the more you use a network of intellectual labels and methods to defend these, the more you are hindered to become free. You probabaly wonder why I can say that, and why i do, and maybe you even are angry and think i am lecturing you - but it is not the first time I have seen people like you that came to me, in real life, for years, regularly. And many, very many were right like you: hopelessly "kopflastig" (head-heavy), and mistaking intellectual explanation with insight, reality, truth, freedom. Boy, how many books had some of them marked in their biography! but telling them just to sit and do no second thing simultaneously - already was demanded too much. :lol: Always drifting, off, their mind not where they were and what they are doing, gazing back into the past, looking to the horizon of the future, missing the present completely althoiugh only this is real. You said somewhere that an observation must not just be made, but must be explained, and you meant "explained" by what you called logic. By that you implied that the observed event is somewhat unreal if it does not get explained. But this is no courthouse! when you get shot with a poisenous arrow, you must not waste time with finding out who shoot, and from where, and why - and die over these attempts. What you must is to get the arrow out and clean the wound of the poison - and "stante pede". for that you observed the arrow in flight, has been real, and that you have been hit, also is real. No matter if oyu understand the situation, can explain it, and like or dislike it. It is the reality you are part of, and you won't get another one for any reason.

Do what you want. But do not mistake indirect explanation with direct experience - it will not serve you any good, really. Find that damn glass of water yourself, and then drink it. When you did, you know why it is useless to write a book about it in advance. If you don't do it, you will never know how it is - no matter how many books you read or write about drinking glasses of water. Start thinking about how to move on your legs and feet - and you stumble. Simply walk, and you're fine. That is no religion of mine. that is no cult. that is no ideology and no missionising. That simply is the realistic, simple, unhidden, most obvious truth, powerful enough to set you free - and more there is not, never was, and never will be than just this - no matter what books and sages, zealots and messiahs say.

And now Bon Voyage. If I carry on in this talking, I just do damage by hardening your resistance over your things - but since it is your voyage you need to do, not mine, i must not have any interest to assist you in resisting or not resisting - so sail on, as you will.

[Frame57]

They like to shy away from the greatest scientist named Einstein who because of the mathmatical complexities of the universe also arrived at the conclusion that this is no accident...To explain this to the athesistic mind is like the Model A trying to explain Henry Ford.

Really?

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Frame57, give you 3 guesses who wrote those very words ;)The student of history will find he had these views early on, but later in life he changed his view points to say these lines as recorded in "Eintein: His life and Universe".

"God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists..."

"There are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is they quote me for support of such views"

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who still feel the weight of their chains. they are creatures who in their grudge against traditional religion cannot hear the music of the sphere."

He may not have held to his Jewish faith by no means, however he certainy believed in a creator. Enjoy the book I referenced...

[CCIP]

The student of history will find he had these views early on, but later in life he changed his view points to say these lines as recorded in "Eintein: His life and Universe".

"God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists..."

"There are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is they quote me for support of such views"

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who still feel the weight of their chains. they are creatures who in their grudge against traditional religion cannot hear the music of the sphere."

He may not have held to his Jewish faith by no means, however he certainy believed in a creator. Enjoy the book I referenced...

I don't think these contradict each other at all. Nowhere in the first quotes does it say Einstein didn't believe in god - and quite conversely, simply rejects scripture and religious organizations. Nor does he anywhere, in the 2nd set of quotes as above, say anything that reverses his view on this...

[baggygreen]

jeez guys,

you're all missing the point!

Anyone seen men in black?? the answer is in there guys!! right at the end!:rotfl:

In all honesty though, I'm almost convinced that our view of the universe and god and so on is all 100% wrong, no matter who we are or what we believe (yes, I'm aware of the irony in me saying that and subsequently saying I too am wrong:p ). Why? because we simply can't comprehend the enormity of it all. (for example, a universe which takes up absolutely everything but is still expanding - expanding into what, it already IS everything!)

