So we laugh at them

[mapuc]

Before I continue I will just say that it's no my intention to mock those who believe.


It's my own opinion


A person believe in UFOs and alien and many people mock or laugh at this person. What I personally can't understand, is that many of these people, go to church and believe all about Hell. For me it is the same.




That's just my opinion.


Markus

[Armistead]

I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me except through rational discussion.

[mapuc]

I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me except through rational discussion.

Same here

Markus

[Skybird]

Wanting to know by self-experiencing the answers to the Why, Where-from, Where-to, How-much-time, is spirituality.

Instead of that just believing something one has been fed, may it be a missionary, a claimed holy book, or one own's parents, is religion, and dogma.

Religious dogma that one believes while keeping in private, keeping to oneself, is an obsession.

The moment religious dogma takes to the public, it stops to be a private obsession only, not to mention being "spiritual", but becomes pure power-politics, no matter whether the majority of public believes the same way, or opposes its views. It's about controlling people and make them obeying.

Educating one's own children in a spiritual manner can only mean to teach them to ask questions and to want experiencing the answers themselves. And only then you can learn about how limited man's reach is to find such answers. For every answer, there opens new questions, it seems. And that holds a lesson in itself. No wisdom without realising how limited knowledge always necessarily is.

For me, science/scientific methodology, and spirituality, are no opposites at all, but share the same sceptical but open mindset. They are two ways towards the same goal, and sooner or later they merge and become just one way, even if you started by following just one of them . Put our heart into just one of them, and you win both.

But science and religion are not only opposites - they are antagonists. Any attempt to find a compromise between them can only mean to erode reason, and scientific mindset - like any compromise between food and poison can only mean to die when eating.

He who believes to know, in reality believes exclusively.

He who knows, must not just believe anymore.

In the end, self-realisation can only be had at the the cost of transcending oneself, forgetting oneself, overlooking oneself. And that is the essence of wisdom, and deep insight.

[Dread Knot]

Before I continue I will just say that it's no my intention to mock those who believe.


It's my own opinion


A person believe in UFOs and alien and many people mock or laugh at this person. What I personally can't understand, is that many of these people, go to church and believe all about Hell. For me it is the same.




That's just my opinion.



I think the primary difference is that most mainstream religions don't seek scientific or investigative legitimacy. Ufology often does. You don't get demands from churches as to whether that strange row of lights over the city last night was a flight of angels, or priests demanding a laboratory study into the feasibility of transubstantiation, or relic hunters demanding a probe to uncover whether the government is hiding pieces of Noah's Ark in a secret hanger in Nevada. It's usually a matter of personal faith.

There are exceptions, like the goofy Creationist Museum, but they tend to be in the minority.

[Wolferz]

Well, you can't spell the words "belief or "believe"" without the lie in the middle of them.:hmmm:

Religion is a man made thing. Not the same as spirituality, yet those who profess to be spiritual tend to want control over everything and everybody. Passing judgement when they have no right to.

I've never seen a UFO so, I won't confirm or deny their existence until one of them lands in my back yard to say howdy.:yeah:

[Skybird]

I've never seen a UFO so, I won't confirm or deny their existence

Wait until you have seen me. :ping:

[Rhodes]

I've seen some UFOs, not Skybird tough, but a few flying objects that I could not identify. They may had been plane, satellites, weather ballons or even a ET ship. But who knows, not me for sure! :D

[Wolferz]

Wait until you have seen me. :ping:

You're not one of those shape shifting lizard folk are you?:O:

[GoldenRivet]

History is filled by folks who believed in a straight line, no tangents, no arcs.

From the earth being flat, to thunder being caused by an angry God-like being.

The arrogance of mankind and the collection of narrow minds; those are the ones worth laughing at. They are the ones chasing antelope with spears while the rest launch men into space and try to go beyond and press mankind onto greater things.

"There are more strange things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy" is one of my favorite quotes of all time.

We know so much as a species, yet we know so little. And nothing is more dangerous than a little knowledge.

How anyone could stare out into the vastness of the night sky and insist on mankind being alone in the universe be it spiritually or physically - transcends arrogance. It combines arrogance and ignorance into some higher form of closed mindedness for which there are no words.

Do i believe in God? Not in the traditional senses as many do... but i do believe that everything was created, possibly by an intelligence... but definitely created... somehow.

Do i believe in extra-terrestrial life?

Yes, life in our universe is as abundant as fish in the sea; its just a much larger ocean virtually incomprehensible in size and depth. That kinda makes the fishing that much harder, but on a long enough time line, we will find something. and when we do find it, it will change everything.

[Armistead]

Religion has never been a private matter, but a way to control culture and people. It's most dangerous form is when religion and politics combine. Man has always done better at genocide when it feels God is on its side. That's why I cringe at people saying we need God back in schools and govt., cause like it or not, that's govt. enforced religion. The goal of all religions are to convert, change and control the masses to a certain belief.

Anyway, here's proof of UFO's for any doubters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjjdELUIg7Q

[u crank]

Religious dogma that one believes while keeping in private, keeping to oneself, is an obsession.

An opinion, valid, but just an opinion. Obsession may be the wrong word.

For me, science/scientific methodology, and spirituality, are no opposites at all, but share the same sceptical but open mindset. They are two ways towards the same goal, and sooner or later they merge and become just one way, even if you started by following just one of them . Put our heart into just one of them, and you win both.

Agree. Completely.

But science and religion are not only opposites - they are antagonists. Any attempt to find a compromise between them can only mean to erode reason, and scientific mindset - like any compromise between food and poison can only mean to die when eating.


Disagree, with certain reservations. Dogmatic religious beliefs are certainly antagonistic but the list of scientists who held/hold religious/spiritual beliefs is extensive. The two fields are not mutually exclusive but rather somewhat different disciplines. Any attempt to explain a scientific theory with purely religious dogma is a mistake. In my opinion. Spirituality on the other hand is a personal quest that basically sets all other opinions aside. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It's too personal for that.

In the end, self-realisation can only be had at the the cost of transcending oneself, forgetting oneself, overlooking oneself. And that is the essence of wisdom, and deep insight.

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
-Max Planck


How anyone could stare out into the vastness of the night sky and insist on mankind being alone in the universe be it spiritually or physically - transcends arrogance. It combines arrogance and ignorance into some higher form of closed mindedness for which there are no words.


Well said. Couldn't agree more.

[TarJak]

Wanting to know by self-experiencing the answers to the Why, Where-from, Where-to, How-much-time, is spirituality.

This is incorrect. What you're describing is philosophy.

Spirituality by definition has to do with a belief in spirits or ghosts though in recent times it's been used to describe all kinds of shamanism and shenanigans.

[mapuc]

Thank you for your answer.

Every one has their own belief whatever it may be.

Many years ago, long before I got my first computer and Internet I read an article about religion and the psychology's influence it had on ancient people and the people today

I can't remember every word from that article I do remember the author saying that if we invented God, hell and everyting else today we would classify it as conspiracy.

Whatever a person believe I respect this. From there I say the same as Armistead.

Markus

[Armistead]

How anyone could stare out into the vastness of the night sky and insist on mankind being alone in the universe be it spiritually or physically - transcends arrogance. It combines arrogance and ignorance into some higher form of closed mindedness for which there are no words.



I wouldn't call it arrogance. When science can't explain something, it has no need to assume the supernatural can explain it better. It waits for answers and proof. That's the way science should work.

[GoldenRivet]

I wouldn't call it arrogance. When science can't explain something, it has no need to assume the supernatural can explain it better. It waits for answers and proof. That's the way science should work.

in the assumption that the universe is an empty void, and we represent the pinnacle of life in the universe. thats where the arrogance comes to play

[Armistead]

in the assumption that the universe is an empty void, and we represent the pinnacle of life in the universe. thats where the arrogance comes to play

But that's how faith works, not science. Science must test and predict, you can't do that with assumptions that something might exist. Certainly science believes there is more, but it simply admits it doesn't know. Right now, all we know is that we are the pinnacle of life in the universe. What evidence or science do you have that shows otherwise?

[GoldenRivet]

muh UFO shows!:haha:

[Armistead]

muh UFO shows!:haha:


Don't know if you saw my old ghost thread, but as much as I jested about it, I still remain baffled because I have no way to explain what I experienced, except some strange pictures that may or may not be something.

The universe is utterly amazing, so much so that science cannot grasp it. I look in the heavens and think there must be something more. Life does seem to hold an amazing complex energy source at its core.

As for God, I was for years a dedicated fundy Baptist, but that evolved over and over. I view my faith as a beautiful house of cards that for years as I asked questions, I had to pull a card here, replace one there....over and over. I tried always to leave the house standing, but one day I pulled one and the house came down. It didn't lead me to unbelief, but became more agnostic.

I spent 1000's of hours of study trying to figure out if God exist, which religion has it right. My biggest problem is if one religion has it right, it basically condemns the mass of humanity for no other reason than the culture they're born into. I have a hard time accepting any religion that condemns failed human beings to any type of torture and claim love....and that somehow it's my fault if I end up there.

I hear many say that religion is different than being spiritual, but I've never been able to separate the two. All spiritual belief stems from religious doctrine that have evolved over and over.

[Skybird]

(on spirituality)

Agree. Completely.

(on religion)

Disagree, with certain reservations. Dogmatic religious beliefs are certainly antagonistic but the list of scientists who held/hold religious/spiritual beliefs is extensive. The two fields are not mutually exclusive but rather somewhat different disciplines. Any attempt to explain a scientific theory with purely religious dogma is a mistake. In my opinion. Spirituality on the other hand is a personal quest that basically sets all other opinions aside. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It's too personal for that.


To me you sound confused there, because you try to work around this difference that I made when keeping spirituality and religion, as terms, and thus end with trying to see religion and science as less mutually exclusive as they are. If using my "definitions" of the terms, as I explained them in order to be able to call two different concepts by a simple name, then you should see that you cannot have it all at the same time. The scientists you refer to, I also divide into two groups. There are those religious scientist, and since they are religious, they try to put faith and belief beside knowledge, reason and scientific methodology - corrupting all the three latter that way. On the other hands, guys like Heisenberg or Einstein in my book are not to be called religious, but sprititual. None of the two believed in simple superstitious explanations, or deities, nevertheless they stood in awe before the universe, realising that there is more to it and to themselves than they could ever know, but wanted to know.

