A Life Without Religion

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

"Religion has handicapped social development in many ways, but without religion there would have been no enduring morality nor ethics, no worth-while civilization. Religion enmothered much nonreligious culture: Sculpture originated in idol making, architecture in temple building, poetry in incantations, music in worship chants, drama in the acting for spirit guidance, and dancing in the seasonal worship festivals.

92:3.7

 

The Nature of Evolutionary Religion

 

 

No morality or ethics without religion,?

What a crock of BS!!!! 

[XenoFish]

[Will Due]

3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No morality or ethics without religion,?

What a crock of BS!!!! 

 

"Religion facilitated the accumulation of capital; it fostered work of certain kinds; the leisure of the priests promoted art and knowledge; the race, in the end, gained much as a result of all these early errors in ethical technique. The shamans, honest and dishonest, were terribly expensive, but they were worth all they cost. The learned professions and science itself emerged from the parasitical priesthoods. Religion fostered civilization and provided societal continuity; it has been the moral police force of all time. Religion provided that human discipline and self-control which made wisdom possible. Religion is the efficient scourge of evolution which ruthlessly drives indolent and suffering humanity from its natural state of intellectual inertia forward and upward to the higher levels of reason and wisdom.

92:3.10

"And this sacred heritage of animal ascent, evolutionary religion, must ever continue to be refined and ennobled by the continuous censorship of revealed religion and by the fiery furnace of genuine science.

 

 

The Nature of Evolutionary Religion

 

 

 

[lightly]

What is "nature". ..I wonder how we explain how it came to be  and  it's creative/destructive Energy ?   We know many many things...and we don't know many many things.   We needn't discard one by accepting the other.   ?   

[Crazy Horse]

15 hours ago, Guyver said:

If it were as easy as you suggest, wouldn’t everyone just do it?  I like what you’re saying because it sounds kind of spiritual and for sure possible, I just don’t think I believe it.  I want to, but right now, I don’t.  Maybe if I had the same experiences you have I would.  
 

I worked the twelve step program and gave up alcohol for three years.  At that time I believed in a “Higher Power” as God is called there, and I did believe it and practice the principles.  Yet, when you really get down to it, a case could be made that I made myself quit drinking with the power of my mind and a higher power had nothing to do with it, though it did in fact seem like it to me at the time.

The only real difficulty here, is ones reluctance to give these things a go..

Its just a mental block.

For some reason you are not inspired enough to give these ideas a fair crack, and see and experience, for yourself.

That's fine, at least you are open to the possibility.

 

[Crazy Horse]

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

What name is used to describe it isn't important but it certainly is slowly becoming more and more recognized as true religion. The religion of spiritual experience.

 

 

Spiritual experience, and re-Unification.

[Crazy Horse]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Self delusion is already a thing. 

And its absolutely everywhere...

[cormac mac airt]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

How is it scientific theory doesn't seperate them? The effects of virtual particles are verified. We can't create a singularity like that to observe effects. That can only be done on paper.

Philosophy is just made up stuff.

That sounds like three very different things to me that only have one thing in common. The ability to directly observe the process. The paper I linked to says they are as real as any quantum particle and the definition you provided stated their existence is limited, however existance is the word I am pointing at here. 

And again from my earlier link:

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/#:~:text=Virtual particles are indeed real particles.&text=Quantum mechanics allows%2C and indeed,they had never been there.

The above seems fairly free of doubt.

But what effects of God can be measured? What equations lead us to a god theory? 

A creator isn't required to be a god, nor vice versa. Lots of God weren't creators. Some just more like foreman over aspects of human existence. When placed in the position of creator god is always refered to as a being. One that even had emotions. 

That it's just poking the bear. 

Many also objected to the term God Particle. Religion owns the god concept. That's why I find the term God very inappropriate with regards to a natural force, it almost as if the term is used specifically to convolute understanding and promote an adversarial situation. It goes without saying that it will initiate more arguments between religion and science. Religion has no place in science, and I feel the reverse is applicable as well. If people choose belief, that's their business. It's not up to others to redefine and expand that definition to suit science. That's picking a fight. Totally unnecessary IMHO. 

Or Jehovah if we run with the Latin translation, but Jehovah had seven names at least depending on denomination or translation. Some cultures forbid gods name. What the common denominator is is God. 

However few Christian people are biblical scholars. They just go with what they hear in Church. To most people god is god. Then we have spiritual versions that dismiss the absurdities of the Bible and hash together a personal belief out of those tatters, which appeals to them.