Hell.. for all we know, the universe as we know it is actually inside the nucleus of a single celled organism on a whole other world. That would make us absolutely and completely insignificant. And we can't accept such a thing, its part of human nature.

We will never know, and people will debate ideas and die and those left behind will forever remain none the wiser.

[Sailor Steve]

jeez guys,

you're all missing the point!

Anyone seen men in black?? the answer is in there guys!! right at the end!:rotfl:
I kind of thought I did, but all I remember of it is a flash of light. Was that important? What did I miss?

As to the rest of your statement, I tend to agree. A friend of mine dismissed all the arguments concerning creation and evolution with an observation about his granddaughter's second birthday. He said "She knows exactly when the world began - it began two years ago."

We're locked inside of our own skulls, and everything we see and do is a part of that. No matter how much we empathize, no matter how much we care, no matter how much we love, ultimately the only thing we know for sure is what we ourselves think. I can't even prove that what I did yesterday really happened, and I can't guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow. Based on everything I've learned I think it's safe to assume those conclusions are accurate, but how do I really know?

Kinda scary, huh?

[Skybird]

In the end, whether Einstein believed in a god or not, does not prove anything. It simply was his most private and subjective affair: a belief. It is as much relevant for us as was the colour of his socks.

We know his letter from short before his death, a letter he wrote to a philosopher called Eric Gutkind, and MrBeast has already quoted from it. He leaves no doubt about his religious attitude at the end of his life: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Etc. etc.

This were his conclusions at the end of his life, after he made his life experiences, and viewing back on it all. That it is a complete rejection of the idea of God as described by the established theistic religions, his formulation and wording leaves no dob t of.

Frame simply pictures it wrong when saying this were his views at the beginning of his life. It were his views at the end of his life in fact, 1954, one year before he died.

[Skybird]

jeez guys,

you're all missing the point!

Anyone seen men in black?? the answer is in there guys!! right at the end!:rotfl:
I kind of thought I did, but all I remember of it is a flash of light. Was that important? What did I miss?

As to the rest of your statement, I tend to agree. A friend of mine dismissed all the arguments concerning creation and evolution with an observation about his granddaughter's second birthday. He said "She knows exactly when the world began - it began two years ago."

We're locked inside of our own skulls, and everything we see and do is a part of that. No matter how much we empathize, no matter how much we care, no matter how much we love, ultimately the only thing we know for sure is what we ourselves think. I can't even prove that what I did yesterday really happened, and I can't guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow. Based on everything I've learned I think it's safe to assume those conclusions are accurate, but how do I really know?

Kinda scary, huh?

Right direction Steve, and no, no reason to be scared, really not! Although if I were mean I could drive your terror even to a steeper climax by reminding you that you are made of atoms that almost completely are made of just empty space, in it'S centre probability clouds for tendencies of movements to exist, or not. You are as solid as is the running propeller a solid disc. just that there are no solid blades inside atoms. The term "matter" is a tricky thing to be used in physics. It only makes sense in a certain part of the spectrum of existence - that part our senses are tuned for to form models of in a genetically predetermined way.

All world is music, in that all is waves, vibrations, freqeuncies, ampßlitudes. THAT is the matter we consider to be so solid. the world is sound.

"Absolute reality...?"

Bubbles in space, colours on soap-creamed fragile spheres that are not there, then are there, and then are not there again - the world of living, matter, and things. Outside the bubbles: a void. Insaide each bubble: a void. But is it really a different, separate void inside each bubbles? Or isn't it that it all is just one huge, all-embracing void in which the colourplay of the bubble-spheres unfold? The form may differ, but in the essence there is no difference between a man and a supernova.

This is my amateur translation from the german version of the book, Ken Wilber: Eros, Kosmos, Logos, a chapter where he refers to Ralp Waldo Emerson: Selected Prose and Poetry.