To me, as I explained both terms, spirituality and religiosity are mutually exlcusive. You cannot be relgious AND spritial at the same time. But since we are mortal and sooner or later reaölsie that our time is limited, we start to ask those big questions. Therefore I would say that man is a sportual being by birth adn essenmce, and even cannot escape to be that. I would just hope he would stop trying so hard to be religious. Many people claim that to be a win. To me, it is a loss of a natural, inbuild quality that we have, due to our ability to be intelligent more or less, self-aware, and to reflect about ourselves and the cosmic context we are embedded in, may it be for our better or our worse. The more spirutual you are, the more you are a heretic to relgious dogmas. The more religious and believing you are, the less you want to know yourself by own experience, the less spiritual you are. You cannot be both. Hence my statement that science and spirituality can come together, but not science and religion, and also not religion and spirituality.

Sounds counter-intuitive, because many people do not draw that difference between what I call spiritual and what I call religious, and think of both as just one and the same. But I think that is a mistake, and that difference is vital and utmost important.

For the same reason, I have come to label myself - when I got asked occasionally - not as an atheist, but as a "spiritual atheist". And I knew many anti-religious but nevertheless spiritually-feeling atheists in my life as well. I think the difference I make is less rare and less exotic as it may sound. When doing some voluntary counseling job myself long time ago, I often had to deal with people who also refused dogmas and religion and tradition, nevertheless were sometimes desperate about trying to find a convincing meaning in life again. You know, it can happen that there rises this existential hunger for meaning in man, and when it cannot be tamed, then it can push man into deep desperation, and even clinical depression. Man needs a meaning in life, whatever it may be. For some, religious dogmas are good enough, but for others who dig deeper and are not easily to be satisfied with pre-produced answers, that is not good enough. They want more, and thus they become - necessarily - heretics. That can be good for their soul, but since it is a threat to the cult of their social environment, it also can be bad for their bodies - when they are being dragged to a stake to burn them, that is. Religions are a formidable excuse to turn out the worst in man, and they have a splendid historic record of violence and brutality carried out in their name, they breed supremacism to the outside and submission to the inside of a society, and poison human minds with tunnel-view syndrom, hate and intolerance. But truly spiritual people you will seek in vein in such historic recordings. Selbsterkenntnis just does not serve well as an excuse for trying to submit the outer world.

So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religion separate, therefore, for the first is the natural enemy to disclose the irrationality in the latter - something which the latter never will forgive the first. These two must be enemies, and no way there is that I would want it any different.

[BrucePartington]

in the assumption that the universe is an empty void, and we represent the pinnacle of life in the universe. thats where the arrogance comes to play
Although I might call it "innocent arrogance", stemming from a millennia old notion that we were all that existed. Along with the Earth being flat. All perception induced errors, leading to a tunnelled vision of the world.

As a civilisation, we're finally coming out of the tunnel. The engine has already exited, but some cars are still in the tunnel. And science is the driving force.

(https://www.google.pt/#newwindow=1&q=science+etymology)

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science


1.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms:branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information/facts, area of study, (...)

Origin
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ E547nAAAMJ0lEQVR42u2d+VNU2RmG52/xp+gkmjhqxVQoXCKKAUUQ0RFxQUHEGXBDxVhMCVEbDAzbEGVHR LAVWRQXNjcQRUFZFJFdAUVEBUVZzZv5Kqdu+t5eYFi6m++tW12 nT997tj7Pt9ymm2+evfs6ucc4iec1FQ7Wb9Q3zAnPi/ln/pkTnhfzz/wzJzwv5p/5Z054Xsw/88+c8LyY/6nB/8OWDwuXLNW21nsOByz4mxWVy19+XLl6LR3TZ8ywsXek8sUbD+f +eT5OuN/wdtq0aalX70hb2LT9h/SC0onnxFznRUfs+Sv2a53tHNetdXH1OuBXWNGkY9aoxLwwoxUO Tsts7fAYdeaivE1xmjjcvfZpVNqsWr115+78Rw2K5+NIu1akd7 mSswsxeJzssG6Df8i/S+reaBv5hq0eGTfLmP/J4b+i/bOt/Rq3H/eq80o0XsIluFA8FZzMnjPXYuHi0qZ3xsy/Sc8Lh19g2GaPH8te9NDT7KIKGILbT1p18C+txCy2e/v841iI7tO0VSZk5AJLHSuse7lUv8Sv27SNXqrq6D95Ngu2gPk3 Rv7D4tPCE9U5JdVbdngZyMnipcvDEs7R/jBa/k16XgWPG38/c6aAnw5Mx8lli+EMA7xFVsvI8Y6Uf1jPv1hY6uZf23IVPXv1h5 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 bm0ef/eDx0NFj8NQHzPwn889/J8bz47/+Yf+aE58X8M//MCc+L+Wf+mROeF/PP/DMnPC/m37z45yVgsZh/FovF/LNYLOafxWIx/ywWi/lnsVjMP4vFYv5ZLBbzz2Kxpiz/FRUV+/fvn6zR9/X1Tfz4nZ2d3759O+lzZ5nifjO2bWPa/r+xsXFM3pLR8c+aaurq6uro6Jgq/j85OXnXrl2urq6HDx8eGBhATVtbW1BQ0NatWz09PXNycoQxKys rU6lU8fHxFhYWWKDm5uaAgAB3d/fAwMD29vbxG319fb0OE2D4+FGQj7m0tNTX1/f48eOoRCPXr19H5b59++bMmbN582Y8FddmZmZ6eXm5ubl5e3vX 1NQwJ2bMP7acDhMwHltOsRHFy8eS/5cvX+7du5fKUVFRarUaBQcHh/LychT6+/udnJywEIL/lStXYvfj6dDQkI2NTWtrK/G5cePGceVfmwkY0fgVx4w3Y968eVVVVSh3d3dbW1srxv+dnZ0u Li70Um1tLRaBOTFv/rWZgPHbcvJGxooyrfxXV1cvX768oaFB1GAEsGqKyQz4nz17NkF 4//79iIgIcYKfn9/r1681FnGsVP8/yU3AiMavOGa8GbC4otLDw+PZs2e68/+6ujpEQPJNwzIPwQ+LLSc3AeO05RQb0UvZGMT/oaGhs2bNWrBggb+/P3Z8ZGRkVlaWNv737NlDNeHh4XZ2dm4SYaxypz3mQjg06vErjh lvxqFDh8SZNE1F/k+ePOno6Dh37tz58+dbWloqBiks8xNc9ARsOcVG9FI2Nvf/4FQxXIxp9+7dGnYIwD99+lTwL8ZdXFysUql0B1ET4P9HNH7FMR vIf35+PkKygoKCV69eIeWzsrJi/2+uQrwttpw2fzvmW06xEb2U/Vb+c3JyTpw4QWX0R47O3t6e8hDwtmHDBqn/F+MeHBy0tbXFCZSu4DTkRROf/49o/Ipj1sa/q6sr5V10bUpKSnJyMp4ODw/HxsbK43+W+eX/ivCP35aTNzJWlOny/0ePHt22bdvOnTt9fX3h3Og+ZGBgIADAyJDrKvIP1dTUwGIhJvH 09BT3MCf+/r/h41ccs7Y3Q61WIwQQ9/97e3th6ZG2IQpIT0/38fGJjo5mVMyYfx2Z9jhtOXkjY0UZf/7PYo2A/9HdZjNamTb/DD+L99vU5Z/FYjH/LBaL+WexWMw/i8Vi/lksFvPPYrGYfxaLpYf/1tbWK1eu8NKwprI+f/6sUqkePHigUV9SUnLs2LEvX77U19cXFhZqvNrc3Cz/UzyqxGNubq7efnt7e0NCQpL/X+/eGfqvDqkXxbGJV5l/FkuP6urq0tPTNUAAh/Hx8adPn9Z2VXFxMX17X16JxydPnhjSr/iFj1FIdy/yV/Xw//z587Nnz8IWvnjxApUFBQXnz58/d+5cbW0tndDd3X3jxg3UYND0B88pKSnv37+nVxMTEx8+fEjlO3 fuVFRU8MZimYRu3rwJFDVQT0tLe/z4MfGZkJAwMDCAQODy5ctqtTo1NbWhoQEF2AjFSjx++PChp6fn woULqMcj4FLsF11oVIKjxsZGoAe4hGMHemgzKSkJo2pvbz9z5s zXX7+cgl5obDA6Fy9exFXZ2dkIK+hVTCozMxNQUzu6+Ae6MIH0 M0bgPywsjAjH9GJiYsTI6ItHXV1dKH/8+LG0tJS+tACrgW7QAp2JpaRBsFjGL2xd7HOAJGqA07Vr1x49e gQ+AQVeGhoaAnX0ZdDh4WEE+dHR0YqVKMfGxuIR4QN9g4BaGBw clPf75s0baQ3OREZw+/ZtIhG2g9IB4EbOvL+/H5QBdeqFWgZraIpaqK6uhudHITIyEmxK29HKP1w9WsEEqBL80+ 8ZkWC9MEqcefXqVVFZWVkJ+OH8YXK+/vr9pPLychgnrAhsAdknFsv4hW1P5GdkZMCxkTMDun19ffClnZ2 d2PmIArC9pfsfBgI7X7ESjQDRlpYW6Q0FBM7iy3yi39DQUGnmj 8gafUVERAhLgQF0dHSgUnqjAVEDCKdeaGw4H3YH2Ipz8Kq8HWX +g4KCioqKsATieor/xTkIb3AazoFpEZUIPEA7uXowj1WALYDdwrUwVPfu3eONxTIJwU VfunQJBexw+kFXbHhiNS4uDo/AGJzDC0p/7Ss3N/fu3buKlXCN2P8IH+BEz0tEYYIQgBROWwh9lZSUiKfklQG/lG00i06pFxobKpFrwBAAyba2NnLP8naU+YdtQAEeHiYE0YU2/jX8P0wd2aRbt241NTWRLUB2gKdokOwoi2X8QuZLOSxSdDiw5uZ m5MyUciNsJueJXBhlJLziKkTX8PCKlcAEIIBS+U+GSYXkArBoV KIv8fO+SEkojqab/FSJ2CQwMBCP1AuNTVyOwSApQOSCV+Xt6Ln/R0ZLG/+UhFABrh4tkqVBN4hDyBbAxsAQyK0ai2W0ysrKIoQopE1KSvr0 6RMl0jAHlMYjwoWnRcIrSAkODkZqrVhJqT48MF1OlkX+SaGIMq RCxIG+qAy3mp+fT24VuCFegFuFWYmKiiKXjl5obCjTmFFOSUnB GICqvB09/INeJCEILbTxT/f/iXDp/UxkGmImsAXIT3hXsUxFMTExApWQkBBwS2X4Qnhd+FJYBHK8oAi bHzE/0gT6sEBeiQiazkcB/OMlEAEHLr/5h3Ab3Erzf0TydC1J+gEe4IcFycvLw5AyMjKoFzE2AIsBIMWAL cMJeFX6WYZoh//+j8Uy+WxF/pGhgWL+WSwTU29vr3DmPT09iFYQdDD/LNZUERw+YntE+EhJpHf7Rqr/AFhujICdCCHJAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

[Sailor Steve]

My path closely parallels that of Armistead, from believer to questioning believer to believing questioner to just asking questions, and seeing fewer and fewer answers until I finally see no answers at all. I'm not an atheist, since I don't discount the possibility of a Supreme Creator, but I'm also not an agostic, since that implies by definition the belief that we can never know whether there's a God or not. The most I can assert is that I don't know, and no one has been able to show me that his belief is justified by anything more than his belief. Unlike the assertions of some others, I don't consider myself spiritual at all.

