Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Guyver

A Life Without Religion

413 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
9 minutes 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.

 

 

Self delusion is already a thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, psyche101 said:

Self delusion is already a thing. 

 

Yes.

Sometimes true spiritual experiences aren't recognized for what they really are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
8 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I don't know how you can say that to be honest. Almost ever post rants on about how god is love. How you don't get sick of reading the same forum filler all the time is bewildering. 

Honestly, an I wrong? 

It's like a JW coming to your door every Sunday and repeating the same thing. Eventually you would just sksn the four or yell them to f off. At least I'm honest. 

That's a bit the case though. So many things are knowable, but because off a vested interest, some refuse to know them. Take our discussions for example. Physics outright refutes and afterlife, yet you insist there has to be unknowable aspects. That's view simply dismisses what we do know for some invented reason not to accept it.

Have you ever considered that I simply have a much higher standard for evidence? What's to say you and I have not had the exact same experience that I have rationalised, but you call supernatural. 

What you are referring to is an unfamiliar experience. Because an old myth seems to explain what you have experienced doesn't by any means mean it's at all related. Considering the origins of these myths I just don't see them as viable. I don't think many go past that initial perceived correlation. 

I respect that you have a high standard for evidence; as do I, and I wouldn’t try to make you believe something that I don’t know for myself, so I am not trying to make a convert out of you.  But, logic does dictate that things do exist that we know not of. There are so many mysteries, and the world changing so rapidly….but….people have experiences.  There are things that occur on occasion that are not normal and rational.  Nor, are they provable.  But that doesn’t mean they are not real. There is the fact that to even prove that which is real is difficult, so…proving something crazy is near impossible.  But for many, myself included, some things do happen on occasion that point to some type of spiritual or other type dimension that can occasionally occur here and it is unexplained.  Since I have experienced it for myself, I can’t deny that it is sometimes real.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yes.

Sometimes true spiritual experiences aren't recognized for what they really are.

Exactly, that's why I mentioned there is already a descriptive term. We don't really need another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I respect that you have a high standard for evidence; as do I, and I wouldn’t try to make you believe something that I don’t know for myself, so I am not trying to make a convert out of you.  But, logic does dictate that things do exist that we know not of. There are so many mysteries, and the world changing so rapidly….but….people have experiences.  There are things that occur on occasion that are not normal and rational.  Nor, are they provable.  But that doesn’t mean they are not real. There is the fact that to even prove that which is real is difficult, so…proving something crazy is near impossible.  But for many, myself included, some things do happen on occasion that point to some type of spiritual or other type dimension that can occasionally occur here and it is unexplained.  Since I have experienced it for myself, I can’t deny that it is sometimes real.

I agree that there is much to learn, but I can't agree that all we know is wrong. And if there was a supernatural aspect to life, then everything we know is wrong. That strikes me as extremely unlikely. 

To offer a parallel, it's a bit like the UFO phenomenon. UFOs certainly exist, but they don't even come from space, yet are often ascribed to be alien spaceships. The myth fits, is mysterious and therefore appealing. So it's popular. I have little doubt that Religion works in a similar fashion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
23 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But that's because God isn't a hypothesis isn't it? God is philosophy. There's nothing to test, nothing to hypothesise, just some popular ideas and stories. God couldn't be investigated any more than any fictional character. 

Thing is I'm quite sure it's not just me. I'd go so far as to say the majority of the world that do subscribe to the god idea view god as a specific entity. The dictionary even calls god a supreme being. While it's true we have created gods of many flavours, the entity part is normally a solid foundation for a description of God. In fact I'd go so far as to say that most organised religions would take offence at the idea if reducing the omnipotent being know as god to a Giga Hertz equation. And really, to my mind they own the god idea. Many did don't like the term 'God particle' for the same reason. It's a straight path to confusion and just doesn't help in any way to insist on retaining that title. Taking the p*** if you will.

As such, I don't think I'm late to the game, I'm just acknowledging the vast majority. I don't think mixing religious terms and science terms is a good idea in any way. I recognise that Yaweh is just a constant rehash to keep an original idea alive, but that's not what most of the people on the planet identify with. 

But we can't even test an infinitely small singularity via its effects. 

Why I'm going on about this aspect is that nearly everything I have read considers them beyond theory 

Are Virtual Particles Less Real?

Several reasons are then provided for considering virtual particles real, such as their descriptive, explanatory, and predictive value, and a clearer characterization of virtuality—one in terms of intermediate states—that also applies beyond perturbation theory is provided. It is also pointed out that in the role of force mediators, they serve to preclude action-at-a-distance between interacting particles. For these reasons, it is concluded that virtual particles are as real as other quantum particles.

Aren't they simply sitting where the Higgs used to sit? It took half a century to verify, but it wasn't really in doubt. 

Now that is fascinating. Thank you very much for the link. I remember people getting unecessarily concerned over the LHC saying it would create a black hole, but at that time it was also pointed out that if the LHC was used to make a micro blank hole that if would evaporate pretty much immediately after formation. I think it's been known for a while that a singularity of that size and density is problematic. But that's being rationalised through current theories like a bouncing universe. It might yet still be correct, just with some tweaks. But that's why we have so many models of the BBT isn't it? Any one of them, or a combination of several of them are likely to be right because we are simply following a trail.

Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I can't consider any of that, or variations of it as God. God was conceived by humans. Humans owe existance to nature. I just don't see how God and nature aren't polar opposites. 

There's nothing to test in regards to an infinitely dense, infinitely small singularity, which as I've linked recently CAN'T exist for any meaningful amount of time making it irrelevant, or an observable virtual particle either so by that note BOTH would be philosophy and NOT science. 

Standard definitions fail to apply when God is placed in the position of Creator, all of His other attributes being immaterial to that point. Since science can neither validate nor invalidate God's (as a Creator) existence any more than it can prove both the infinite attributes of a singularity of a black hole or the observable existence of a virtual particle the concept of God as a Creator is no less valid than either of the latter claims. 

Many organized religions take offense at science anyway, as it applies to religion. Your point? 

Judeo-Christians identify with Yahweh whether they realize it or not, as THAT is God's claimed original name. 

Because THE EFFECTS are beyond theory, hence why they are called VIRTUAL particles and not "particle X" or some such. 

Virtual Particle: 

Quote

In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

So something that is NOT a particle taking on the characteristics of a particle. It's a nice name but strictly speaking it's NOT entirely accurate, hence why it's called "virtual". 

As a presumed answer to the question "where did everything come from/how did we get here". Both sides are based on the untested/untestable. 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Exactly, that's why I mentioned there is already a descriptive term. We don't really need another. 

 

I disagree. Trumpet blasts from the Middle Ages don't work anymore. Religion, as it's commonly thought of, needs to be shifted into a higher gear. The meaning of religion needs to evolve. Needs to progress. A distinction between what is false religion and what is true religion needs to be made. Which of course, is entirely personal and from my point of view, I see happening all around me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I disagree. Trumpet blasts from the Middle Ages don't work anymore. Religion, as it's commonly thought of, needs to be shifted into a higher gear. The meaning of religion needs to evolve. Needs to progress. A distinction between what is false religion and what is true religion needs to be made. Which of course, is entirely personal and from my point of view, I see happening all around me.

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

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

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

cormac

 

Which to that specific person, makes it the height of relevance.

As the teachings of true religion are translated in their life as a believer.

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
36 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I agree that there is much to learn, but I can't agree that all we know is wrong. And if there was a supernatural aspect to life, then everything we know is wrong. That strikes me as extremely unlikely. 

To offer a parallel, it's a bit like the UFO phenomenon. UFOs certainly exist, but they don't even come from space, yet are often ascribed to be alien spaceships. The myth fits, is mysterious and therefore appealing. So it's popular. I have little doubt that Religion works in a similar fashion. 

Yes.  I don’t blame you.  You have no reason to believe anything aside from what you experience.  I just know me, as not a perfect person by any means, but who does in fact seek knowledge, never done crazy drugs or such, educated, veteran, etc, I’ve had some experiences that I think would be classified under paranormal….so, I accept that it is sometimes real, you don’t.  It’s fine.  We disagree on this point.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Which to that specific person, makes it the height of relevance. As it's translated in their life as a believer.

Then they need to keep it to themselves and quit pretending to speak for anyone except themselves. The latter being an all too common occurrence. 

cormac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Then they need to keep it to themselves and quit pretending to speak for anyone except themselves. The latter being an all too common occurrence. 

cormac

 

Hypocritically doing themselves what they falsely accuse others of doing.

Yes. :tu:

An all too common occurrence. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

Hypocritically doing themselves what they falsely accuse others of doing.

Yes. :tu:

An all too common occurrence. 

Well, you DO know all about hypocrisy since you practice enough of it. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)

 

"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.

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
11 hours ago, closed for business said:

Sammy Davis jr.  is one example of a gentile that became a Jew and there are many others

True, but its not like they let in just anybody. They dont recruit as it were. But if you go back over and over, asking to join, they will let you. Thats been my experience, but like I said I can't really say definitively (basically I'm just giving opinion) because I've not been there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
9 hours ago, Xeno-Fish said:

And try it, and this, and that, and still no holy revelation, no "wow" experience. Nothing that really says "yes this **** is real!!!". Unless my standards at way to high. 

Might be a issue with the scale of time involved. It takes 12 years to finish public school. 4 more to get a bachelors degree. And at least 4 more for a doctorate. 

Sometimes if you want the result you have to put in the time, and often you get out of it what you put in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
9 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Who's knocking anything?

I just pointed out the difference between a relative truth, and an ultimate truth.

That there is no need for forgiveness when one sees everything as coming from the Absolute.

There is no personal insult here.

Only - ONE.

I'm sorry. I didnt mean to insinuate you did something wrong. I only meant to build onto what you posted.

I took it a different way, I hope no insult was taken.

I understand your view, even if we disagree on the ultimate truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Actually, most mainstream Jewish denominations accept converts. That "Who's your Momma" thing is mainly a Zionist Israeli schtick.

Conversion to Judaism: denomination by denomination - Jewish Telegraphic Agency (jta.org)

Hummm... Well we learn something every day it seems.

Looks about as hard as converting to Catholism. Converting to Evangelical is about an hour. :nw:

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I think your confusing me with Will a bit. Didn't suffer physical abuse. I saw my family unit manipulated and torn apart by religious authorities and I watched religion destroy my mother's mind pretty much altogether.

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.

Quote

I disagree. I did experience several religions and views of spirituality. I actually found the Catholic church the most impressive organisation. It's very business like about how it fleeces and manipulates it's audience. Most of the others are more messy and have less accountability regarding the bad they bring into the world. I do feel that's why Catholics are held as public examples more often, because they have greater accountability. Every religion has dark and dubious stories, they just hide them better.

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. 

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.

Quote

The reason is an appeal to authority. With all due respect, I have no desire to allow religion to pollute my existance again. In the same vein, I hope religious people see religion for the farce it is before wasting too much life on it.

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

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
19 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Hummm... Well we learn something every day it seems.

Looks about as hard as converting to Catholism. Converting to Evangelical is about an hour. :nw:

In the first century of the common era, most Jews of the Diaspora were converts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I would say it's more like sugar.

Gives an instant feelgood hit, but is empty and offers no nutrition, all the while rotting what is in your head from the inside out while one smiles.

Imaginary love is just self delusion.

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

In the first century of the common era, most Jews of the Diaspora were converts. 

And yet to this day most Israeli Jews consider the Samaritans to not be Jews. Though they follow a tradition much closer to ancient Judaism then modern Jews do.

The Roman's moved them out. Troublemakers they thought. THEN they had real trouble, with the Christians. 

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

There's nothing to test in regards to an infinitely dense, infinitely small singularity, which as I've linked recently CAN'T exist for any meaningful amount of time making it irrelevant, or an observable virtual particle either so by that note BOTH would be philosophy and NOT science. 

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. 

3 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle.

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.

Quote

Standard definitions fail to apply when God is placed in the position of Creator, all of His other attributes being immaterial to that point. Since science can neither validate nor invalidate God's (as a Creator) existence any more than it can prove both the infinite attributes of a singularity of a black hole or the observable existence of a virtual particle the concept of God as a Creator is no less valid than either of the latter claims. 

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. 

Quote

Many organized religions take offense at science anyway, as it applies to religion. Your point? 

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. 

Quote

Judeo-Christians identify with Yahweh whether they realize it or not, as THAT is God's claimed original name. 

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.

Quote

Because THE EFFECTS are beyond theory, hence why they are called VIRTUAL particles and not "particle X" or some such. 

Virtual Particle: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

So something that is NOT a particle taking on the characteristics of a particle. It's a nice name but strictly speaking it's NOT entirely accurate, hence why it's called "virtual". 

Then simply put

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

Quote

As a presumed answer to the question "where did everything come from/how did we get here". Both sides are based on the untested/untestable. 

cormac

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, Will Due said:

I disagree. Trumpet blasts from the Middle Ages don't work anymore. Religion, as it's commonly thought of, needs to be shifted into a higher gear. The meaning of religion needs to evolve. Needs to progress. A distinction between what is false religion and what is true religion needs to be made. Which of course, is entirely personal and from my point of view, I see happening all around me.

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

Better to just say goodbye to bad rubbish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  I don’t blame you.  You have no reason to believe anything aside from what you experience.  I just know me, as not a perfect person by any means, but who does in fact seek knowledge, never done crazy drugs or such, educated, veteran, etc, I’ve had some experiences that I think would be classified under paranormal….so, I accept that it is sometimes real, you don’t.  It’s fine.  We disagree on this point.

And that's perfectly OK :tu:

We shouldn't have to agree on personal issues, we are both individual people. None of us are perfect. There's no handbook on that. We just do what we can. My view incorporates being as brutally honest with myself as I can be. LOL, I've been as offensive to my own mistakes as I have anyone I've given a hard time to in this board. I don't get of lightly either.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.