One has called Emerson’s work the intellectual declaration of independence of America. […] And what did this declaration of independence consist of? It is that soul is not bound to any individual, any culture, any tradition, but that it is newly created in every man, because it is beyond anything personal-related, an expression of an ultimate truth, and that it must bow to nothing and nobody in this world of time, location and history. We ‘must be our own light’, there is no other possibility. The soul is the same one soul in everyone of us.
And that sentence that shook all of America was this: ‘All what Adam had, all what Caesar could, all that you have yourself, and can do yourself.’ Why bowing to the heroes of the past, says Emerson, if by that we do nothing else than bowing to our own soul? ‘If they were virtuous, have they used up all virtue, then?’ The magnetic attraction of the great souls consists of nothing else than the calling of our own true self. Why this self-abasement in the face of the past, if it is the same one soul that now, and only now and always again, is shining?

And then Emerson straight out cuts all ropes and commits all man, not only the Americans, to the wonders and dangers of the open sea:
‘Trust yourself: each heart is swinging with this metal string. The magnetic power of all initial/natural acting finds its’ explanation when we ask for the final fundament of this self-confidence. Who is this person we confide in? What is this original, initial self, that you can put your trust in so all-embracing? This questioning leads us to the source and essence of the genius, the virtue, and life itself. In this deep strength, the final fact beyond which no analysis could reach, all things find their common origin.
Because the feeling of being, that in quiet hours raises all by itself, is not any different from things, space, light, time, or from man, it is one with them all, and it emanates from the same source like their life and their being. This is the origin of all acting and thinking. This is the lung of that inspiration that gives wisdom to man. We lay inside the bosom of an untold intelligence, that turns us into the receivers of it’s truth and that makes us to organs of it’s work. Where we find what is just, and where we see what is true, we do not do something by ourselves, but we just clear the path for it’s own bright shining.

The relation of soul to divine spirit is so pure that every bringing-in of helpers means a profanation. It must be like this: that whenever God speaks, he does not reveal only one thing, but communicates all, that His voice fills all world, that from the middle of the present thought He sprinkles light, nature, time and soul – and puts an end to it all, and creates it new again. Whenever a mind is simple-minded and receives divine wisdom, what is of old must fade and die – means, teachers, scriptures, temples fall; it lives now and let’s past and future going up in the present moment. All things become holy by getting touched by it – the single one thing as much as everything else. All things’ fundament melts all single things into their fundament, small, little wonders disappear in the one universal wonder.’ ”


Yes, this sceptic, realistic, evil atheist over here likes Emerson. Three small volumes of his texts rest on my shelves.

[Hitman]

Touchy i am? No, i just see there is a line that better is not to cross.

I had written a reply to your last one, a point by point reply, but then had to read your final paragraphs, and then saw immediately that I wasted my time and immediately lost interest in you for you accuse me of what I perceive in splendid detail in your own position, and you do not want to see that quite some preassumptions you make in advance - then are given by you as the result of a "logic" process that follows after them, basing on them. In german that is called a "Zirkelschluß", i think that is circular argument in English. Also, some of the logic you claim to implement, I see as heavily flawed and erratic, not because of the - necessarily faulty then - outcome, but of the faulty method that leads you to conclusions that are more highly subjective assessements, not logically binding outcomes. You make too many preassumtpions in advance, do not question them anymore - and then bend logic so that it cannot touch them, but instead falls into the predetermined and pre-desired place. that is in principle the same critizism that Kant had against Descartes' "evidence" for God existing.