I also agree with Armistead about the question of other life in the universe. If it's arrogant to assert we are alone, it is also unscientific to assert that we are not. I don't discount it, but I also will withold believing we aren't alone until I see some real evidence. Until then, as always, I don't know.

[Armistead]

My path closely parallels that of Armistead, from believer to questioning believer to believing questioner to just asking questions, and seeing fewer and fewer answers until I finally see no answers at all. I'm not an atheist, since I don't discount the possibility of a Supreme Creator, but I'm also not an agostic, since that implies by definition the belief that we can never know whether there's a God or not. The most I can assert is that I don't know, and no one has been able to show me that his belief is justified by anything more than his belief. Unlike the assertions of some others, I don't consider myself spiritual at all.

I also agree with Armistead about the question of other life in the universe. If it's arrogant to assert we are alone, it is also unscientific to assert that we are not. I don't discount it, but I also will withold believing we aren't alone until I see some real evidence. Until then, as always, I don't know.

I use agnostic more as a term, but I agree, I say I don't know. I know many of my christian friends say if I applied myself or had faith there is evidence for the one true God. That's the problem, I have. If God exist and our souls depend on it eternally then I think God would've been so clear with evidence that we could know and make a proper decision as failed human beings. Instead we're left with cultural indoctrination. If all of us were born in Iran, we'd have a a 90% chance of following Islam. Historically religion has done nothing more than separate humanity into fractions that war with each other.

If faith is the key, basically belief without proof, then any religion should be good enough for God. One of the best debates I've watched is Bart Erhman vs. William Lane Craig on Jesus. Craig tried to prove his points that the bible is a correct historical source with numerous witnesses and sources that Christ did miracles and rose from the dead thus it is true. Erhman correctly pointed out several other Gods or religions had numerous witnesses, books and sources that their savior of God did miracles or rose from the dead. Simply, if you applied Lanes logic, then it verified numerous saviors or Gods over history.

I do think faith is a strong force that can be used for good or bad. It certainly gives people hope. Course, if things go wrong then they can rely on it was Gods will or plan for them, that way God is always right or in control. I know a lot of my FB friends always posting about prayer for some of the silliest things. I peod several off when I said I don't pray for stuff or even health. I told them before I would expect God to waste his time on me, I'd prefer he feed the 4 million children that die from starvation every year.

To me, there's nothing more dangerous than the closed indoctrinated mind.

[Dread Knot]

I for one, also think that we are not alone in the universe. There likely are other civilizations out there. I just don't subscribe to the belief that we are currently being visited by any of them.

In the course of 60 years since the first saucer sightings, the UFO "research" movement is no closer to knowing anything about more alien visitations than when they started. In that time, real science has discovered DNA, put a man on the Moon, conquered the atom, gone to the deepest oceans, and revolutionized how we inform ourselves and interact. That is what we can do when we set about to do practical things. When we set about instead to indirectly argue a pet theory for which there is no evidence, we'll do that until he cows come home. Frankly, I think the methods of the UFO research crowd are geared not toward finding an answer, but toward endlessly perpetuating the debate. Why? Because these endless go-arounds are profitable for the UFO authors and lecturers. What about the rank and file? I think most believe because they want to. Most seem to have a lack of faith in mankind or human institutions (who can blame them?) and see aliens as some sort of otherwordly saviors. There are some strong parallels to religion there.

What I find interesting was that in the past one in fifty people carried a camera and today forty out of fifty people carry a camera, we should expect to see more UFO photos today than we did in the past, a lot more (we certainly get to see more photos of things that do exist, things like kittens and fast cars and phone distracted people waking into fountains)... unless of course those things which were being photographed in the past are now easier to identify in the photos and are therefore not reported as UFOs anymore.

[u crank]

To me you sound confused there,

I'm confused alot. :O:

To me, as I explained both terms, spirituality and religiosity are mutually exclusive. You cannot be religious AND spiritual at the same time.

I'm sorry but that is just not true. Of course, your definition of a religious person and mine or anyones for that matter may vary greatly. Perhaps you should start by giving your definition of one. My definition would be a person who seeks to serve both God and his fellow humans without reservation. It is commonly called 'practicing' your religion. In Christianity it is even more sharply defined. Serve God and others even to the detriment of your own well being. I'm not one of those people but I know some. If you had the nerve to ask these people if they considered themselves 'spiritual' I think you would be insulting them.

The more spiritual you are, the more you are a heretic to religious dogmas.

Religious dogma, yes. Religion as a practice and lifestyle, no.

The more religious and believing you are, the less you want to know yourself by own experience, the less spiritual you are.

Not so in the strictest sense. In fact any study of Christianity, and my own experience is the exact opposite. The whole idea is to find out who you are and why you are here. The religious/spiritual quest is based on knowledge, acquired both by learning and experience. The fact is the term 'spiritual' is almost meaningless today. Every rock star, actor and teenage girl claims to be 'spiritual'.

You cannot be both. Hence my statement that science and spirituality can come together,

The world is full of people who believe this and some of them have some very strange beliefs.

but not science and religion

The scientists you refer to, I also divide into two groups. There are those religious scientist, and since they are religious, they try to put faith and belief beside knowledge, reason and scientific methodology - corrupting all the three latter that way.

The scientists I was referring to do not belong in that group. A quick search shows an extensive list of people who had/have faith and do not let that faith interfere with the scientific process. Some have won Nobel prizes in their chosen fields. I know the group you are referring to but I wasn't.

So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religion separate, therefore, for the first is the natural enemy to disclose the irrationality in the latter - something which the latter never will forgive the first.

I would rephrase that ...So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religious dogma separate...,

There is a difference, a huge difference.

[Armistead]

Well, at least UFO research is based on science and logic.

[Sailor Steve]

I for one, also think that we are not alone in the universe. There likely are other civilizations out there.
Why? Based on what evidence?

Well, at least UFO research is based on science and logic.
What science and what logic, exactly?

[Skybird]

Perhaps you should start by giving your definition of one.


But I have. Repeatedly in this thread. Repeatedly in threads over the past years. I must not once again explain what I mean by "religious" and "spiritual", yes?!?!


My definition would be a person who seeks to serve both God and his fellow humans without reservation.That already excludes atheist religions like Buddhism which does not have a conception of a god. It also exlcudes polytheistic religions which believe in more than one god. Not to mention pantheism. "Religion" is not limited to monotheism only. What you mention, is the monotheistic dogma. It's one amongst so many religious dogmas possible.

It is commonly called 'practicing' your religion. In Christianity it is even more sharply defined. Serve God and others even to the detriment of your own well being. I'm not one of those people but I know some. If you had the nerve to ask these people if they considered themselves 'spiritual' I think you would be insulting them. For the x-th time, I gave my defintion of terms like relgion and spiritual, and why I use them in a different way than most people do: to be able to call by two single names two concepts that are mutually exclusively to each other. I explain that once ion a conversation, so that the pother knows what I speak of and refer to when saying "religion" and "spirituality". Read again what I said in this thread, it is not that difficult to understand. Not at all.


Religious dogma, yes. Religion as a practice and lifestyle, no.Religious lifestyle and practice is based on dogma. A spiritual person as I defined it doesnot care neither for religious dogma, nor a stylish life. Regarding the social environment, such a person lives by the golden rule. You do not need religion to define the golden rule. The golden rule is a product of reason, and you can come to its conclusions even if you never received any religious teaching.


Not so in the strictest sense. But certainly and very much so! Again, it bases on the two concepts that I call religion and spirituality, which i have explained before, repeatedly.


In fact any study of Christianity, and my own experience is the exact opposite. The whole idea is to find out who you are and why you are here. The religious/spiritual quest is based on knowledge, acquired both by learning and experience. The fact is the term 'spiritual' is almost meaningless today. Every rock star, actor and teenage girl claims to be 'spiritual'. You either learn by studying theory. In the context of this matter, that would be studying religious dogma. You memorize what others have said and written down. It can or cannot have a relation and value for your real life, but since relgion sevres to cointrol the masses and to secure the power and privilige of the elite, it more or less is an ikagined knowedge that is not so much knpowing something real, but beolieving to know something. And as said earlier already: he who believes to know, in relaity believes esylcuisvely. That is the reaosn why theology and relgion in general , also Islam, should not have a seat in the canon of academic branches at university. At best they are object of historic studies only.

Or you learn by not trusting or not caring or not wanting to learn existing dogma, instesad want to base on what you experience yourself. That can be introspection, that can be meditation, that can be life experience in general. I have been meditation trainer for almost ten years. You can imagine that I got some expoerience about what states of mind and what attitudes are people in when looking for such things, and what walls they often run into. I hd around 200 to 250 trainees in those years. Just one or two of them I am sure broke through to a really deeper understanding of himself, to another (=deeper) awareness and understanding of life and reality. Maybe there was a third person, but I am not certain, when she left, it was too early to predict her path for sure, but I saw a promise in her. the other two were a couple and last thing I heard many years ago was that they now do their own trainings after the returned to America.