Whilst historical information and interpretation should be important, it simply isn't to those who regularly use the term. It's very much a tiny minority that use the term God as liberally as you have here.

Then simply put

Why do all the papers I have provided call them real? 

How did we get here would start with the primordial universe wouldn't it? 

Where did everything come from is something we are trying very hard to understand. We have done an exemplary job getting this far. With god, there is no more to understand than a humans ego ad that's where all the information regarding god comes from. Gods buck stops with man. Nature, not so. That's a huge distinction I would say.

So is an infinitely dense, infinitely small singularity or the actual virtual particle itself.

That's just it the EFFECTS have been verified the cause HAS NOT, not in any observable manner in regards to VP or a black hole with infinite density, infinite small size/mass. Both are considered real only in the sense that their respective effects can be verified. As mentioned before since the effects of a black hole, in sensu stricto, are indistinguishible from a planck star how can it be said that such a black hole can be said to exist? It actually can't which is why the theory of a black hole in that sense is on its way out. 

Effectively speaking so is everything of a scientific nature that CAN'T be physically observed. "Because it works on paper" ISN"T evidence of somethings existence.

Because their effects are real, NOT so much the source of the effects. Even Heisenberg understood that there is a difference between "potentialities" and "facts". Science treats virtual particles, quantum fluctuations that spontaneously pop into and out of reality, as real based solely on the effects and NOT on the observed existence of the virtual particle or particles themselves.

No, how did we get here, as a question, started with the "here and now" of the times and an attempt (however highly faulty) to extrapolate its cause into the past. God, as a single Creator deity was never originally agreed on by ancient civilizations. Example: El didn't create everything in the same exact way as the later J-C Yahweh is believed to have done. 

The crux of the problem isn't with your belief/knowledge/whatever that God doesn't exist it's with the problem that you continue to state science says something that not only DOESN'T it say but it doesn't even attempt to. 

cormac

Edited June 2, 2021 by cormac mac airt

[XenoFish]

Oh how far off and out of character I will be for this post, but I care not. 

God is real. At least, in a sense. Thoughts are just connections in the brain. A physical pathway to our ideas. The thought of god become a physical form within the minds of those who believe. God is the rain when there is a drought, God is the warm of a fire in the cold lonely night. God is in the first laughter of a child, god is this and god is that. 

Nature abhors a vacuum. So no matter how much effort there is placed in destroying god, the idea will rise again. Perhaps the benefit of religion is the improvement of self-discipline and increasing emotional intelligence. Maybe. 

Can a life be lived without religion, absolutely. Yet if one were to do so, why bother with religion at all. Why fight against something that doesn't matter or that is even cared about. 

God does not exist. Absolutely, because there are no associations to be made in the minds of those who do not believe.

God exist, absolutely. Because in the minds of the believers, god is all or at least something. 

So to say god does not exist is not correct. The idea of god exist. Because if god did not "exist" then there is nothing to discuss. 

Even if sciences gets down to the very first somethingness of reality, it won't answer why any of this exist. 

[lightly]

29 minutes ago, Xeno-Fish said:

Oh how far off and out of character I will be for this post, but I care not. 

God is real. At least, in a sense. Thoughts are just connections in the brain. A physical pathway to our ideas. The thought of god become a physical form within the minds of those who believe. God is the rain when there is a drought, God is the warm of a fire in the cold lonely night. God is in the first laughter of a child, god is this and god is that. 

Nature abhors a vacuum. So no matter how much effort there is placed in destroying god, the idea will rise again. Perhaps the benefit of religion is the improvement of self-discipline and increasing emotional intelligence. Maybe. 

Can a life be lived without religion, absolutely. Yet if one were to do so, why bother with religion at all. Why fight against something that doesn't matter or that is even cared about. 

God does not exist. Absolutely, because there are no associations to be made in the minds of those who do not believe.

God exist, absolutely. Because in the minds of the believers, god is all or at least something. 

So to say god does not exist is not correct. The idea of god exist. Because if god did not "exist" then there is nothing to discuss. 

Even if sciences gets down to the very first somethingness of reality, it won't answer why any of this exist. 

    Good thinking X.      ..as for why . . Who knows ?!   I've thought that there is existence because (((nothing)))  is Impossible.

..as in, not possible.   There can't be nothing...therefore there is something.   As silly as that sounds I'm perfectly serious. 