However, I do not want to fight over this with you, and I have no more interest to continue this debate with you. I said I think you are "too clever", and I meant by that that you are "head-heavy" and allow yourself to get blinded by intellectualism that simply is going beyond it's useful range, and mistakes conclusions and theoretical explanation with immidiate reality and direct experience. I really think that is your weak point. I did not wish to offend you by saying that, it was meant as a good-meant hint. maybe it is because you are a laywer, as i believe I recall, and keeping the focus less on idealistic justice per se and more on the benefitting implementation of the existing and available set of rules to maximise the positive outcome that is possible under the terms of situational Realpolitik is your job. however, too many "logic conclusions" of yours in fact are beliefs, preassumptions, only, and the more you use a network of intellectual labels and methods to defend these, the more you are hindered to become free. You probabaly wonder why I can say that, and why i do, and maybe you even are angry and think i am lecturing you - but it is not the first time I have seen people like you that came to me, in real life, for years, regularly. And many, very many were right like you: hopelessly "kopflastig" (head-heavy), and mistaking intellectual explanation with insight, reality, truth, freedom. Boy, how many books had some of them marked in their biography! but telling them just to sit and do no second thing simultaneously - already was demanded too much. :lol: Always drifting, off, their mind not where they were and what they are doing, gazing back into the past, looking to the horizon of the future, missing the present completely althoiugh only this is real. You said somewhere that an observation must not just be made, but must be explained, and you meant "explained" by what you called logic. By that you implied that the observed event is somewhat unreal if it does not get explained. But this is no courthouse! when you get shot with a poisenous arrow, you must not waste time with finding out who shoot, and from where, and why - and die over these attempts. What you must is to get the arrow out and clean the wound of the poison - and "stante pede". for that you observed the arrow in flight, has been real, and that you have been hit, also is real. No matter if oyu understand the situation, can explain it, and like or dislike it. It is the reality you are part of, and you won't get another one for any reason.

Do what you want. But do not mistake indirect explanation with direct experience - it will not serve you any good, really. Find that damn glass of water yourself, and then drink it. When you did, you know why it is useless to write a book about it in advance. If you don't do it, you will never know how it is - no matter how many books you read or write about drinking glasses of water. Start thinking about how to move on your legs and feet - and you stumble. Simply walk, and you're fine. That is no religion of mine. that is no cult. that is no ideology and no missionising. That simply is the realistic, simple, unhidden, most obvious truth, powerful enough to set you free - and more there is not, never was, and never will be than just this - no matter what books and sages, zealots and messiahs say.

And now Bon Voyage. If I carry on in this talking, I just do damage by hardening your resistance over your things - but since it is your voyage you need to do, not mine, i must not have any interest to assist you in resisting or not resisting - so sail on, as you will.


Oh come on, I know you are right in most of what you say, but I enjoy it much to sometimes wrestle a bit with you :lol:

You don't know to what extent this discussion is for me just a test or exercise of dialectics with a good and illustrated argumentator like you. Something like: "let's make a chess match with Skybird now, here is a chance"

My problem is that you end up taking this too seriously and becoming caustic.

These discussions (or better: dialogues) I have head seriously at school and at the university with teachers and I enjoyed them and learned what I was supposed to learn. Those and not a subsim forum are the places to make them seriously, else you risk dedicating too much time in the wrong environment for something that, like you said, has no definitive answer and in fact has consumed much more books and resources that it was worth it, given the results.

You unmasked well the faults in my reasoning as usual, but I apologize if you took this too seriously.

As a jurist I am used to appreciate and admire the dialectics and reasoning and not just the background, so I enjoy to watch you argue. No harm done :up:

[Frame57]

In the end, whether Einstein believed in a god or not, does not prove anything. It simply was his most private and subjective affair: a belief. It is as much relevant for us as was the colour of his socks.

We know his letter from short before his death, a letter he wrote to a philosopher called Eric Gutkind, and MrBeast has already quoted from it. He leaves no doubt about his religious attitude at the end of his life: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Etc. etc.

This were his conclusions at the end of his life, after he made his life experiences, and viewing back on it all. That it is a complete rejection of the idea of God as described by the established theistic religions, his formulation and wording leaves no dob t of.