To understand spirituality, I remind - once again - of this very famous passage from the Buddhist Kalamas Sutra. It makes a a strict difference between real own experience, and dogmatic belief and unfounded faith. You do not give trust in advance in order to be rewarded with "evidence", that is not trust but unfounded credulousness. You trust because evidence or empiric justification has come first.

From the Kalamas Sutra:
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, accept only that which you have carefully examined and tested tested for yourself, and found it reasonable and to be in conformity with your well being, and that of others.

Combine it with the golden rule: do not upon others as though do not want to be treated by them, and there you are: all moral and ethics you could ever need. Without any religion.


The scientists I was referring to do not belong in that group. A quick search shows an extensive list of people who had/have faith and do not let that faith interfere with the scientific process. Some have won Nobel prizes in their chosen fields. I know the group you are referring to but I wasn't.Once these scientists you mean deal with an object that brings their scientific methodology into conflict with their religious belief, they necessarily either have to decide for the one, or for the other. The ones you mean, either have not touched upon such controversial objects, or they have corrupted reason and logic and necessarily have corrupted scientific standards as well by trying to establish religious superstition beside them, calling it the reconciliation of science and religion. It isn't that, not by a lightyear's distance - it is always the corruption of scientific standards, of reason, of logic.

Sorry, I take no prisoners there. Not a single one.

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe I'll have another drink. :03:

[Skybird]

Why? Based on what evidence?

He said "likely", and so speaks about probability being in his theory's favour. Probability calculations making such statements, base on cosmological models. These models are theories in themselves, sometimes more and sometimes less well-founded. "Evidence" is a probability that is so high that it leaves no doubt, not the smallest one: probability has turned into certainty, into 100.000...% Since he mentions "likely" and thus argues from a position of thinking in probabilities, he must not give you "evidence". What he says is: by current cosmological models, probability is in favour of assuming that we are not alone.



What science and what logic, exactly?Systematically (if the research is done serious) collecting and analysing data and reports on sightings, and trying to find patterns in them that lead to the possibility of formulating theories. Necessarily, always all serious UFO research is and cannot be more than descriptive data collection. Too many die-hard negators and easy-minded wanna-believe-enthusiasts out there who both violate even most profound standards of scientific work process. And that work process curreently can only be limited to observing what reports are given, when, where and in what quantity, and trying to filter out the many that can be explained with natural phenomenons, unserious witnesses, and human technology "interacting" with the clueless observer on the ground. The very low rate of unexplained events is where it becomes interesting, but since we cannot approach and have no access to these events, we currently can only collect their report, store their files, and go into standby mode, refusing to make any further conclusions for or against their causes and origins.

Your attitude of keeping in mind that one does not know anything for sure, proves to be very healthy on UFOs.

[Admiral Halsey]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc8k_D3yYoE/Tw4IyOKMysI/AAAAAAAAAls/awgasVzJMfA/s320/Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

[Dread Knot]

Why? Based on what evidence?


I guess I base it on the best facts we currently have. The basic elements that make up life here are some of the most common elements found in the universe.--Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, (CHON) all the main components of life as we know it, and perhaps Sulfur and Phosphorus which are vital to the functions of terrestrial life. Water, also essential to all terrestrial life, is one of the most common compounds in the universe.

We know that certain complex carbon and CHON compounds form naturally under a wide variety of extreme environments, including in deep space; many of these molecules, found everywhere from certain meteors and comets to distant nebulas and the clouds of gas around newly formed stars, are regarded as the "precursors of life", in that they form the basis for many of the molecular structures common in living things.

Despite having only limited ability to observe extrasolar planets for only the last few years, we have already stumbled across hundreds of worlds, including several that sit in teh so-called "Goldilocks Zone" (not too hot, not too cold) where liquid water might exist on their surfaces-- not to mention the possibility of nonsurface water, like that found inside the ice moons Europa and Enceladus right here in our own solar system.

Life here on Earth, according to fossil records, began almost as soon as it was physically possible, shortly after the crust cooled enough for water to condense on the surface. Therefore we know that it is possible for life to form relatively quickly under certain conditions.

The laws of physics that allowed such complex self-replicating structures to arise on Earth are, to the best of our knowledge, the same throughout the known universe.

For those reasons, I think that life is most likely relatively common nit just in this galaxy, but most galaxies. Of course, when dealing with something the size of the galaxy, let alone trillions of them, "common" is a very relative term. If only one planet in ten thousand exoplanets has life, that's still hundreds of millions of worlds in the Milky Way alone.

As for intelligence and civilization, presumably meaning in this case a human-level capacity for abstract thought and creativity, well, life on Earth managed without us for billions of years, so we know it's not a necessity. The random nature of evolution means that there's no guarantee that a particular world will develop creatures whose brains work anything like ours. So I think that intelligence as we define it may be quite rare. On the other hand, as I said, the UNIVERSE is huge and there's plenty of room for trial-and-error variations to produce something that we might recognize as thinking beings. So it would not surprise me if somewhere out there some alien is wondering if we exist. They may also be in the same boat we are. How the Hell do we cross that incomprehensibly vast void to find out? I guess I base my belief that I don't think aliens are frivolously buzzing Earth on the idea that space travel may be a very difficult engineering proposition with a specific purpose even for an advanced civilization. So visiting us might be akin to diverting a jet liner at 35,000 feet to visit a clan of apes in the jungle canopy below.

This is all speculation of course. But speculation based on something.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, at least UFO research is based on science and logic.

http://www.funniestmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/Funniest_Memes_where-s-your-science-now_19145.jpeg

[u crank]

But I have. Repeatedly in this thread. Repeatedly in threads over the past years. I must not once again explain what I mean by "religious" and "spiritual", yes?!?!

Well thanks. I'll repeat myself as well. You have an opinion. Most people do. I don't agree with yours.

That already excludes atheist religions like Buddhism which does not have a conception of a god. It also exlcudes polytheistic religions which believe in more than one god. Not to mention pantheism. "Religion" is not limited to monotheism only.

I did not intentionally exclude any religious belief. I was simply giving an example and it was one I am familiar with. I hope no one else took offense.

Religious lifestyle and practice is based on dogma.

Sorry, but that is not necessarily true. Not in every case. Not in every religious belief. It appears to only be true in your understanding of it. Perhaps you are not aware of it but not all religious knowledge comes from attending a seminary or being indoctrinated in certain beliefs. People can find things out for themselves. Never has information been more accessible to everybody. Contrary to your belief, some people can think for themselves regardless of the subject.

You either learn by studying theory. In the context of this matter, that would be studying religious dogma. You memorize what others have said and written down.

Oh my. You have missed another obvious possibility. You read what others have said, examine it and then decide what you wish to believe, reject and question. Surely you use this method to form opinions on other subjects. Why can't it work in regards to religious belief? The fact is someone could be an expert on religious beliefs and practices without being a believer. Yes..no?

It can or cannot have a relation and value for your real life, but since religion serves to control the masses and to secure the power and privilege of the elite, it more or less is an imagined knowledge that is not so much knowing something real, but believing to know something.

Again this is your personal view of organized religion. There is some truth to it but it is very slanted and therefore somewhat erroneous. Not every person who is religious falls into this box you have created.

And as said earlier already: he who believes to know, in reality believes exclusively. That is the reason why theology and religion in general , also Islam, should not have a seat in the canon of academic branches at university. At best they are object of historic studies only.

Examples? Modern examples?

Once these scientists you mean deal with an object that brings their scientific methodology into conflict with their religious belief, they necessarily either have to decide for the one, or for the other. The ones you mean, either have not touched upon such controversial objects, or they have corrupted reason and logic and necessarily have corrupted scientific standards as well by trying to establish religious superstition beside them, calling it the reconciliation of science and religion. It isn't that, not by a lightyear's distance - it is always the corruption of scientific standards, of reason, of logic.

And you know this how? Are you friends with them or have had this conversation with them? I would be interested to know how you can make such a sweeping assessment of other peoples minds.

Sorry, I take no prisoners there. Not a single one.

Too bad. I had my hands up.

[Sailor Steve]

What he says is: by current cosmological models, probability is in favour of assuming that we are not alone.
Theories, models and probability are fine, but until some evidence is shown an assumption is still just a guess. We call it an "educated" guess, but it's a guess nonetheless.

Your attitude of keeping in mind that one does not know anything for sure, proves to be very healthy on UFOs.
I think it's also healthy for other life in the universe. As someone once said, "Knowledge someone believes he has is no knowledge, but 100% belief. Knowledge must be not believed, but known." :sunny:

This is all speculation of course. But speculation based on something.
Exactly.

[Aktungbby]

Wait until you have seen me. :ping:

You're not one of those shape shifting lizard folk are you?:O:

Or me BBY!http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120325181147/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/c/c4/William_Blackburn_Gorn_head.jpg/117px-William_Blackburn_Gorn_head.jpg Seriously as in a previous post: yer out there in the boonies; the bush is burnin'; ya got a sudden case of Thirdman Syndrome in some solitary vision quest and suddenly yer Y chromosome related messiah complex (enlightenment?) kicks in! Prresto! get it down in writing (cuniform if possible-it looks better); round up some buddies (12 or so to start) with nothing else big on their agenda; move to Waco or head for Palestine or any promised land of yer choice and bump off anyone not in line with your 'opiate for the masses' as Moses and his inner-circle Levites did to about 3000 'Golden Calf' deviants in the Sinai trek: good 'ol politics mixed with religion as usual...or the first inquisition?. The poor Canaanites came 40 years later.:oops: What's in your Ark Bro?...Got Manna? Fortunately, at age 63, I assume the full monty will be revealed to me... shortly--so no need to bicker in advance.:nope:

[Skybird]

I did not intentionally exclude any religious belief. I was simply giving an example and it was one I am familiar with. I hope no one else took offense.
No, but you did not call it your opinion, but you generalised it by saying it would be your definition.