 

.      Now I have a question for psyche or cormac or anyone who could ,and would't mind,answering, or correcting for me? . . The whole dark energy/matter, question is fascinating.   With 'ordinary' mass/energy ,more mass = more attractive force?  (gravity)  ...With Dark energy/mass, more mass = more repulsive force?     Once again..stuff going on that we can't See...only it's Effects ?

Edited June 2, 2021 by lightly

[cormac mac airt]

25 minutes ago, lightly said:

    Good thinking X.      ..as for why . . Who knows ?!   I've thought that there is existence because (((nothing)))  is Impossible.

..as in, not possible.   There can't be nothing...therefore there is something.   As silly as that sounds I'm perfectly serious. 

 

.      Now I have a question for psyche or cormac or anyone who could ,and would't mind,answering, or correcting for me? . . The whole dark energy/matter, question is fascinating.   With 'ordinary' mass/energy ,more mass = more attractive force? ..with Dark energy/mass, more mass = more repulsive force?     Once again..stuff going on that we can't See...only it's Effects ?

Not sure what the question is but a current report suggests that dark matter doesn’t exist after all. 

Quote

Now, an international team of scientists says it has found new evidence that perhaps dark matter doesn’t really exist after all.

In research published in November in the Astrophysical Journal, the scientists report tiny discrepancies in the orbital speeds of distant stars that they think reveals a faint gravitational effect – and one that could put an end to the prevailing ideas of dark matter.

The study suggests an incomplete scientific understanding of gravity is behind what appears to be the gravitational strength of galaxies and galaxy clusters, rather than vast clouds of dark matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252995

cormac

Edited June 2, 2021 by cormac mac airt

[lightly]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not sure what the question is but a current report suggests that dark matter doesn’t exist after all. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252995

cormac

Ah, thankyou cormac.   I had hoped to get back before you responded to make a correction in my unclear question...  I stated that both dark energy and matter had a repulsive force.   I guess dark energy does?   But, it was thought ,by some for awhile, that dark matter caused an unexplained increase in Gravity....      I'll read the links you provided.   Thanks again.

Edited June 3, 2021 by lightly

[psyche101]

20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have framed what kind of abuse better. She was Jehovahs Witness, right? Ive known a person or two who was badly damaged by that denomination.

That's ok mate. I was just pointing out that I wasn't physically abused by the church itself. 

JW, BAC, Catholic, C of E, she went through quite a few. JWs did most of the damage true. 

Quote

I understand, but myself, when I look into these kinds of things, I find usually its a corrupted individual. Though there have been obvious examples of systemic corruption in many religions/denominations. 

They are in every denomination. Some just hide it better.

Quote

Throwing out the barrel because you found some bad apples isnt always the best answer. But any apple will have bruises and blemishes if you look hard enough.

It's more than that. I turned to atheism out of knowledge. It wasn't the bad experiences that made me dislike religion, it was more hindsight. Quite frankly due to indoctrination I just didn't know any better and would stand up for religion but it always let me down. 

Quote

I totally understand, but you can't deny that religion does a lot of good for other people. 

I've been wondering about that for a while actually. Some of my mates have a pretty shady past, and some have embraced religion. They aren't in trouble with the law as much these days, but I honestly wonder if they are actually better people. 

Quote

Some people hate others who try to run things, like a board of education, or a homeowners association. But others love that those people are controlling their schools and neighborhoods.

Its much the same here. Many love being controlled and told their good and going to Heaven. Its comforting someone is in charge.

Myself, I'm more a "examine what the board of education is doing, and see what comes of it, then praise/condemn them", kind of guy. And so far religion (Evangelical Christianity) hasn't let me down, so I continue to follow, but watch.

That's strange because it's quite different from the normal American "I'll get it done myself" attitude. 

All leaders need to be in touch with the people and refresh regularly. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by psyche101

[psyche101]

20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Sometimes self delusion is exactly what a person needs to break from depression, or negative emotions.

Sugar is what your body lives off of. You have numerous body functions to convert fats, starches and such into sugars. Without sugar the body fails. 

It's temporary fix that's detrimental. Sucrose I'd certainly required by the body but nut as raw sugar. That's why juicing isn't a great idea. You get a concentrated amount of sugar without the required fibre so while some people think that they are being healthy, they aren't. It's just an illusion. 