Frame simply pictures it wrong when saying this were his views at the beginning of his life. It were his views at the end of his life in fact, 1954, one year before he died.No! Not wrong because i have a bio on his life which has more authority and accuracy than you do by far. He did in fact have atheistic tendencies early on. But as the old saying goes "There are no atheists in fox holes", as he aged and pondered the universe he came to realize there is intellegent design to it, and that is a fact. You should educate yourself before babbling about my insight.

[CCIP]

Also, please cite the biography, if it's so authoritative! It'd be interesting to take a look at the authors' conclusions first-hand...

[Frame57]

Walter Isaacson's "Einstein: His life and universe"

[tschli]

Religion is dangerous in itself, whatever religion you name.

[Frame57]

Religion is dangerous in itself, whatever religion you name.What are you and Skybird room mates. This is typical of the culture in Herr Deutchland I guess. A godless wreck of a counrty IMO that gave the world Adolph Hitler. Or how about another godless wreck of a country that gave us Joe Stalin. I think togther they murdered more people than in all of the crusades.

[Konovalov]

People are dangerous.

[CCIP]

Religion is dangerous in itself, whatever religion you name.What are you and Skybird room mates. This is typical of the culture in Herr Deutchland I guess. A godless wreck of a counrty IMO that gave the world Adolph Hitler. Or how about another godless wreck of a country that gave us Joe Stalin. I think togther they murdered more people than in all of the crusades.

Actually they had a religion, it was called Stalinism. They didn't call it a religion, but in all practical terms that's precisely what it was. The fact that Soviet troops went into assaults yelling "For Motherland! For Stalin!" sort of shows that...

Not that I agree that religion is necessarily evil. There's always the question of definition. Certainly personal spirituality and belief in a force beyond oneself is generally not evil in and of itself, and usually quite the opposite.

[Tchocky]

Yeah Skybird, when are you going to apologise for Hitler!?!!?

[mrbeast]

Religion is dangerous in itself, whatever religion you name.What are you and Skybird room mates. This is typical of the culture in Herr Deutchland I guess. A godless wreck of a counrty IMO that gave the world Adolph Hitler. Or how about another godless wreck of a country that gave us Joe Stalin. I think togther they murdered more people than in all of the crusades.

Actually its Austria you should be turning your wrath upon, Hitler wasn't a German national, but then I wouldn't need to remind you of that would I? ;)

[CCIP]

Yeah Skybird, when are you going to apologise for Hitler!?!!?
And why is Nato supporting Georgia? They still haven't paid for Stalin and Beria :88)

[mrbeast]

Yeah Skybird, when are you going to apologise for Hitler!?!!?
And why is Nato supporting Georgia? They still haven't paid for Stalin and Beria :88)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

LMAO

[DeepIron]

Have peace bro's... Let's not let this thread devolve into something nasty...

[Digital_Trucker]

People are dangerous.

Amen, IMHO

[CCIP]

People are dangerous.
Amen, IMHO

How does that go: "People don't kill people, guns kill people"?

Oh wait :doh:

In fairness I don't think it's right to single out particular factors in violence, 'danger', etc. A lot of things can be taken to extreme, but even more often it's a combination of factors that does the real bad work.

[Skybird]

Oh come on, I know you are right in most of what you say, but I enjoy it much to sometimes wrestle a bit with you :lol:

You don't know to what extent this discussion is for me just a test or exercise of dialectics with a good and illustrated argumentator like you. Something like: "let's make a chess match with Skybird now, here is a chance"

My problem is that you end up taking this too seriously and becoming caustic.

These discussions (or better: dialogues) I have head seriously at school and at the university with teachers and I enjoyed them and learned what I was supposed to learn. Those and not a subsim forum are the places to make them seriously, else you risk dedicating too much time in the wrong environment for something that, like you said, has no definitive answer and in fact has consumed much more books and resources that it was worth it, given the results.

You unmasked well the faults in my reasoning as usual, but I apologize if you took this too seriously.