Sorry, but that is not necessarily true. Not in every case. Not in every religious belief. It appears to only be true in your understanding of it. Perhaps you are not aware of it but not all religious knowledge comes from attending a seminary or being indoctrinated in certain beliefs. People can find things out for themselves. Never has information been more accessible to everybody. Contrary to your belief, some people can think for themselves regardless of the subject.
Religious "knowledge"? That makes only sense when meaning by that a knowledge about historic events and dates and timelines relating to the history of any religion's moving through the ages. Else, religions are established cults you either sign in to, or don't. If you do, you learn their dogma, scripture, rites, cults, beliefs. If you don't, you are a heretic. If you disagree with it in ther hope of changing things, you nevertheless sign in to a cult, a dogma, you just want to change it a little. All this dogmatic stuff does not want and does not like own experience, for you, the beoliever, should not wquestion it, but take it for grnated and blindly believe in it and those who mediate the stuff to you - for their own profane interest.

When you have gained a certain level of self-awareness and life experience, you do not need all that, you must not limit yourself to just believe stuff fed to you by others - you have made experiences, and that has a total different quality of learning, for it is about wining new insights, not about memorising stuff given to you and then taking it systematically for real and for true.

Not for no reason I said (#4):

Wanting to know by self-experiencing the answers to the Why, Where-from, Where-to, How-much-time, is spirituality.

Instead of that just believing something one has been fed, may it be a missionary, a claimed holy book, or one own's parents, is religion, and dogma.

Religious dogma that one believes while keeping in private, keeping to oneself, is an obsession.

The moment religious dogma takes to the public, it stops to be a private obsession only, not to mention being "spiritual", but becomes pure power-politics, no matter whether the majority of public believes the same way, or opposes its views. It's about controlling people and make them obeying.


Oh my. You have missed another obvious possibility. You read what others have said, examine it and then decide what you wish to believe, reject and question. Surely you use this method to form opinions on other subjects. Why can't it work in regards to religious belief? The fact is someone could be an expert on religious beliefs and practices without being a believer. Yes..no?
Because believing is not knowing. I never make choices between two beliefs, at least I try hard not to. Where I do not know, I do not chose between two jokers one of which fills the gap in the knowledge, for believing is not knpolwing. I leave it to admitting that I do not know, and then try to find out. Why should I chose to believing something only? That is for people who cannot bear uncertainty. Which from perspective of my former profession is a valid argument, touching about psycho-hygienic. Most people find it hard to live without a meaning in life. Viktor Frankl, a KZ-survivor and founder of the psychotherapeutic school called "logotherapy", put it this way: "Wer ein Warum zum Leben hat, erträgt fast jedes Wie". - "He who knows a Why for his life, can bear almost any How." Statistcis show that in the death camps, people who lost a sense for all suffering of theirs still being linked to a higher context, were loosing resistance power earlier than those "who nevertheless maintained a trust that there nevertheless is a meaning", they died earlier due to hunger, or diseases. People loosing the feeling that there is meaning int heir life, are prone to drop into deep spritual crisis - and I have dealt with quite some people of this kind, you can believe me - it can become a thing of life and death, really.

So, I perfectly understand the desire of people to know or assume they know "the meaning of life", at least to attribute a meaning to it themselves. It is a vital human drive, I would say, as vital as the need to breath, to eat, or wanting to have sex, although this drive for putting oneself into a cosmological context that declarers that one has a link to the surrounding cosmos and a place in it, can distort or can hide behind many masks, or - very popular - extreme hedonism and materialism. In other words: people try to deal with their mortality by trying to run away.

Does not work.

A placebo works, and has done its job, if it causes the wanted healing effect. Doctors say that up to 70% of modern drugs are basing on placebo functionality. Nevertheless it is a placebo, and the effect is only possible when the subject does not know that it is a placebo, or does not believe that it is a placebo. The placebo has no causal effect on your physical health, it has no effective ingredients, else it would not be called a placebo, but a cure. What is causing the healing effect thus is not the placebo, but the human mind, and what it chooses to believe. And I say not: what it chooses to know, but indeed: what it chooses to believe.

But once you have understand that it is a placebo, there is no way you can go back, it will not work anymore.

As a kid, you believed in Santa Claus, and that the torch is bringing the babies. At one point, your knowledge had grown so much hat you could not fall for that fairy tale anymore. And once you understoot its illusory nature, you never return to it, and could not even if you want: you never believe again in Santa Claus or the storch bringing the babies. You know better.

So it is with a religious person, and a spiritual person. the religious person believes that the trick gets worked when he/she does the correct things, bribe the deity with the right sacrifices or spells, follows the imagined commands, and do things right in general.

But the spiritual person either has never been submitted under that spell, or it simply, for whatever the reason was, has grown beyond it. That person has realised the way religions work, and what the function and real profane nature of all that mumbojumbo is about. It'S a show serving as a placebo for wizardry, since there is no real wizardry. Once you understand that there is no wizardy, and all the ritualised stuff and the canon of scripture and the rules are serving powerpolitical interests of those who rule, you have understoodf that religion is a placebo for wizardry. Because most people would want wizardry to work like they would have wanted as kids that Santa Claus is real and that the magic coffee grinder of the Räuber Hotzenplotz was a real item existing somewhere (a modern German fairy tale story). Once the show is spoiled, it'S spoiled, there is no way going back. You raise and never fall back on your knees again. Well, at least not before priests, monuments, altars or because people expect you to do. You have torn down the veil of Maya. You must not believe something anymore, you know - even if it is only that there is so much you do not know.

He who believes to know - in reality believes exclusively.


Again this is your personal view of organized religion. There is some truth to it but it is very slanted and therefore somewhat erroneous. Not every person who is religious falls into this box you have created.

How often must I reiterate that I use the terms religion and spirituality for just one reason: because it is easier to refer to the concepts I want to differ by giving them a simple name, instead of always having to write a whole paragraph every time I refer to the background context of those two concepts? I'm fully aware that I use both terms differently than people usually do. But i have given the definitions I use, and I explained why I do it. And I think it is a reasonable explanation. At least that is what I was told on not too few occasions. If you do not see that reasonability in why I do it, imagine all text I have written - and then imagine that every time I mentioned religion or spirituality, I had not used those terms, but entered a full complete sub-paragraph explaining what I mean (with "relgion" and "spirituality"). Even myself would find it extremely diffiocult to read my own text then. It would be a mess.

What you have an issue with, is the fact itself: that I dare to question the validity of religous claims and that I dare to doubt that beleif is a form of knowledge based on having found out oneself or having experienced in a context that goes far beyond the explanations given by any religious dogma. In principle, you have an issue with me because from your view of religiosity I am - and do not want to be anything different than - a heretic, and thus: a threat.


Examples? Modern examples?


Examples for what?


And you know this how? Are you friends with them or have had this conversation with them? I would be interested to know how you can make such a sweeping assessment of other peoples minds.
Becasue I have read some of them, heir books and texts about them, also letters they left behind and where they wrote to somebody close to them, a friend, and thus were more personal in what they expressed.

You were the one, btw, starting the generalisation about all those scientists and that they are like you claimed they are. I only put a foot on the break after you kickstarted the car and dissappeared in cloud of dust.

I could also refer to the famous last letter by Einstein that to the great annoyance of theist believers leaves little doubt on that he did not believe in God, while nevertheless holding an attitude that by my explained terminology would be not that of being religious, but of being spiritual. There were one or two threads in this forum some years ago where this was discussed.


Too bad. I had my hands up.
No, you had not, but actively defended - whether you realised that or not - that the beliefs of religion should be put on same eye level beside ratio and logic and the scientific methodology, as if religious hear-say and believing in unproven and unprovable claims would be en par with it. That is like teaching and studying astronomy or homoepathy at university (well, the latter can be done at one German university since this month - a shame).

And that is where I indeed do not accept any comproimse, for a comprimjse between food and poison, as I said, necessarily leads to poisoned food and the death of the person eating it. I do not accept religious mumbo-jumbo eroding and devaluing scinetifc basic principles for the purpose of misunderstood tolerance, coexistence or reconciliation. Where religion and science/ratio/logic collide, religion has to step back. This, and not the other way around.

[Skybird]

Theories, models and probability are fine, but until some evidence is shown an assumption is still just a guess. We call it an "educated" guess, but it's a guess nonetheless.

An empirically founded assumption is more than a wild guess out of the blue. However, the nature of the scientific process is that it never gives total, absolute knowledge, but always is trying to replace inferior or to bolster existing theories, which become paradigms maybe, and then feed back on the way we try to win new observation data. And yes, science is subjective, it is us poutting our observations into systematic orders and patterns that we have designed ourselves - though we design these schemes for the reason to help us to make better use of the potential in the world around us, to minimise contradictions in our theoretic answers, and in general to help us widening our insight into the universe. Total objectivity towards the universe is not possible for us - as long as we are part of it. The most famous expression of that fundamental truth is Heisenberg'S uncertainty principle.

As Paul Watzlawick has put it in just a slightly different context: Die Realität wird von uns weniger gefunden als vielmehr erfunden. - "We rather invent than discover reality".

I do not understand your general "but"-attitude in your reply. I contradict none of your views you gave, and actually agree pretty much. I just refocussed the lense a bit to make the picture more crispy, and a bit sharper.


I think it's also healthy for other life in the universe. As someone once said, "Knowledge someone believes he has is no knowledge, but 100% belief. Knowledge must be not believed, but known." :sunny:
Exactly.Da hat jemand aber gut aufgepaßt! :yeah: :)

[Wolferz]

I am so terribly sorry that my karma ran over your dogma.:huh:

I'll pay the vet bill and focus my chi in the future.:O:

[mapuc]

Friends it is of course free to everyone to post whatever you want about your belief or what you not believe in.

I my self can't understand why a person laugh at an another person because of his or her belief, when he or she are doing the same thing but only on the other side of the road.

Example: Person A laugh at person B, because this person believe in UFO and Aliens. A few days later person A goes to church and believe every ting about hell and angels.

There are no, what I understand, real evidence that hell or UFO exist.

I do however respect both group. I respect your believes. Not saying that I believe the same thing that you do.

Here's something for you-I'm not an novis when it comes to the bible- This book have fascinated my for decades. How this interest started I don't know. I'm not one if these who read a sentence in the bible and runs around yelling hallelujah, I study it from a science view.

That's half the true. Haven't been study the bible for many years, due to my Tinnitus and other problem-I couldn't concentrate to continue my private study and I came to a standpoint where my Swedish, English and Danish language couldn't take me further. I had to learn Aramaic(forgot the word), Old Greek, Hebrew(new and old)


The more I studied the Bible, the more unbeliever I became.

I'm not an professor in religion so I can't say this or this is the truth or could be the truth because.