[psyche101]

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

"Religion facilitated the accumulation of capital; it fostered work of certain kinds; the leisure of the priests promoted art and knowledge; the race, in the end, gained much as a result of all these early errors in ethical technique. The shamans, honest and dishonest, were terribly expensive, but they were worth all they cost. The learned professions and science itself emerged from the parasitical priesthoods. Religion fostered civilization and provided societal continuity; it has been the moral police force of all time. Religion provided that human discipline and self-control which made wisdom possible. Religion is the efficient scourge of evolution which ruthlessly drives indolent and suffering humanity from its natural state of intellectual inertia forward and upward to the higher levels of reason and wisdom.

92:3.10

"And this sacred heritage of animal ascent, evolutionary religion, must ever continue to be refined and ennobled by the continuous censorship of revealed religion and by the fiery furnace of genuine science.

 

 

The Nature of Evolutionary Religion

 

 

 

Well I can see why you are passionate about the UB. If you believe that, you would believe just about anything that validates your beliefs. 

[Artaxerxes]

On 6/1/2021 at 7:47 AM, Crazy Horse said:

"Communism or community? I would use the word community to describe the above quote. Community being something that is rapidly being dismantled, and destroyed, right now. Apart from that minor disagreement, I like the rest of your post."

 

 

My reference to communism is in regards to some verses in Acts (I think Acts 2?) saying "they had all things in common and sold all that they had and gave to each as had need"  (paraphrasing).   My point about it is that western Christians completely ignore these verses because it means that first century Christians were obviously practicing communism.... and nobody wants to sell all that have and split everything equally.  So they just skip over these verses and quote the ones that they like.   I do it, everybody does it but they don't admit it.  They hang onto the stuff that they like and agree with and ignore the stuff they don't.   But there is a lot I like about church like socializing, singing, and church dinners (which are awesome by the way!).   I really like the people and I am honest with our preacher and he knows what I believe.  I've even told him that I ignore the stuff that I don't like.   I have talked to people who have moved to rural towns in the South and they said that the people were standoffish and unfriendly but if they had gone to church and socialized with the people for a while pretty soon they would have made friends and gone fishing and stuff with them.  But going to church and being part of one is a major part of life in small rural Southern towns so it may be difficult to fit in if you are really anti religion.   I'm just saying.......  LOL!  

[Guyver]

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Religion is redundant. It has evolved, that was the reformation. It didn't get any better.

Better to just say goodbye to bad rubbish.

The reformation was awesome, but….I don’t understand how those supposedly smart thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and all the other guys couldn’t have figured out that it was pretty lame to think you could slay a goat and be forgiven for sins.  

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Artaxerxes said:

My reference to communism is in regards to some verses in Acts (I think Acts 2?) saying "they had all things in common and sold all that they had and gave to each as had need"  (paraphrasing).   My point about it is that western Christians completely ignore these verses because it means that first century Christians were obviously practicing communism.... and nobody wants to sell all that have and split everything equally.  So they just skip over these verses and quote the ones that they like.   I do it, everybody does it but they don't admit it.  They hang onto the stuff that they like and agree with and ignore the stuff they don't.   But there is a lot I like about church like socializing, singing, and church dinners (which are awesome by the way!).   I really like the people and I am honest with our preacher and he knows what I believe.  I've even told him that I ignore the stuff that I don't like.   I have talked to people who have moved to rural towns in the South and they said that the people were standoffish and unfriendly but if they had gone to church and socialized with the people for a while pretty soon they would have made friends and gone fishing and stuff with them.  But going to church and being part of one is a major part of life in small rural Southern towns so it may be difficult to fit in if you are really anti religion.   I'm just saying.......  LOL!  

I don’t really feel expert on discussing the distinction between Marxism and Communism, but I do know the New Testamemt very well.  And you have correctly observed.  They did practice all things in common and communal life.  And, here’s the reason people in churches don’t know, but even the Bible plainly tells you, the Apostles all thought it was the end of the world and that’s what they wrote, and interestingly- it’s also what Jesus said.  Christianity should have been done after the first century, but for some reason it lived on.

[Mr Walker]

On 5/28/2021 at 9:36 AM, Guyver said:

Or, to put it more plainly, religion is a means of control.  It could be that the makers of the religion wish to control people, and perhaps people like to use religion as a means of self control.

IMO religion is a means of liberation, as long, as it comes from  within, or is freely chosen,  and is not imposed from  without

If we take the widest sense of religion, as in a strong belief in something (in Australia Football is accepted/seen as as a religion)   then almost every human being is religious. Ie they have the things xeno was speaking of.  Personal  values principles beliefs etc.. These motivate and drive them and, for each individual, are their religion.