As a jurist I am used to appreciate and admire the dialectics and reasoning and not just the background, so I enjoy to watch you argue. No harm done :up:

Well, I see, this is a finger-practice in dialectics for you then. Well, but that is not the direction I come from, Hitman. I am neither a fanatic, nor a missionary, but for me these things are a lived reality that I also have trained people in over several years, and 2-3 hundreds of them - that comes with it's own responsibility - and that i took very serious indeed. I say "trained" because somehow i must give it a name, and exporess myself in words, even if they do not show the meaning precisely. In fact it started because I was asked, and then more and more people came - while I just did what I would have done anyway when being alone. Doing dialectics to kill some time is all nice and well, but when the real important thing gets covered by it, then it does damage and distracts people who maybe "are on the search", stumble over it, mistake it for the real deal, and start heading into dead ends and wrong directions.

Let me re-tell a small but very popular Zen story. There was a fraud who had managed to trick some young monks into believeing that he was an enligthened master. He called himself the "master of silence", and his method was never to say anything and let his students answer for him, that way to display his superior knowledge about the "Zen of silence" and that words mean nothing. That way, he became fed, and was given some money, and he became comfortable, and fat, and although he knew nothing about anything, he earned respect and had a high reputation. But one day he was greeted by a foreign monk who recognised him - with all his students scattered around the market place to buy some small things, and he was all alone. And the monk said: "Oh, you are the master of silence, how lucky i am to meet you! Master, allow me to ask you this question: what is buddha-nature?" And the masterof silence did not know what to answer, and desperately started to look to both sides, and to the horizon to see if his students would come back. the monk was satisfied and said: "Ah yes. And tell me, master, what is the dharma?" [the Buddhist teaching]. The master of silence did not know an answer to that as well, and begging heaven and hell for help he looked up to the sky and then down to the ground. And the foreign monk was satisfied and said: "And my last question: what is the sangha?" [community of buddhist followers]. There the master of silence closed his eyes, raised his hands, defeated, and hoped the situation to go over quickly.

Now the monk thanked him for his time, and left. In his home monastery, he told his fellow monks that he had met the famous Zen master of silence, and told them what he experienced: "First I asked him, what the nature of Buddha is. he looked to the east and then to the West and to all horizon, to show that buddha is all around, but cannot be found in just one location. I then asked him, what the dharma is, and he looked first up to the heaven and then down to the earth to show that the truth of the teaching is one whole that cannot be devided and does not differ between the high and the low. And finally i aksed what the sangha is, and he just closed his eyes and raised his hands, to show that the community of buddha'S followers give trustworthy shelter and harbour no matter where you are, and that it blesses your ways and actions, and that you can trust in buddha's blessing blindly, no matter where you are, and no matter who you are, for buddha does not see any difference between rich and poor, young and old."

Now- that is dialectics - and the damage it can do. Hope this helps to understand my Why and How.

[Skybird]

In the end, whether Einstein believed in a god or not, does not prove anything. It simply was his most private and subjective affair: a belief. It is as much relevant for us as was the colour of his socks.

We know his letter from short before his death, a letter he wrote to a philosopher called Eric Gutkind, and MrBeast has already quoted from it. He leaves no doubt about his religious attitude at the end of his life: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Etc. etc.

This were his conclusions at the end of his life, after he made his life experiences, and viewing back on it all. That it is a complete rejection of the idea of God as described by the established theistic religions, his formulation and wording leaves no dob t of.

Frame simply pictures it wrong when saying this were his views at the beginning of his life. It were his views at the end of his life in fact, 1954, one year before he died.No! Not wrong because i have a bio on his life which has more authority and accuracy than you do by far. He did in fact have atheistic tendencies early on. But as the old saying goes "There are no atheists in fox holes", as he aged and pondered the universe he came to realize there is intellegent design to it, and that is a fact. You should educate yourself before babbling about my insight.
Take care you don't dislocate your yaw when opening it so wide. The letter is a reality. It was on auction in London in Spring this year and sold for roughly a quarter of a million Euros, and has been verified to be original, and it dates back to the year of 1954, that is one year before Einstein died. You can easily find it via google in every major news outlet. Amongst others, Richard Dawkins tried to buy it, but lost.