A priest told me I could study to become a priest and thereby learn these languages. This is not my interest. I'm not interested in becoming a narrow minded religionists.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me except through rational discussion.

Yes, more or less how I feel.

[Armistead]

Why? Based on what evidence?


What science and what logic, exactly?

The research of it, looking for other beings. I think it's logical to predict that with endless space other life forms exist based on predictions and matter.

As for science, many think when no possible answer can be found then we should look to the supernatural as a possibility, such as first cause.

I'll wait.

[u crank]

Religious "knowledge"? That makes only sense when meaning by that a knowledge about historic events and dates and timelines relating to the history of any religion's moving through the ages.

Exactly. Knowledge about religion, its history, its beliefs. How these beliefs came about, how they have changed through history. Who believes what and how they arrived at that belief. Knowledge about "dogma, scripture, rites, cults, beliefs".

Else, religions are established cults you either sign in to, or don't. If you do, you learn their dogma, scripture, rites, cults, beliefs. If you don't, you are a heretic.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying I can't 'know' any of the above knowledge without joining the 'cult'. Is that what you are saying? And of course it follows that people can have this 'knowledge', whether it be historical, spiritual in the religious sense or philosophical, and then decide what it is they choose to believe. Again, are you saying I can't? I don't need a priest or minister or for that matter you to tell me what I should believe.

When you have gained a certain level of self-awareness and life experience, you do not need all that, you must not limit yourself to just believe stuff fed to you by others - you have made experiences, and that has a total different quality of learning, for it is about wining new insights, not about memorising stuff given to you and then taking it systematically for real and for true.

You know if I didn't know any better I would say you are trying to dispense your own little 'spiritual' advice. Thanks but no thanks.

How often must I reiterate that I use the terms religion and spirituality for just one reason: because it is easier to refer to the concepts I want to differ by giving them a simple name, instead of always having to write a whole paragraph every time I refer to the background context of those two concepts? I'm fully aware that I use both terms differently than people usually do.

Okay. I'll let it go but your choice of words cannot help but cause confusion. The goal of a person entering for example, the Christian faith is to become a spiritual being. This is common knowledge. I have known this for most of my life. The meaning there is quite plain and has not changed for thousands of years. It is you who have expropriated the word.

What you have an issue with, is the fact itself: that I dare to question the validity of religious claims and that I dare to doubt that belief is a form of knowledge based on having found out oneself or having experienced in a context that goes far beyond the explanations given by any religious dogma.

I don't have an issue with any of that. In fact I encourage it.

you have an issue with me because from your view of religiosity

I don't think you have the slightest clue what I believe. I have never stated any beliefs here or for that matter anywhere other than referring to myself as a Christian. In this part of the world that could mean just about anything. Because I dare to question and debate some of the things you say, you have included me in a very large group of people whom you disagree with. Kind of a blanket condemnation.

Examples for what?

That is the reason why theology and religion in general , also Islam, should not have a seat in the canon of academic branches at university. At best they are object of historic studies only.

It appears to me that you are suggesting that this has happened and I'm asking for an example.


You were the one, btw, starting the generalization about all those scientists and that they are like you claimed they are. I only put a foot on the break after you kickstarted the car and disappeared in cloud of dust.

Dogmatic religious beliefs are certainly antagonistic but the list of scientists who held/hold religious/spiritual beliefs is extensive.

That is all I said. I can only go by what I read.

Gerhard Ertl, a countryman of yours won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2007. From the Wiki article on him and I quote, "He is a Christian."

William D. Phillips shared shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, in 1997, with Steven Chu and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji. I quote "He is a founding member of the International Society for Science & Religion."

I will not be presumptuous and pretend to know what they actually believe but obviously they hold as I said 'religious/spiritual beliefs.'

No, you had not, but actively defended - whether you realised that or not - that the beliefs of religion should be put on same eye level beside ratio and logic and the scientific methodology, as if religious hear-say and believing in unproven and unprovable claims would be en par with it.

"Whether you realized that or not." You're kidding right? I never said that or anything even remotely like that. Where are you getting this stuff? It's good fiction. Anyway, if there is anything you would actually like to know about what I believe or don't believe, feel free to ask. I'm here every day.

[Wolferz]

Can we get back to laughing at the UFO nuts?

I met a lady who said she met an Alien in a room at the Holiday Inn in Paramis New Jersey. :har:

[Skybird]

Exactly. Knowledge about religion, its history, its beliefs. How these beliefs came about, how they have changed through history. Who believes what and how they arrived at that belief. Knowledge about "dogma, scripture, rites, cults, beliefs".

That is a basic history course, then. But you explciitly said "relgious knoweldge", that is njot knowledge anboitu the historccourse of how a relgion has unfolde dover time,l but is a knwoeldge that relgions claims to have. Two very different things. Religious knowledge means not the same like knowledge about religion.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying I can't 'know' any of the above knowledge without joining the 'cult'. Is that what you are saying? And of course it follows that people can have this 'knowledge', whether it be historical, spiritual in the religious sense or philosophical, and then decide what it is they choose to believe. Again, are you saying I can't? I don't need a priest or minister or for that matter you to tell me what I should believe.

Im saying that cults claim to provide people a knowledge that is false knowledge and indeed is belief, not knowledge.

Then you again mix up different things: you mention "'knowledge', whether it be historical, spiritual in the religious sense or philosophical". But that are three totally different things. Again, the content of a religion and the knowledge it claims to provide you with - if only you prove your faith by believing it blindly or obey its commandements or invest all your money - , is something totally different than being informed about the history data describing how that religion developed over time, and is again somethign different than knoweldge that you have gained by yourself by own experience (and I mean knowledge in the meaning of insight in the essence of questions that religions claim to be their object. I do not mean by "experience" learning historic timelines for example form a history book, obviously, that is not meant here), becasue as I said before information about a cult is not the same like knowledge that cult claims ti provide you with regarding its very purpose.

You constantly mix that all up, and that gives you a very confused view.


You know if I didn't know any better I would say you are trying to dispense your own little 'spiritual' advice. Thanks but no thanks.

No, I just word a pretty obvious conclusion. You must not just believe in something - when you know it. When you know something, you cannot believe in something contradicting that knowledge anymore without massively contradicting yourself. Once you have realised that Santa Claus is not for real, there is no way back for you to ever believe in Santa Claus again.



Okay. I'll let it go but your choice of words cannot help but cause confusion.

Oh, my explanation of how I understand both terms and why I use them, is precise, short and clear. It just touches a sensitive nerve of yours, for you seek for and find no way to get beyond my basic criticism that it implies: that believing is not knowing and thus a religion that depends on its believers just believing in the dogma does not provide people with knowledge, and cannot.

Sorry if it is a pain for you, but the problem there is yours, not mine, however. You do not know how often I have had people who had exactly the same problem like you, and then project their anger about the situation they were in- onto me.

A very unpleasant but still very true truth :) is simply this, and this I also tell by experirnce as meditation trainer: Most people claiming that they want truth and final answers, do not want any truth at all. They want to get confirmation only that what they believe is true - that is more comfortable, since finding out that one does not know means to be in the unpleasant situation of being confronted with uncertainty, and the need to change, to move, to search.

Therefore, this saying that they have in Zen: "Little doubt - little awakening. Big doubt - big awakening. No doubt - no awakening."


The goal of a person entering for example, the Christian faith is to become a spiritual being.

That thinks you, and you dare a very huge generalisation there. I claim something different: most people want to collect bonus points for the time of their afterlife, which they believe is waiting for them. It's fear of death what it is about.

No, a person joining a cult can have many motivations, and can be made to do so due to many reasons. Parents' influnce, and tradition, social pressure, habit, lack or knowing alternatives, lacking education in general, and so on.

Most people, the majority of people are being put into a religion from their childhood on: and parents, family, friends, school, clerics, state - all more or less make sure that it is like that. Therefore, most people, not all but most people, do not choose to be in a religion - , but maybe they choose to no longer be part of that: when they are old enough and see that religion does not really feed them answers that go beyond a systematic effort of believing blindly in something unproven and unprovable.

This is common knowledge. I have known this for most of my life. [/quote]
Whatever it is, that you think you knew something for most of your life does not make it automatically "common knowledge". My mentor and Sifu used to say: "the more people claim to know, the less room they have to really learn."


The meaning there is quite plain and has not changed for thousands of years. It is you who have expropriated the word.

I will not repeat it once again just for you, either you get the reason why I do this, or you don't. But you might be surprised to learn that in my differentiation last but not least I base on Jesus himself and the historic tradition of socalled Christian mystics have described him, people like Master Eckhard and the like. But that would lead a bit too far to go into here, also, I did that in several long topics years ago in this forum. I just say this: that the pharisees were so angry about Jesus and finally conspired to get rid of him, and that there is the story of cleansing the temple, a wonderful metaphor for freeing your mind and getting rid of all the destructive ballast corrupting your soul, is not for no reason. What the church has made of his teaching, is a cruel joke, because it was Paul and the church he founded who in their own interest distorted the message of Jesus which was not about blindly believing, but empirically justified trust - and that has own self experience as a precondition. People who just believe in scripture, cannot understand this, and must remain enclosed in a dark box, and the more literal they try to take the bible, even the new testament, the more hopeless their case becomes. A worthy god does not listenmj tpo prsayers, but piunsiohes praying people, for their prayers are nothing but the idea that they could bribe and make a deal with somebody more powerful with them, thereby not worshipping said deity, but in reality worshipping their own megalomaniac ego. A god with self-respect would not listen to such prayers and would not accept sacrifices, but would ignore, even punish those who offer them, and reward those who leave him his peace. :up:



I don't have an issue with any of that. In fact I encourage it.

Its stunning with how much naturalness you claim right the opposite of what you do. I noticed that skill of yours on earlier occasions already.


I don't think you have the slightest clue what I believe. I have never stated any beliefs here or for that matter anywhere other than referring to myself as a Christian. In this part of the world that could mean just about anything. Because I dare to question and debate some of the things you say, you have included me in a very large group of people whom you disagree with. Kind of a blanket condemnation.

You were only occasionally speaking on the content of a given relgion, but mostly you were talking about the principle institutions of a (theistic) religion in general, and that is to which I have answered. Again you mix two things together that should,and must be kept separate. And again I insist that that is your fault - not mine.