In the wider sense religion is an organised and standardised form of belief held by many, but any individual can live by the principles of their own faith/belief and region, such as doing no harm, leaving  the world a better place  etc.   

Back to my first point. Religion, both the individual and organised forms, can liberate a person from  all the other; people, things, desires, addictions,   etc which are enslaving them  or controlling them.

  No one else can control a person who lives by a set of principles, ethics, and moralities 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Nuclear Wessel]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well I can see why you are passionate about the UB. If you believe that, you would believe just about anything that validates your beliefs. 

He doesn’t ever go far without his little book of nonsense.

[Mr Walker]

On 6/2/2021 at 1:03 PM, cormac mac airt said:

If it’s personal then it’s entirely irrelevant to anyone but that specific person. 
 

cormac

Very true, but because of the cognitive similarities of human beings, about 90% of modern humans STILL believe in something  beyond the material  nature of existence 

Where a number of people hold a similar construct to be true,  we have a religion.

Where one individual holds a certain construct to be true  it is either a spiritual belief or a religion of one 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

On 5/31/2021 at 6:08 PM, cormac mac airt said:

By the very math used to predict black holes in general to begin with. 

I am not sure that the maths used to predict black holes actually suggests that an infinitely dense and infinitely small is mathematically impossible. My understanding, admittedly, is limited, but nowhere have I ever read that the maths used in general relativity actually suggests that an infinitely dense/small “thing” is “mathematically impossible”. Could you provide some kind of source to substantiate this?

Quote

 

While general relativity may predict it (black holes, in sensu stricto) math does not and can not prove the existence of infinite density or an infinitely small singularity necessary nor can we actually see past the event horizon to observe what is actually going on at the heart of a black hole to prove same. If what goes on beyond an event horizon is where physics breaks down then math as we understand it is completely inadequate. Black holes, in sensu stricto, violate both physics and the Information Paradox as well in ways that a planck star, which would be extremely small BUT NOT infinitely small, would not. 

 

Objectively speaking, math cannot prove the existence of anything—we use maths to make predictions and models of the real world based on specific parameters and assumptions, but it doesn’t objectively prove that something exists, physically. If this was the case then we would never need anything but maths to prove things exist, objectively.  

That’s a lot different from your claim of an infinitely dense/small singularity being “mathematically impossible”, though.

[+DieChecker]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's ok mate. I was just pointing out that I wasn't physically abused by the church itself. 

JW, BAC, Catholic, C of E, she went through quite a few. JWs did most of the damage true. 

They are in every denomination. Some just hide it better.

It's more than that. I turned to atheism out of knowledge. It wasn't the bad experiences that made me dislike religion, it was more hindsight. Quite frankly due to indoctrination I just didn't know any better and would stand up for religion but it always let me down. 

It saddens me a bit, but I understand your position. I'm also sad you were let down so much. I am happy you're a lot happier now though. I still hope that when/if confronted with the final Judgement that you think a minute and consider before you turn your back on God/Jesus. If it never happens then you have nothing to worry about, yeah?

Quote

I've been wondering about that for a while actually. Some of my mates have a pretty shady past, and some have embraced religion. They aren't in trouble with the law as much these days, but I honestly wonder if they are actually better people.

Perhaps church activities leave no extra time to get into trouble? 

I think a person acting better is better then the person not acting better. Even if it is just acting. 

Quote

That's strange because it's quite different from the normal American "I'll get it done myself" attitude. 

I think most Americans are actually follower sheep. They talk big, but do what they are told. The model of a self sustaining pioneer building everything himself is a lot more rare these days.

I think its displayed by the numbers of unconditional followers of the American political right and left. Both sides just seem to unthinkingly believe whatever "their" side tells them.

The media says, "Believe in police racism!", and a third of the country stands up and yells "Racist Police!". Trump says, "Election was stolen!", and a third of the country stands up and yells, "Stolen!". Sheep....

[+DieChecker]

So much math and physics for a religion thread!  I can barely follow it all. 

[+DieChecker]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's temporary fix that's detrimental. Sucrose I'd certainly required by the body but nut as raw sugar. That's why juicing isn't a great idea. You get a concentrated amount of sugar without the required fibre so while some people think that they are being healthy, they aren't. It's just an illusion. 

Touche' 

But those people "feel" better... It might be self deception, but they are happier, especially if their ignorance is never challenged.

Placebo is a actual treatment, even if it is just deception.