[Skybird]

Yeah Skybird, when are you going to apologise for Hitler!?!!?
:lol: I knew that it was only a question of time until somebody would come again with this demand - but you, Brutus...? :rotfl: They will get you crucified over this! :smug:

Well, Frame will take a timeout for some weeks now, at least on my display of the forum. This stupid polemics about Nazi-Germany i have heared some times too often in recent months and years.

P.S. just noticed that it must be storm season or something - the place on the list gets increasingly crowded. Two names just three months ago - now already eight! :lol: Time to run for moderator! :rotfl:

[UnderseaLcpl]

People are dangerous.

You're a genius:yep: , or maybe I just think so because I agree with you.

[Hitman]

Well, I see, this is a finger-practice in dialectics for you then. Well, but that is not the direction I come from, Hitman. I am neither a fanatic, nor a missionary, but for me these things are a lived reality that I also have trained people in over several years, and 2-3 hundreds of them - that comes with it's own responsibility - and that i took very serious indeed. I say "trained" because somehow i must give it a name, and exporess myself in words, even if they do not show the meaning precisely. In fact it started because I was asked, and then more and more people came - while I just did what I would have done anyway when being alone. Doing dialectics to kill some time is all nice and well, but when the real important thing gets covered by it, then it does damage and distracts people who maybe "are on the search", stumble over it, mistake it for the real deal, and start heading into dead ends and wrong directions.


OK, sorry if someone placed some hopes of learning seriously from such a dialogue, as I said I never thought this is the correct environment to look for that but may be others don't see it.

I had the enormous luck of having a fantastic philosophy teacher at school (11te und 12te Klasse), he had been studying for becoming a catholic priest but then abandoned it because he couldn't stand the dogmas. He had two universitary degrees, laws and philophy and was an incredibly cult man, who also had shown interest for oriental philosophy. In the class we studied the different doctrines and then we had dialogues where one defended one thing and another a different one, while he moderated and added new bits here and there, enough to make us further think and open our minds to new points of view. Sometimes spontaneusly during those discussions someone came up with a new idea and then he smiled and told us: "Very well, you have discovered Kant/Schopenhauer/etc all by yourself". The most important thing he wanted to teach us was that there are no definitive answers to anything, and that most things have already been thought by someone else, as the greeks showed (There have not been many new things since them in fact). I still remember how he put the classic example of why logic is a method reduced and confined to a specific dimension of the ontology, out of which it served no purpose or where his rules were no longer valid:

God is allmighty. But he can't exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore he can't be allmighty and if he exists, he isn't God.

Yet the idea or concept of allmighty God exists, then at least it has an existance, even if as a concept. Therefore it exists somewhere in a dimension or level, but the logic is no longer valid there.

This he did right after we had studied Descartes and were all enthusiasted by the pure rational thinking. We called it the intellectual version of the cold shower :lol: and it was usual from him. Of course some months later we ggot another cold shower against the statement I copied above :lol: and were thrown in another direction or path, but we really enjoyed that way of teaching.

I apologize if, returning to my younger years enthusiasm I have gone too far in this style of discussing, but hopefully any observer has at least been able to darw the same conclussion we drew back at school: There are no definitive answers, and even if there are some, we probably lack the ability or intelligence to discover and understand them.