It appears to me that you are suggesting that this has happened and I'm asking for an example.
The university in my hometown Münster has just opened a mosque on its own ground (why is that, I wonder, when there are no churches and no synagogues build on any universities campus anywhere in Germany), and the first institute and studying courses of Islamic theology are formally bound into the university, a project pressed through by the Green, Left, and arch-conservative Turkish lobby groups, against stiff resistence. Now that it is there, conservative Muslims want to burn the Islamic professor by the stake, for he offends their Islam by being too moderate in his comparative Islam studies, and teaches too mild a form of Islam. Foir them he is too forgiving, to me he is to deceiving. Also, Christian theology is taught at universities since long , both public and private university, all across Germany.


That is all I said. I can only go by what I read.

Gerhard Ertl, a countryman of yours won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2007. From the Wiki article on him and I quote, "He is a Christian."[/quote]
Wowh, that really has statistical relevance.

You seem to take that as a bureaucratic formality only, this stanmp "Chriostian" It is claimed, and so it kmustg be treue by messaage and content, period.

At christmas, the empty churches over here suddenly are full to the max. Do you really think all those people indeed are Christians by the meaning of following the Christ's message - what he really meant, and that is not what the church is hammering into people's heads - do you think that for sure? I hope not. For the same reaosn why I differ betwene religon and spirituality, I differ between real Chriostzians, fo which there are onyl very few, and "more or less frequently church-goers". The church and the message of Christ are two very different things, and that started already with Paul and his splendid egocentrism. The church is the cult, the dogma, the petrified rite that secures the privileges of the priestly profiteers. Jesus' message was not about belief, but about empirically justified trust which has self-awareness and self-experience as a precondition. And both any religious institution hates like the plague, because own experience does not need priests and mediators, institutions and profiteers.

Formally, I was Christian too, until my I think 22. birthday. But I never was. I am also baptised. Means nothing. The Catholic church would claim possession of me, however, once baptised - always baptised. But it was even worse in my case - I was baptised as a Protestant. Empty rites that mean nothing, not for me, and not for any god.


William D. Phillips shared shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, in 1997, with Steven Chu and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji. I quote "He is a founding member of the International Society for Science & Religion."

I will not be presumptuous and pretend to know what they actually believe but obviously they hold as I said 'religious/spiritual beliefs.'

:doh: So what...? A sack of rice fell in China, I heard.


"Whether you realized that or not." You're kidding right? I never said that or anything even remotely like that. Where are you getting this stuff? It's good fiction.
I then must conclude that you indeed miss some of the implications that you put into your words. But once again that is not my fault.

[Sailor Steve]

The research of it, looking for other beings. I think it's logical to predict that with endless space other life forms exist based on predictions and matter.
You think it's logical? I think it's still guessing. Until there is some actual evidence the only real answer is still "I don't know".

But that's just me.

[TarJak]

Every thing is speculation without evidence.

[Tribesman]

Every thing is speculation without evidence.

Not really. Some things are speculation contrary to evidence.
I think that is where blind belief comes in.
Say for example I had this dogma about a political institution.
I could insist that my ideas on it were true and supported with evidence.
I could provide evidence which unfortunately fails to support my belief, say in the form of some legislation or a treaty which doesn't say what I say it says.
I can still insist that I am correct and my faith would remain unshakable as I would "know" that I am right.

[Armistead]

You think it's logical? I think it's still guessing. Until there is some actual evidence the only real answer is still "I don't know".

But that's just me.

I agree we don't know, but I don't have a problem with honest scientific research being done on it...

[swamprat69er]

I'm with Armistead and mapac on this one.
I don't shove my views and religion down your throat and you will not shove it down mine.
We've got a guy at work that is a 'little out there', he firmly believes a whole lot of stuff, but he tries to peddle it to everybody else. He asked me last year if I believed in any of his rhetoric, I told him no. He then asked me if I believed in god. Again I told him no. He hasn't bothered me since then.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2191152#post2191152)
The research of it, looking for other beings. I think it's logical to predict that with endless space other life forms exist based on predictions and matter.


You think it's logical? I think it's still guessing. Until there is some actual evidence the only real answer is still "I don't know".

But that's just me.

No, not just you.

Maybe you two can settle it by agreeing that by current cosmological models the probability that we are not alone promises to be much higher than the probability that we are alone.

Logic, and probabilities, are two very different things.

We may not know for absolute certainty (probability = 100%) - but nevertheless we must, all the time, make decisions and choose between alternatives. The best method to reduce the number of failures and disappointments is to go with the record one has in empiric experience. Does not provide you with success in every single case, but all in all, considering the complete pool of decisions you have to make in a life, you will do best this was, will get the greatest number of successes possible, and reduce the number of failures the lowest number possible.

It's like with Backgammon, and chance. evenm if you are a master, you do not win every single game, in a single game the dice can absolutely be totally against you. But the greater the number of matches you play, the more it pays off to nevertheless move the pieces as best as you can in accordance with the rules of probability predictions. Probability weighs in the heavier the more iterations it is being calculated in.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree we don't know, but I don't have a problem with honest scientific research being done on it...
I don't have a problem with research being done either. The whole point of science is to try to explain what we see, and try to learn what we don't. I was just applying the same reason to this that I try to apply to the "God" theories. If it can't be shown, then it isn't known, just believed. However great the probabilities, it hasn't been shown yet, so it's all still speculation, nothing more.

[mapuc]

Friends, you don't have to write long doctoral dissertations about your faith and why you do precisely in this.

Should you, however, claim that what you believe is the real/correct belief. Then you must of course, prove this by writing these long doctoral dissertations.

As I said, you can not laugh at others for their beliefs and yourself believing in something that is not physically evidence of.

According to my own personal views, a person can not allow itself to laugh at someone who believe in UFO and aliens or whatever it may be. In order to later go to church and believe everything the priest says. Or whatever it may be. The same applies the other way

Markus

[Tribesman]

As I said, you can not laugh at others for their beliefs and yourself believing in something that is not physically evidence of.


Markus
Of course you can, as long as you don't mind them laughing too.

[mapuc]

Of course you can, as long as you don't mind them laughing too.

Stand corrected.

Markus

[Skybird]

I don't have a problem with research being done either. The whole point of science is to try to explain what we see, and try to learn what we don't. I was just applying the same reason to this that I try to apply to the "God" theories. If it can't be shown, then it isn't known, just believed. However great the probabilities, it hasn't been shown yet, so it's all still speculation, nothing more.
From some point on, we must take a knowledge as granted. Because we can never know in total absoluteness, as long as we are not aware of all details in all the cosmos simultaneously, whether or not that law we concluded on (because we made one million observations of a phenomenon and always saw the same outcome), somewhere in a hidden corner of the universe this law maybe is not valid, and the phenomenon behaving differently. Maybe there is a planet where the apple that falls out of my hand does not fall to the ground, but lifts into the sky. I can do a million of speculations why some strangeness may exist somewhere, maybe even Santa Claus may be real even if his coat was designed by Coca Cola.

But is that assumption reasonable, is it likely? There is a difference between wild speculation, and empirically founded expectation.

Seen that way, ALL our knowledge and things that have been shown, are temporary statements only, and the more likely we see something to be of universal validity, the more we tend to call that "knowledge", for pragmatic reason.

And mostly, it serves us well since thousands of years that.

If we run around all those millenia and just shaking our heads over all things we do not know, and always saying that we do not know, would end with us avoiding decisions. We slide, we get blown around by the winds iof time, and do not take our fate into our own hand, at least not to the degree we would be able to do so if only we would want to.

That'S why I am a bit more hesitent thnan you to always act on the grounds of that we do not and cannot know. It is pragmatic to claim that expecations beyond a certain high probability for them beign true, are "knowledge". Fatalism is a real threat here, even clinically relevant passivity, resignation, depression.

Deciding, doing, causing consequences - we must do that and accept that all the time. Better do it in a more constructive, positive mindset. That does not exclude to be nevertheless also open-minded and sceptical. For example we know for sure that we exist indeed. Whether our conception of what we are, what our mind is and what our mental image of the universe and our role in it is - that is something very different. I would argue logicvally here and for example would claim that we can perceive the universe and all things existing only in such ways that our physical senses by their design allow us to perceive, and that our brain forms images about the model we have of the universe also within limits that are founded in its design. There you have it, you know you exist, but you also why your view of yourself and the universe can never be confirmed with 100% certainty to be true. When you open the door to the other room, you cannot be certain that it still is there.

But the probability that it still is there like you recall, is very high.

[Armistead]

I don't have a problem with research being done either. The whole point of science is to try to explain what we see, and try to learn what we don't. I was just applying the same reason to this that I try to apply to the "God" theories. If it can't be shown, then it isn't known, just believed. However great the probabilities, it hasn't been shown yet, so it's all still speculation, nothing more.


Well, I don't think you can apply to a God theory, because that is supernatural.{if you accept even that.}Search for other physical life is more practical and reasonable. I keep waiting for a report that one of those space earphones will PU some chatter talk like it did in that one movie and the aliens come blow us all to hell...

[u crank]

But you explicitly said "religious knowledge", that is not knowledge about the historic course of how a religion has unfolded over time, but is a knowledge that religions claims to have. Two very different things.

Did it ever occur to you Skybird that this is exactly what I meant?

Religious knowledge means not the same like knowledge about religion.

You obviously understand this. Are you saying that I can't?

I'll explain it as simply as I can. If a person is studying let's say for example, the Christian religion he would want to have a complete understanding of it. This would include its history, philosophical beliefs and teachings, its laws, its involvement in politics and so on and so on. This would also include its beliefs regarding divinely inspired writings and beliefs about divine knowledge. The sum total of all this is what I would call knowledge. I'm not trying to separate it, but I am referring to it as 'religious knowledge.'

If a person has a working knowledge about all aspects of a religion does that mean that they accept and believe it?

You constantly mix that all up, and that gives you a very confused view.

I hope that clears that up.

You must not just believe in something - when you know it. When you know something, you cannot believe in something contradicting that knowledge anymore without massively contradicting yourself.


Double talk. Sounds like doctrine. I can know anything, completely, and in very great detail and I can understand it completely as well, yet not believe it. Understanding and knowledge can be distinctly different from belief.

Oh, my explanation of how I understand both terms and why I use them, is precise, short and clear. It just touches a sensitive nerve of yours,...

Sorry if it is a pain for you, but the problem there is yours, not mine, however. You do not know how often I have had people who had exactly the same problem like you, and then project their anger about the situation they were in- onto me.

It's not a pain for me nor is it my problem. If you want to change the meaning of words to suit your own beliefs, be prepared to explain yourself. Don't expect me or anyone else to remember it.

Therefore, this saying that they have in Zen: "Little doubt - little awakening. Big doubt - big awakening. No doubt - no awakening."


That's deep. How about...

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

That thinks you, and you dare a very huge generalization there.

Whatever it is, that you think you knew something for most of your life does not make it automatically "common knowledge".

It's not a generalization, it's a fact. You need to do some research. In almost all denominations of Christianity, spiritual life, the spiritual man, living in the spirit etc. etc...it's one of the most common references used. It doesn't matter what you think or believe it means. The context in which it was used it is correct and I have known it most of my life.

No, a person joining a cult can have many motivations,

You don't think I'm in a cult do you?...na. Can't. Do you?

Its stunning with how much naturalness you claim right the opposite of what you do. I noticed that skill of yours on earlier occasions already.

I think we need to clear something up Skybird. In my last post I gave you a chance to ask me what I believe and don't believe. No questions? Not one? I have this nagging feeling that you think me someone I'm not. Let me say that I am not the card carrying, young earth believing, snake handlin' fundamentalist that you may think I am. If you interpret what I say to suit your preconceived notions of me, well that's your problem, not mine.

Gerhard Ertl, "He is a Christian."
Wowh, that really has statistical relevance.

William D. Phillips "He is a founding member of the International Society for Science & Religion."

:doh: So what...? A sack of rice fell in China, I heard.

I suggest you take that up with those gentlemen. You brought it up.

But science and religion are not only opposites - they are antagonists.

You seem to take that as a bureaucratic formality only, this stamp "Christian"

Be alright though if it said Atheist. Yes..no?

At christmas, the empty churches over here suddenly are full to the max. Do you really think all those people indeed are Christians by the meaning of following the Christ's message - what he really meant, and that is not what the church is hammering into people's heads - do you think that for sure? I hope not.

In my experience most of us were drinking. Hey it's Christmas!

Formally, I was Christian too, until my I think 22. birthday. But I never was. I am also baptised. Means nothing. The Catholic church would claim possession of me, however, once baptised - always baptised. But it was even worse in my case - I was baptised as a Protestant.

No kidding? I was baptized as an infant in The Church. As a 30 year old I was baptized as a Christian. In a river no less. I got it covered. I think.:D

That was 30 years ago though. People change. They become more knowledgeable. At least I think they should. I think we were designed that way. I'm not the person I was 30 years ago. Are you?

I then must conclude that you indeed miss some of the implications that you put into your words.

Questions. You need to ask questions.

But once again that is not my fault.

It's never my fault.:O:

[Admiral Halsey]

I think we can all agree on one thing. Scientologists are a bunch of complete loons.

[Friscobay]

[QUOTE=mapuc;2190751]Before I continue I will just say that it's no my intention to mock those who believe.


It's my own opinion


A person believe in UFOs and alien and many people mock or laugh at this person. What I personally can't understand, is that many of these people, go to church and believe all about Hell. For me it is the same.




That's just my opinion


For me it is gaming devs who say that there was a WWII with a Germany in it and then place Big White Discs and Iron Crosses in their flags where admittedly, a swastika should be when portraying this country during that war.

Logic dictates that truth prevails rather than the mere biases of either the religious, or secular critic. No matter its impact or subject. IMHO.

[Friscobay]

[QUOTE=swamprat69er;2191373]I'm with Armistead and mapac on this one.
I don't shove my views and religion down your throat and you will not shove it down mine.
We've got a guy at work that is a 'little out there', he firmly believes a whole lot of stuff, but he tries to peddle it to everybody else..



Mates, all of ye SUBSIMMERS, can we at least agree that the food is still lousier at sea than on the beach?


The dreck of religion and politics which sunders and divides us. Rather, meat, and ale, and a warm bed, a sounding foghorn and a beacon to guide, a deck to stand upon, truth to your mates, and perdition to your foes. Jingle in pockets and the lights of the tavern, a place to call home.

[Sailor Steve]

From some point on, we must take a knowledge as granted.
And, believe it or not, I do. I don't deny there may be life on other planets. I also don't deny that there may be a God. In both cases I say "Based on what evidence?"

The case for life on other planets is based on the fact that we have life here, and the conditions we consider vital for life to exist seem to be replicated elsewhere in the universe. For me there is a difference between saying "I don't see why life shouldn't exist elsewhere" and saying "I believe life exists elsewhere". I certainly accept the possibility, because to deny it would be silly. That said, I don't "believe" it, and will continue to not actively believe it until I see some actual proof.

As for the existence of God? There is no evidence at all that I have seen. I still don't deny the possibility, but only because I don't know that He/She/It doesn't exist either.

I accept that anything is possible. I admit that some things are statistically more likely than others. I won't believe anything until I see it.

[BrucePartington]

And, believe it or not, I do. I don't deny there may be life on other planets. I also don't deny that there may be a God. In both cases I say "Based on what evidence?"

The case for life on other planets is based on the fact that we have life here, and the conditions we consider vital for life to exist seem to be replicated elsewhere in the universe. For me there is a difference between saying "I don't see why life shouldn't exist elsewhere" and saying "I believe life exists elsewhere". I certainly accept the possibility, because to deny it would be silly. That said, I don't "believe" it, and will continue to not actively believe it until I see some actual proof.

As for the existence of God? There is no evidence at all that I have seen. I still don't deny the possibility, but only because I don't know that He/She/It doesn't exist either.

I accept that anything is possible. I admit that some things are statistically more likely than others. I won't believe anything until I see it.
Exactly my view :)
An example of a scientific mind. Not to say the scientific mind is "flawlessly" rational. As human beings we all have blind spots. And we all need each other to make up for those.

I also do not exclude the possibility this universe might have been "created" as opposed to burst into existence from a singularity incredibly dense.
We just don't know, yet.
Religion calls such a creator a God, or Allah, etc. I imagine such entity somewhat differently, like a scientist, in another dimension / universe, who created a universe in his laboratory. Not necessarily someone I should worship, bow to, and fear.
I've had this view for some years now, and then Prof. Alan Guth said: "...it's actually safe to create a universe in your basement..." at 43 mnts into this BBC Horizon documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ds47ozzSrU

In principle I accept any possibility. What I have difficulty with is dogma, and arguments from ignorance. They lead away from knowledge, and I like knowledge very much.

Now, addressing the OP regarding the notion of "hell", here's a funny moment from the AE broadcast :haha: :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ixTueofYw

[Catfish]

A person believe in UFOs and alien and many people mock or laugh at this person. What I personally can't understand, is that many of these people, go to church and believe all about Hell. For me it is the same.

I do not believe in UFOs coming from other planets, however i do not think we are the only life forms in the universe. It is just so that the window of contact as Lem described it, is much too small.

I have much more problems in believing in heaven and hell. The bible is a partially wrong 'historical' script, i wonder how one can build a religion with a failing ground personnel (pope and entourage), around this. It was certainly a 'nice' intrument to keep people down and dumb. After all it was all about power.
Same with Quran or the jewish, of course. I find the bhuddistic religion to be the least intrusive and aggressive one. But to believe in it ?

[Armistead]

I accept that anything is possible. I admit that some things are statistically more likely than others. I won't believe anything until I see it.

That's what bothers me about religion, if you use the "wait and see" approach you'll end up being tortured for eternity by their loving God. Simply, you have to toss out logic and reason and use blind faith. To me that's obvious the approach to control humans with utter fear. Certainly religion worked to control the uneducated masses and progress humanity in the dark and early ages, but you think we could step beyond that.

I love my beautiful first daughter but her and her husband have become very fundy and religious. I don't argue with her because I don't see it my place to harm her beliefs, but I'm concerned for my 4 granddaughters that are being so indoctrinated in home and church. I would rather her to teach them to start thinking for themselves.

[u crank]

That's what bothers me about religion, if you use the "wait and see" approach you'll end up being tortured for eternity by their loving God.

Well that's what 'they' say isn't it. The first step to getting by that is, as you probably already know is to find out how they arrived at that conclusion. Turns out that it's not very conclusive. Personally I think that if there is a God, he would have no problem with the "wait and see" approach. If there is a God and he is any thing like what we may suspect, he is highly logical and uses reason. Seems to me that he would expect us to start acting in the same manner.

Certainly religion worked to control the uneducated masses and progress humanity in the dark and early ages, but you think we could step beyond that.

You would hope so wouldn't you.

I love my beautiful first daughter but her and her husband have become very fundy and religious.

I would rather her to teach them to start thinking for themselves.

You may have to be patient here and try to get some input when you can. I'm in a similar situation. My only Grandchild, 14 years old has been going to youth group and church, mostly through influence of friends he met at camp. I know exactly what he is being taught, but don't want to discourage him. There are a lot worse things he could be involve in and he is at an age when a whole world of problems is approaching.

Lots of people come around in their thinking. It just takes time and patience and being a good example. Good luck with your situation.

[Wolferz]

Someone once said; "Suffer not the little children to come unto me."

I let my kids discover religion on their own. Unlike my parents who forced it on us. Since then I have researched much of the history of Christianity and found it somewhat lacking in its fundamental tenets. Too many of the organized religions waste their time and mine, pushing their doctrine, when they should be teaching the Christian attitude.
I read a story the other day about a Christian school in Virginia that encouraged (more like pressured strongly) an eight year old tomboy student to transfer. Thinking the worst of a child is not what I would call a Christian attitude but, I won't judge them. Hypocrites?:-?

[Sailor Steve]

Someone once said; "Suffer not the little children to come unto me."
Actually it was the opposite.

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'
And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."
-Matthew 19:13-15

But your point: Thinking the worst of a child is not what I would call a Christian attitude but, I won't judge them. Hypocrites?:-?
is the very point of the story itself. :sunny:

[Wolferz]

They are us!

Here's a prime example of Christians overstepping their bounds and arbitrarily deciding what's best for everyone...
http://t.money.msn.com/business-news/newsarticle?feed=BLOOM&date=20140401&id=17486923

I seriously think they could find much better things to do with all that Wall Street money.:hmmm:

16th century thinking is a hard habit to break.