Topic: The function of religion ? - page 25. (Read 18646 times)

That's was my question answered, but Chang, if you are an U.S. citizen do you acknowledge that you can be a Republican or Democrat and do meaningful local political community work but consider Romney or Obama morons?

RoDeoX: what you write is actually more poetic and truthful  than you think, but also the exact point made by several before in this thread. Down-to-earththeism is also wonderfully true.

The Function of Religion: To control humans. simple as that, your a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Catholic? Congratz for eating their shit up and even more congratz for being in denial about it.

Now is there a god? Totally different question, by all means, be spiritual, have your own beliefs, can anyone know if there is or isnt a god? No, not yet atleast.

Religion is a cancer on mankind, the sooner those infected die off, the better for the rest of us. Again, nothing wrong with believing in a god, being spiritual, but conforming to a religion such as the ones above makes you a buffoon. Open your eyes, read some history, not hard to see the fact that many if not most religions, are nothing more than a form of manipulation, its really quite simple to see and its depressing that even in todayls world you have morons killing each other over who's belief system is correct, bunch of muppets, the lot of them.

And anyone saying muslims are worse than anyone else, fuck you, your a moron too. They are all the same, a bit like political partys.

In the case life is only a blip, it would be served well by an eternal void without memory. Although your consciousness only existing once seems more unlikely than it being reproduced again, assuming an infinite universe.

Perhaps some of the attraction of religion comes from hearing what we want to hear? Things like; you will not die when you are dead, neither will your loved ones. Or, the wicked will be punished and the good rewarded, no matter how much it does not look like that is happening. And of course, you have a invisible superhero who protects you.
Not all religions believe these things but our universal sense of justice can be shaken upon realizing that we do die, the wicked often die wealthy and happy, and that this world could come apart and kill us all.

It really obvious that you Americans on this thread have a lot of resentment towards the religious institutions. I can't say I blame you. on the other hand, very few of you have any trouble considering a divine being or universal intelligence or higher purpose with being here. How is it that it is so hard for you to differentiate between your personal beliefs in God or a god concept and religion?

I'm not patronizing here but when I go to church I don't care if the clerk cook the books, or has a drinking problem in his spare time. I can sit next to a real estate broker in service and consider his line of work to be unethical, but I respect him just as much for his beliefs as I do myself. Even if I, from my point of view, disapprove of his choices in life, I don't demand of him or others to be perfect. I focus on the fact that he must come here for the same reasons a I do. It's just like visiting a church when you are travelling, it doesn't matter if the woman next to you believe that the Virgin Mary made the greater sacrifice.

So how is it so hard to you in your mind to separate people and institutions from your own personal concept of God?

No.  But one of the premisses of the story is based on something similar.

Nope. Let me guess: The ending deals with this?

Have you watched The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya?  

I like to think we are all god as we are separate parts of a singular universe. There is an origin to all of this and we came from it, thus we are the origin. We are god.

The problem with this conception is that such an idea of God is far, far away from the conceptions of organised religions.  In particular, in such a "theist" picture of God, humans do not play any particular role.  God does not care about them more than he cares about ants.

When it became clear that Quantum Mechanics could explain the Big Bang, inflation (the cosmological kind) and Bosons leading to the first Hydrogen Helium and Lithium, it also suggested that the Universe was a result of intent, as the Quantum laws where able to build the Universe by pure physics.

This nagged some, and the Multiverse theory was created thus making our universe a result of chance and claming that there existed an infinite number of other universes with different Quantum laws not supporting matter or life.

When ever you read a paper on physics, you always get some sense of the scientists beliefs. Some have no trouble suggesting, in math or otherwise, the possibility of a god. Others put in some effort to disclaim that their thesis suggests a god. Others again, go to great lengths to navigate their conclusions away the God question entirely.

Real science, in my opinion, is not out to prove or disprove religion. They are discovering the law book, not the author. I see no conflict in science over this matter, but scientists are people and ask them self this question often.

consciousness is not a prof of a  transcending soul. Computer programmes can have a higher level of complexity in their execution than is written in the code, or the programmer intended. When you watch a disturbing video or old news reel, you know when it's not real or the people involved are long gone. The feeling of empathy or sense of their soul can only be a reaction to a visual input in you.

Yet I believe in the soul of others, because I have one myself, but I can not sincerely claim that souls exist as a fact beyond my own psychology. This is not a paradox at all, as I believe that the Anthropic principle applies to conscious life forms as well: If you are aware of your own existence on a level that makes you ponder your own existence, you have to have an ideology or purpose to continue living other than the occasional feeling of hunger. If you are able to question the existence of God, God must be real to you. Otherwise you would feel no need to continue your life, or get instantly stupid as your biology would shut down such dangerous thoughts that threaten to kill you.

If you apply the Anthropic principle to an evolutionary view of psychology, as above, God is a necessary fact, (not in a quantifiable sense), as we can not trick our own minds to believe God is not real.
An analogy would be to question the existence of jealousy because it's non quantifiable, yet gets people in jail every day as a real motive to a crime. The defendant claming "Jealousy made me kill my wife" is a confession, not a religious praise to the almighty power of jealousy.

As I said, extraordinary claims that we have no way to verify, either for practical or ethical reasons, are condemned to remain inside the domain of myths.

Genius! Now all we need is to form a test lab with willing subjects in some lawless slum in Africa! Right after we find a Resurrection method! Haha.

Indeed it's important to mention that the subject should be capable of describing what happened in the room if he claims that he was actually floating outside of his body.

I suggest we write a word on his front-head and we make sure there is no mirror in the room when he wakes up.

Now, this site looks sketchy as hell but it illustrates my premise:

http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/anna_w_nde.htm

Hm, here's an experiment:

Kill men, have clear activities surrounding their body then bring them back to life. Ask them what they saw. All we need is a resurrection method and we're good.

It makes it an interesting subject of study, but unless you can reproduce those circumstances and observe the claimed effect, skepticism is natural.

These phenomenons can turn into myths, by the way.  They are related facts that are plausible (I don't think near death experiences are actually post-mortem or surnatural, but other topics might have some plausibility), but for whom we do not have any way to test the truth.  The modern form is the urban legend, I guess.

Well, if something is reported enough under consistent circumstance, can it be reasonable to think it is likely?

It has been witnessed, but nobody has ever been able to reproduce the experience at will.   It's like cryptozoology:  some people say they have seen weird animals, but when we go to the place and have a look, no matter how hard we try, we never see anything.  So you just can't believe those witnesses blindly.  On the opposite, when someone wants to check if Jupiter exists, I've never heard of anyone claiming it doesn't.  It's quite reliable.