Therefore: Carpe Diem! (My teacher's motto) :up:


EDIT:

Oh I forgot: I would really like to have had the chance to attend one of those "trainings" of yours. Sounds very interesting :ping:

[Stealth Hunter]

Religion is dangerous in itself, whatever religion you name.What are you and Skybird room mates. This is typical of the culture in Herr Deutchland I guess. A godless wreck of a counrty IMO that gave the world Adolph Hitler. Or how about another godless wreck of a country that gave us Joe Stalin. I think togther they murdered more people than in all of the crusades.

SOTP. Your spelling is atrocious.

Anywho, the Crusades killed so many people that the number has never fully been verified. Over a million people disappeared during the days of the Inquisition and were never heard from again. What became of them is likewise a mystery. Oh, Adolf Hitler was a Roman-Catholic who sent 6 million Jews to their deaths. Stalin was an Agnostic who killed Jews and anyone else who opposed him.

See what I'm getting at?

How many times have you heard a nation say, "GOD IS ON OUR SIDE!"? Now how many times have you heard a nation say, "THERE IS NO GOD! EVEN IF THERE WAS, HE DOESN'T PICK SIDES!"?

That's what I thought. Countless times to the first one and never to the second one.

[Hitman]

Over a million people disappeared during the days of the Inquisition and were never heard from again

An interesting and normally unknown fact about the spanish Inquisition: They sentenced LESS people to death for witchery, herecy and such than the civil courts. In those days, the civil law also punished such offences and ordinary courts, not the Inquisition ones, took the bigger part of executions. In fact, the Inquisition only did a minor number when compared to the civil courts ;)

[Stealth Hunter]

Death tolls are given by historians such as Will Durant, who, in The Reformation (1957), cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808. He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490. Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church gave a number of 8,800 people burned in the 18 years of Torquemada. Matthew White, in reviewing these and other figures, gives a median number of deaths at 32,000, with around 9,000 under Torquemada [1].

R. J. Rummel describes similar figures as realistic, though he cites some historians who give figures of up to 135,000 people killed under Torquemada. This number includes 125,000 asserted to have died in prison due to poor conditions, leaving 10,000 sentenced to death. (Death rates in medieval and early modern prisons were generally very high, thanks in part to inadequate sanitary conditions and a poor diet.) There are no death toll figures available for the massacres of 1391, 1468 or 1473. These numbers will probably never be known.

;)

As an interesting note, the Inquisition was not officially abolished until 1834.:huh:

[Skybird]

Do these numbers only represent official and executed death sentences, or do they include the number of those who died "unintentionally" while being questioned under torture?

[Hitman]

In those numbers you indicate it is not clear if they were executed by the Inquisition or by the civil courts.

Anyway 31,912 people executed from 1480-1808 is about 97 per year, which would match what I already mentioned above. Note that the Inquisition of that period ruled over the whole Empire, including all colonies in South America, Cuba, Philippines and a part of Europe like Flandes, Sicilly, etc.!

I learned that civil courts had done more executions while studying history of spanish laws in my first university year, that was long ago and I can't remember the exact figures (They were in a book I haven't long ago).

Most historians, specially foreign ones (Who are usually interested in highlighting the brutality of the Inquisition) do not differentiate between executions and processes conducted by civil and religious courts, as the offence was exactly the same.

In any case, the practical result is the same: Killed by religious intolerance, directly applied by the church or induced in the civil statement.

EDITED:

Found this link here which explains very well what I had pointed out above:

Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The link: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

[Frame57]

Yeah Skybird, when are you going to apologise for Hitler!?!!?
:lol: I knew that it was only a question of time until somebody would come again with this demand - but you, Brutus...? :rotfl: They will get you crucified over this! :smug:

Well, Frame will take a timeout for some weeks now, at least on my display of the forum. This stupid polemics about Nazi-Germany i have heared some times too often in recent months and years.

P.S. just noticed that it must be storm season or something - the place on the list gets increasingly crowded. Two names just three months ago - now already eight! :lol: Time to run for moderator! :rotfl:Truth hurts! I am sending you a hanky to wipe away your tears...:yep: